8MAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) LO I.I 1.25 ii^illM ilM 131 12.2 2.0 i.8 1.4 ill 1.6 ^m V. <^ r ^ /2 /a - ^w p%' s" VI ''m ^: O M Photographic Sciences Corporation j^>. « %^ 6^ '^ % %^ r^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/iCMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historlques 1980 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 bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur n D Bound with other material/ Relld avcJ d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree psut 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 possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6td filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6tS possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees I I Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D 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 dt6 filmdes d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilieure image possible. 7 10X This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fitmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6ro8it6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing hern are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes unt 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de I'exenplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and endiny 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 paga with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exomplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds 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 commenqant 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. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — *> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed b<.}ginnlng in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut er, bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 CONVERSATIOKS 0^ BAPTISM. I CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. BT ALEXANDER LANGFORD, Weslcyan Minister. " Sut'er little children to come nntc me, and forbid thcni not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." — Mark x. 14. " We bring them, Lord, in thankful hands. And yield thein up to Thee ; Joyful that we ourselves are thine, Thhie let our offspring be." TORONTO: WESLEYAN METHODIST BOOK ROOM. 1871. I INTRODUCTION. It is not the design of this little volume to provoke controversy ; though no apology is needed for opposing what we believe to be wrong. Its main purpose is to counteract the exclusive teaching of those who are seeking to build up their own denomination, by proselyting from other churches ; and to strengthen and guard the faith of the young of our Methodist congi-egations, in those scriptural principles, which have been held by the Church of God in all ages and dispensations. Some time ago, Mr. Langford was forced, in self-defence, to preach several sermons to his people, on Christian bap- tism. A strong desire was expressed at the time, that these sermons should be published. i VI INTRODUCTION. Though declining to accede to this request, he afterwards concluded that a little book, on this subject, suitable for the young and for Sabbath- Bchool libraries, would supply a felt want, and render service to the cause of truth. Having read the proof sheets, T have no hesitation in saying, that Mr. Langford's little book is well adapted to this purpose, and I hope to see it in- troduced into every Methodist Sunday-school in Canada. The argument against excluding infant child- i*en from Mie Church of God, and denying them the right of baptism, is forcible and unansv^er- able. The case is equally conclusive against exclusive immersion. The more any impartial inquirer studies the rites of the Jewish Church, the circumstances of the New Testament bap- tisms, and the anti-ritual spiiit of the gospel, the deeper must be his convicbioix that the New Testament baptisms were not by immersion. Much more, that exchisive immei'sion is not enjoined in the Holy Scriptures. The sim}>le fact that, in the epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle Paul calls Jewish rites, which were i^er- formed by sprinkling, "baptisms," is alone sufficient to shatter to fragments the whole theory of exclusive immersion. The assum[>tion INTRODUCTION. Vll that complete submersion in water, or any other physical act, is an essential thing, is utterly opposed to the whole spirit, precepts, and ex- amples of New Testament Christianity. If it be true, it stands alone ; there is nothin,nr else like it in the Christian religion. The constant spirit of the teaching of Christ and his apostles depreciates the importance of all external and modal acts and rites, and declares the religion of the heart, — worship " in spirit and in truth," — to be alone vital and essential. If the only difference between ourselves and the Baptists was that they practiced baptism by immersion, while we believed ba[)tism by sprink- ling or effusion to be more in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, and a more suitable emblem of the baptism of the Holy Ghcc, there never need be any controversy, so far as Methodists were concerned. There are many -more important differences than this between Methodists and others, about which we deem it inex})edient to maintain anv discussion. But it is the exclu- sive and offensive aspect of the immersion theory which compels us, in self-defence, to protest against its unwarrantable assumptions ; just as we protest against the unscriptural and exclu- sive assumptioi^s of Anglican High Churcliism, Vlll INTRODUCTION. or Romanism. In this particular, the Baptist theory is on a level \srith the most extreme High Churchism. The claims and assumptions are indeed diiferent ; but the exclusive attitude, as to other churches, is substantially the same. The Puseyite says, " You have not a ministry in the true Apostolic succession, and therefore are not a branch of the true Church of Christ." The Baptist says, " Baptism is the only mode of admission into the Christian Church. Nothing is baptism but immersion. No one is a member of the Christian Church who has not been im- mersed. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is only for immersed persons, hence no person not immersed has a right to partake of the Lord's Supper ; and Pedo-Baptist Churches are not scriptural churches at all, and have no proper sacraments." And, of course, from these " Bap- tist principles " follows the inevitable and self- exalting conclusion, that the Baptist Church is the only true church in the world. This we utterly deny ; and it is agamst the assumptions on which this exclusive conclusion rests, that the arguments of this little book are directed. I cheerfully grant, that the spirit and conduct of Baptists, unlike High Churchmen, are better than their theory. They fraternize with Chris- INTRODUCTION. IX tiana of other churches, as if they believed them to be members of the household of God. But, however creditable this course mav be to the piety of Baptists, it condemns their theory. For it is strong presumptive evidence of the wrong- ness of any principle, that it violates the instincts of Christian charity to carry it out in practice ; just as it is strong presumptive evidence of the falsehood of the exclusive immersion theory, that it denies that such men as Luther, Knox, Baxter, Wesley, Fletcher, Chalmers, Duff, Guthrie, and Summerfield, were members of the visible Church of Christ. The Baptists have made this question a special hobby, and taken great pains to instruct their people well in their stock arguments in defence of their practice. Indeed, the frequency with which Baptist ministei's harp or these arguments seems to betray a fear, that if the people were not constantly prompted and stimulated, they would be in danger of forgetting that immersion was an essential thing. Considering the great clearness with which Baptists say immei^sion is taught in the Nev/ Testament, it is astonishing they should deem it necessary to be forever proving it, as if, for some cause, it would not stay proved. As Methodists, we have given no iH X INTRODUCTION. special prominence to this subject in our teach- ing. It may be that our anxiety to keep out of controversy has caused us to neglect it too much. We should " earnestly contend " against every attempt to overshadow or obscure the great central truths of the Christian faith, by an undue exaltation of modes, forms, and ritual ceremonies. The Kn;fjdom of Grod does not consist in external ritualism, but in " righteous- ness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.** E. H. DEWAET. Toronto, April 12th, 1871. «^\A/ ^^^^©©^^S'S^^ CONTENTS. L— ALMOST WON II. -GETTING ESTABLISHED . . . . III.— STEADFAST AND UNMOVEABLE PAOB 9 49 97 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. ALMOST WON. How large the promise ! How divine I To Abram and his seed : *' I am a God to thee and thine — Supplying all their need." Jesus the ancient faith confirms, To our Great Father given ; He takes our children to his arms And calls them heirs of heaven. John Watson and Samuel Clarkson live in one of our Canadian towns. John has been a member of the Wesleyan Metho- dist Church for fifteen years, although he is now but twenty-five years of age. For many years he has been Librarian in the Sabbath-school of the town where he resides. He is a diligent student, and is decidedly 10 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. i' \ pious. Samuel is nineteen years of age, has been recently converted, much to the joy of his anxious parents, who have long prayed for him. It was to them a memorable Sabbath, when, a few months ago, they all kneeled at the Lord's Table, and Samuel signified his intention to connect himself with the Methodist Church. For a few months he was punctual in attending class, and his rejoicing parents were comforted by his consistent piety Suddenly, an unac- countable change occurred, and his absence from the various means of grace he had regularly attended, led to the following con- versation between these two young friends : li John. Good evening, Samuel. I am glad to see you. I have been wondering whether you were sick, or had left town, or what was the matter with you, as I have not seen you for some weeks at our church or Sabbath- school. Samuel. I have been quite well, thank you ; and although I have not been in our church lately, I have attended the Baptist CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 11 Church services, as I thought I would like to hear their new minister. John. I am glad to hear you have been somewhere to church. I was fearing you were neglecting God's house. Have you been many Sabbaths to hear the Baptist minister ? Samuel. I have heard him four Sabbath evenings, and occasionally during the week, and I am free to acknowledge that I admire his zeal and earnestness in trying to do good. Several of his members spoke to me the very first evening I attended their church: indeed they were all so kind and attentive that I was pleased to be at their services. John. You certainly seem to have enjoyed yourself amongst our Baptist friends, and they were evidently very kind to you. Do you suppose they knew you were a member of the Methodist Church ? Samuel. O yes 1 they knew that, for I told them my parents were both Methodists, and that I had joined the Methodist Church last fall, when our minister held a protracted meeting. 12 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. John. Well, Samuel, I hope you are not going to desert us altogether. Samuel. I hardly know what to say. I must confess that the Baptist minister spoke to me very kindly one evening, and asked me whether I would not like to join his church. In fact he wants me to be immersed next Sabbath evening. John. Have you consented to his request ? Samuel. Not exactly; though I am just about convinced that he has good arguments to support his views. John. Have you told your father or mother of your intentions, or have you spoken to our minister ? Perhaps he might help you to settle so grave a question as your church relationship. Samuel. I have not spoken to my parents yet, and to tell the tnith I never thought of asking our minister's advice. John. I am afraid, Samuel, that you are hastily embracing views of doctrine, without careful meditation and without hearing the opposite side of the question. Samuel. Why does ftot our minister preach CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 13 on baptism ? I have never heard him refer to the subject in one of his sermons. John. I am certainly at a loss to explain this matter. Our minister is a very good man, and preaches excellent sermons. I think I will ask him if he ever preached a sermon on baptism. Did you hear any sermons on the subject when you were at the Baptist Church ? Samuel. O yes, I heard several, for some were immersed on two evenings I attended service with them, and their minister had something to say about baptism, or immer- sion as he called it, in nearly every sermon I heard. Of course his sermons, when any were immersed, were exclusively on the subject of immersion as the only scriptural mode of baptism, John. By this time, I presume, you have heard the whole question fairly argued, and you must be quite familiar with all those passages of Scripture which Baptists use to support their views, • Samuel. Well, I heard them so frequently 14 CONVERSATIONS CN BAPTISM. nilii: ! I I when I attended their meetings, that I know them off by heart. John. Did you know any of those whom you saw immersed ? Samuel. Yes. Five were immersed one evening. George Thompson and Thomas Williams, both members of the Presbyterian Church, and Mary Clark, who Was a member of our church;, the other two were not members of any church. John. I am sorry that our Baptist friends do not seek to build up a church by the conversion of sinners from the world, and not by robbing other churches. Samuel. Now, John, don't be too harsh with them, for if members of other churches go to them, you cannot blame tliem for accepting them as members. John. Certainly not. We must allow free agents to do as they please ; but you forget, what you have already told me, that the Baptist minister asked you to join his thurch, though he must have known you were a member of the Methodist Church. Besides, last week I heard of his visiting CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 15 some of our members, and asking them plainly to unite with his church. Now, I believe ministers should follow the example of Christ, and try to " seek and save them that are lost." Do you suppose the Baptist minister thinks that Methodists are in danger of being "lost?" Samuel. no ; I should be sorry to think he entertains such an opinion of us. John. Then why does he seek to persuade members of other churches to leave their own ministers, and join his church ? Samuel. I suppose it is because he believes that immersion is necessary, and that it is our duty to submit to the ordinance. Then I have heard him say that immersion is the door into the church, John. If that be true, then there is no church on earth except the Baptist Church, or those who practice immersion. Certainly it is taking strong ground to unchurch all Christians who are not immersed, and prac- tically deny that they are Christians at all. Indeed, I suppose with all their kindness and attention you were given to feel in some "nSTT^T" MiwTMw^iCr^SraB 16 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. way that yo\i must stand aside, and your church relationship and conversion to God availed nothing in their estimation. Samuel. I think I know what you mean. You refer to their " close communion/' and their custom of excluding all except those who have been immersed, from the " Lord's Table." John. Yes ; that is what I refer to, though you have called it by a wrong name: for, according to their rule, it might more appro- priately be called the Baptists', or the Immersionists', Table. Samuel. I must confess that I was not prepared, after all the kindness I received, to be thrust aside, for I had prayed in their prayer-meetings and related my conversion to God in their covenant-meetings, and, being in ignorance of their rules, I expected to commune with them, but one of their deacons told me it would not be allowed, and I have not been to their church since, though their arguments in favour of immersion are, I think, in accordance with Scripture. John. Well, Samuel, all I can say is that CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 17 I am a little surprised that you could aban- don your old position so suddenly; and, without having heard anything on our side of the question. Have you read any work in favour of infant baptism, or our mode of baptism by sprinkling or pouring ? Samuel. I have not read any works, such as you refer to, but I cannot see how any man could set aside the passages of Scripture which I heard the Baptist minister quote in favour of their practice. John. Then I think in all fairness you ought to hear both sides of the question be- fore you form a decided opinion. Samuel. I admit the reasonableness of what you say, though it is not my fault in not hearing what our minister could advance in favour of what he believes. John. Have you any objection to my ask- ing a few questions ? Samuel. Certainly not, provided you allow me the same privilege, for there are many questions I should like to ask you. John. Well, then, let us have a friendly 18 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. conversation together. I suppose you were baptized in infancy ? Samuel. Of course. You know my parents are both members of the Methodist Church, and believe firmly that infant baptism is taught in the Bible ; but Baptists do not con- sider that baptism : they call it " christen- ing," or " sprinkling." Now, I should like to know what right have we to baptize an infant? I do not think you can find any passage in the Bible which commands us to baptize young children, who are themselves uncon- scious of the ceremony. John. I am glad to hear that you were baptized in infancy, and I would just like to remind you that Baptists cannot furnish us with a solitary instance of adult baptism being performed by the Apostles, when the subject was baptized in infancy. All the adult baptisms of the Apostles were persons who had never been baptized, and Baptists are unable to point to any scriptural authority for re-baptizing those who have been baptized in infancy. Is it not a serious matter to set CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 19 aside the baptisms of other churches, without a positive command to do so ? Samuel. That may follow, I grant, but you must first prove that you have a scriptural reason for baptizing infants ; then indeed it would be a serious thing for any church to set aside what God has appointed ; and re- baptize without any authority or saijction. John. I am glad you see the force of this point, and that you are prepared to admit it, provided I can prove that infants are proper subjects for baptism. Allow me to ask, What relation do you believe children sus- tain to the church, and to Christ as the Head of the Church ? Samuel. I hardly know how to answer you. I have not thought much on this question. I remember distinctly hearing the Baptist minister say that he was not prepared to prove that all children dying in infancy would be saved. But what has this to do with the question we are now considering ? John. It has very much to do with it, and I am not surprised that Baptists seek to avoid it, and affect ignorance where the Word of ii 'n i *' ' i 20 CONVERSATIONS ON>IKM>TISM. God speaks with great plainness. You must have observed in reading the Bible that all Jewish children were regarded as members of the Jewish Church, and, as a visible "sign" of the membership, were circum- cised. Samuel. I am aware of that ; but you do not>wish me to believe that all the rites and ceremonies of the old dispensation are stiU binding upon us. What have we to do with* the Old Testament ? John. I had no intention of making you believe that you were still under any obliga- tion to observe the ceremonial law, which, I admit, has passed away. I was simply directing your attention to a fad^ that for thousands of years, all through a previous dis- pensation, children were recognized as legit- imate members of the then existing church. The Old Testament is certainly a part of the Word of God, and all its moral precepts are still binding on us. Containing as It does the history of the church from tJie beginning^ it is very important to know that children were members of the church for thousands of CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 21 jum- years, and that Baptist principles were not in existence at that time. Samuel. But we have now a new church, we are living under a " new covenant," and all ancient rites and ceremonies are abolished. John. I admit that you are correct in saying that the Levitical rites and ceremonies of the previous dispensation havepassedaway, and that no longer is it necessary for the high priest to enter the " holy of holies " to make an atonement. We agree exactly on this point ; but the fact that a previous dis- pensation embraced infants as church mem- bers, and recognized them as in covenant relationship with God, and administered to them the rite of circumcision ; that fad has not passed away: circumcision has been abolished, but that which circumcision signi- fied cannot pass aWay ; it remains not only as a fact in history, but also as a fact in the practice of all Christian churches at this hour, the Baptist Church excepted. Samuel. But, as I have just intimated, we have now a new church : why should we not, 1% 'Vi 22 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPPISM. therefore, have new rules, and new conditions of church membership ? John. I think you are mistaken. We have no new church. The church has always been in existence. The "new covenant" to which you have referred, was new in that it set aside the priesthood of Aaron, and substituted the priesthood of Christ. The Apostle refers to this in the fourth chapter of Hebrews. But the " covenant" which God made with Abraham, and on which the church was con- stituted, and which it still holds as funda- mental — that "covenant," as we are told in Genesis, 17th chapter and 7th verse, is an "everlasting covertant" between Abraham and his "seed." That covenant is still binding; its "promise" is unto us and "to our children also." If you want New Testa- ment proof of this, read what the Apostle says, in WTiting to the Galatians, in the 3rd chapter : " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before CONVEESATIONS ON BAPTISM. 23 of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot dis- annul that it should make the promise of none effect. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This argument of the Apos- tles is quite clear : the old covenant with Abraham, is still the covenant by virtue of which God deals with us as his children. He has condescended to bind himself under everlasting obligations to be " our God ;" and " Abraham's seed " inherit the blessings of that covenant now, for " if ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Now, "Abraham's seed" has no reference to his posterity, " according to the flesh," but to all who "are Christ's" the blessings of that covenant are still promised; and, I need hardly inform you, that infant children "eight days old" were as much entitled to the " seal" of that covenant as adults at any advanced age. Samuel. You certainly have established a clear case. But suppose I were to admit that the church is the same in all ages. ^^"^ W^l 24 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. through all dispensations, how cculd that help your argument in favour of infant bap- tism ? ^» John. "Why, if infants were members of the church for thousands of years before the coming of Christ, and it can be proved that the church is still the same in its essential principles, though some of its rites and cere- monies are abolished, then it must of necessity follow that infants are still members of the church of Christ, and entitled to some recog- nition as such. Samuel. You must prove, then, that bap- tism takes the place of circumcision. John. I am quite prepared to do that: though I would remind you that if I were to fail in establishing that baptism has been substituted in place of circumcision, still children are entitled to some recognition by the church, — their vital union with Christ must not be ignored. If Baptists will not baptize young children ; if they deny that baptism has succeeded circumcision, the question still remains, — How are we to ac- knowledge children and recognize them as J CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 25 belonging to Christ ? Nothing, therefore, could be gained if we were unable to prove thi$ baptism follows circumcision, because it would then remain for those who make this bold assertion to teU us how we are to recog- nize children; if not by baptism, then by what other means or ceremony? for assuredly they must be recognized by the church. But I can assure you there is no difficulty in establishing the position which our church has taken. Both ordinances have reference to the same glorious truths ; both are initia- tions to peculiar privileges; they are "signs" and "seals" of God's covenant. Baptism sustains the same relation to the Christian dispensation that circumcision did to the Jewish dispensation. When Christ sent out his servants they were commanded to "teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. (Matthew xx.viii. 19.) This, then, by the command of Christ, was to be the new form of initiation into the Christian church ; hence, of necessitv, that which it substituted ceased to be prac- ticed, and baptism takes its place. If Christ designed to perpetuate circumcision, then in f-. V hi 26 GfONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. force, (for he himself had been circumcised), he would have told his disciples plainly, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations," circumcising them as formerly. But the signs of the old dispensation were passing away the door of the church was now to be open to "all nations," and the initiatory ceremony now commanded is in harmony with the wider flow of gospel blessings. The Apostles so well understood their Lord and Master that they distinctly call baptism the " drcumcision of Christ I' or Christian cir- cumcision, clearly proving that they con- sidered baptism, as now introduced, in place of the Abrahamic circumcision. Tlie "early fathers** of the church evidently regarded baptism as substituted for circumcision. Justin Martyr, who flourished A.D. 138, tells us tiiat Christians "had not received the fleshly circumcision, but the spiritual one, through baptism;" and he defends his position thus : " Why, if circumcision be a good thing, do we not use it as the Jews did ? The answer is because we Gentiles are circum- cised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." III!!! CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 27 And it is quite evident from many other early writers, that this was the prevailing opinion. I advise you to read the early history of the church. Samuel. I will take your advice, for I find your historical references are very clear and satisfactory. There is another question I wish to speak of. I remember hearing the Baptist minister ask a question in the pulpit, and I think you will find some difficulty in answering it. Can you find me a passage in the New Testament which contains a positive command to baptize children ? John. I am very glad to hear you ask that question. I am aware that Baptists sound it abroad with great vehemence and bold- ness, as though they were in possession of an unanswerable argument. Before answer- ing your question I would remind you that Baptists and all Christians do many things for which they cannot plead a " positive com- mand." Why do they observe the " first day of the week " as a Sabbath day ? Suppose I were to adhere to the old rule and keep the Sabbath on the Saturday, and jlead in favour :(-■ a 28 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. :|l I of my conduct that they could not point me to a " positive command" in the New Testa- ment to observe the first day of the week ; how would Baptists like that style of argu- ment? For they will search a long time for a " positive command " from Christ or his Apostles to warrant the change they accept and retain. Now, I do not wish you to think that I am disposed to question their right to observe the first day of the week as a Sabbath ; I only wish to shew you their inconsistency in finding fault with us for the performance of what we believe is our duty, because we have no "positive com- mand" to baptise children, while they themselves accept and retain, as a duty and obligation, that for which they cannot find a positive command in the Bible. But, to reply to your question, I would simply say, we need no " positive command " to perform a duty already enjoined, and which has been observed for thousands of years. I think you are quite prepared to admit that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force, and the Christian church is a continuation of the tit CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 2d Jewish Church ; and if we go back beyond the time of Abraham, there would be no difficulty in establishing that the Adamic covenant embraced children, so that from " th^ beginning " they have been partakers of the " free gift " of God's grace, and recognized by his church. It is not for us, then, to find a "positive command" to admit children, and recognize them as belonging to Christ: that recognition has already been commanded^ and been the practice of the church for ages. If there is to be a cha\qe, and the right of infants to the blessings of the covenant, signified by the " seal " of circumcision, is to be taken away, then it is for those who venture to make this bold assertion to find a "positive" prohibition from the lips of Christ, or his Apostles, cautioning Jewish parents, and Gentile converts, against bring- ing their children as heretofore, to receive the seal of the covenant. Will Baptists tell us where to find such a positive announce- ment ? Will Baptists point us to the chapter and verse, where we are taught that the Christian church is to be numerically reduced ■. V, I' ii 30 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. iiti! by the exclusion of all infants ? Will Bap- tists furnish us with a " positive command " to admit only those who have been immersed to the <' Lord's Table V Why do they insist upon a " positive " precept just when it suits their own convenience ; and yet they are not prepp.red to furnish a " positive command " for what they practice. They deny that bap- tism takes the place of circumcision, and yet they practice the rule of circumcision, which prohibited any uncircumcised person from eating the " passover." (Gen. xii. 48, 49.) The "Lord's Supper" was certainly insti- tuted in place of the "Passover," and baptism is substituted for circumcision; this they unconsciously admit by adopting the rule of circumcision, and yet they have not the courage, or rather they lack the consistency which should lead them to acknowledge what is so clearly established, and what they in part confess, because it would annihilate their favourite and unscriptural theory that infants are not to be recognized by the church. They must belong to Christ or the 'devil. No child can belong to two masters. CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 31 Will Baptists confess that they practically announce that children do not belong to Christ, but to the devil? Can Baptists give a solitary instance where a mistaken Jew, or believing (xentile, foolishly supposing that his children would be accepted as formerly, was told by some polite and kind minister of a Baptist Church, tlien in existence^ that there was no use of baptising "screaming infants," and that he might take his children home again, for they could no longer be re- cognised, nor were they in future to be entitled to the " seal of God's covenant ?" I fancy such an announcement would have made the Jewish father's heart sigh for the dispensation that had passed, and no eloquent Appolos, or logical Paul, could lead him to see how the Christian economy was ** more glorious " than the dispensation he was more familiar with. We baptise infants, then, not because there is a "positive command" in the New Testament, not on the ground that baptism succeeds circumcision — though that is evident and clear — ^but children are bap- tised because they are " Abraham's seed," — I' I 32 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. they " are Christ's," — " of such is the king- dom of heaven ;" and on account of all this they are entitled to the " seal of their cove- nant relationship. V/e need no re-enactment of a law, never repealed, and consequently, still in force. Samuel. Well, John, you have placed the matter in a new light. I wonder that I never thought of what you say before. I never imagined that Methodists had such strong arguments in favour of what they believe and practice. Certainly, it is for those who advocate a change in the member- ship of the church, and who contend that infants are now to be rejected, — it is for such to prove what they assert, for I now see that in baptizing children we are walking in the " old paths," and recognizing an " everlasting covenant." John. I am glad that 1 have succeeded in making you understand our position so far, and I can assure you that you will find abundant proof of the gracious relation child- ren sustain to Christ in the New Testament, e; peci illy that beautiful passage in the tenth CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 33 of Mark, where we read, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Language could not be plainer ; you remember that on one occa- sion the mistaken disciples ventured to drive away the anxious mothers, with their smiling babes in their arms, bringing them to Jesus ; and they were taught a lesson which they always remembered ; and if any dare in our day to prevent the children from being brought to Christ, the voice of Jesus, in louder tones than ever, will once more be heard saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Strange inconsistency ! an infant is qualified to enter heaven, that pure and holy place, the gates of paradise will be thrown open to receive it, while the angels will sing songs of welcome ; but that same infant is not qualified to enter a Baptist Church, the door of that church is shut in its face, and the angels of the church, who are its ministers, instead of welcoming a child, drive it away. It has always appeared strange to me how Baptists can admit that children are proper candidates for heaven, r ■ I' '. - i'l I a 34 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. and, dying in infancy, are saved, and thus constituted members of the church triumph ant, and yet refuse to acknowledge them on earth. We believe they are admittad to heaven : by virtue of the great " atonement " they " are Christ's," — we simply, by baptism, recognize that fact. I do not wonder that an old author has said in strong and plain lan- guage, "There are but two places where children are not to be found — in hell and in the Baptist Church." Samuel. There is another question I would like to propose. I observe in reading the N3W Testament, that those who were baptized professed to believe, and are we not plainly told that we must " repent " and '• believe " before we are baptized." Now, as infants can neither repent or believe, I do not see how you can baptize a child ? John. That difficulty will be easily re- moved, if you will just remember that when the Apostles enjoin repentance and faith, they are speaking directly to adults and Twt tu infants, so that all such passages have nothing whatever to do with the question. '1" I CONTEKSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 31; You certainly would not be so unreason- able as to refuse baptism to a child be- cause the child does not perform an impossibility. God never commanded chil- dren to repent and believe as a qualifica- tion for baptism ; they are baptized for other reasons which I have already told you. What right have Baptists to impose upon children what God never commanded ? Besides, this argument of our Baptist friends, like all other false arguments, proves too much, for faith is necessary to salvation : it is written as plainly " Believe and thou shalt be saved," as it is " they that believed were baptized." Now, if faith is necessary to baptism on the part of a child, it is just as necessary to salvation ; and, all children miLst therefore perish^ for as they cannot believe they must be lost. Who does not shrink from such an awful thought? and yet it must be true, if infants are to be judged, and their case decided " according to their faith." Methodists find no difficulty in the case whatever. They believe that all infants, dying in infancy, are saved without faith or ll il , : mm 36 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. repentance on their part, and we baptize them without repentance or faith, because God is not unreasonable in requiring from them what they cannot render unto him. We insist, as much as Baptists do, that adults must believe before we can baptize them; but, you will observe, that faith on the part of the adult only places him in the same position which the child already occupies without faith ; hence, hoth are entitled to the same recognition by the church, evea as both sustain the same relation to Christ. Then you will remember that circumcision was administered, not only on the ground of faith on the part of the candidate, whether he were an adult or an infant, but because of the gracious relationship enjoyed before being circumcised. The Apostle Paul tells us plainly that Abraham received " the sign of circumcision as a seal of the rv^hteousness of that faith which he had, being yet un cir- cumcised," (Kom. iv. 11), so that you perceive circumcision was an acknowledgment or certificate of "righteousness" already pos- sessed, and as infants, through the atonement^ CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 37 now sustain a gracious relation to Christ, we by their baptism, simply certify that fact, while those who refuse to baptize them, practically deny their connection with Christ, and rudely push from the embrace of the church those whom Jesus " took in his arms.'* I leave you to judge how much of the Spirit of Christ such conduct gives evidence of. Samuel. I am glad you have removed that objection. I see at once that it has no weight in it, for I now see plainly that the right of infants to baptism rests on something which precedes their believing in Christ. Do you believe that children were recognized by the church when Christianity was planted ? You have proved that they were recognized under a former dispensation, can you prove that they have since been recognized by the church ? John. I think there is no difficulty if the prejudice against infant baptism does not blind our eyes or interfere with our judg- ment. You, of course, have observed the many instances of "family baptisms" re- corded in thb New Testament, and though it 'J- Hi t» I . i 1-. ' 38 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. is not distinctly asserted that children were baptized, yet, there can be no doubt that Jewish parents and others would conform to the old usage. I know that Baptists contend most vigorously that in none of these families were there any children. You must not forget that very few families are referred to as being baptized by the Apostles : it is quite certain that many others must have been baptized, though it was not deemed necessary to place it on record. It would indeed be a marvelous fact if in all these families there were no children. If any children were found in any of these families they must have been bap- tized ; for, as I have already said, Baptists must find a "positive" prohibition telling parents not to bring their children, or they would do just what their forefathers had taught them to do, and bring their children to receive the seal of God's covenant. It is for Baptists to prove that children were not baptized if they wish to make anything out of this argument. It is said of Christ that " there are also many other things which Jesus did, the wiiich, if they should be CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 39 .^l written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books which should be written," (John xxi. 26) ; and, I presume, there are many things which the Apostles did that are not recorded, simply because it was not necessary ; amongst which we may safely regard the baptism of child- ren, for you will bear in mind there were no Baptists then nor for centuries after. To say triumphantly the Apostles never bap- tized children, because it is not so stated in so many words, is simply to assert that the Apostles never did anything but what the New Testament tells us they did, an asser- tion as bold as it is ridiculous. They must certainly have baptized children, or left on record a reason why they refused to recog- nize the children of the church. Samuel. It is quite evident to me that you have studied this question. Perhaps you can tell me if the ceremony of infant baptism was practiced in the early church ? The history of the church ought to help us to settle this question, for the immediate successors of the Apostles would certainly 40 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. adopt rigHt views, and their practice would be in harmony with the doctrines taught, and the example left them by the disciples of Christ. John. We have the fullest testimony that could be desired, from the reliable history of the church, which establishes beyond doubt, that ever since Christianity was introduced by the Apostles and their successors, infant baptism was the uniform practice of the church. I will just refer to this matter in detail, and give you facts, so that you may see that I am not dealing in strong assertions, which cannot be proved. I can bring forward any number of witnesses who can testify that the baptism of infants has been the practice of the church since the days of the Apostles; while the leading Baptist Quarterly Review of America has acknowledged — " We know of no assumption more arrogant and more destitute of proper historic support than that which claims to be able to trace the dis- tinct and unbroken existence of a church, substantially Baptist, from the time of the Apostles down to our own." Now, I am Ie O A. / CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 41 happy to say that the baptism of infants can be established as the usage of the church from the heginning, and that without inter- ruption it continues to this day. The testimony of Origen, who was born 85 years after the death of the last Apostle, is very important, for this reason : He travelled extensively, and spent the greater part of his life in Syria and Palestine, the seat of the first Christian churches. He tells us, " Infants are by the visage of the church bap- tized." The same writer elsewhere tells us, "The church hath received the tradition from the Apostles that baptism ought to be administered to infants." Irenffius, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John, says, " Christ came to save all persons, who by him are baptized under God, infants and little ones, children, youth, and older persons." Tertullian, born 50 years after the apostolic age, bears his testimxony to the practice of infant baptism, yet, because he recommends that baptism should be delayed, and not administered to children, our Baptist friends claim him in ,; '■ti r .^ I! ^1 42 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. support of their views. They very ingeniously contrive to hide the reason why TertuUian advised the delay of baptism, as it woxild not help their cause if it were known. TertuUian was not a Baptist, but as he imbibed the opinion that Baptism had much to do with the regeneration of our nature, and all sins after baptism were well nigh unpardonable, he advised that baptism should be delayed to as late a period in life as possible. If Baptists wish to delay baptism for the same reason they are welcome to TertuUian. But you will observe that Tertullian's advice is a plain proof that infant baptism was then practiced, or how could he have recom- mended its being postponed. The incident recorded as having occurred at Carthage is very clear and to the point. Only 150 years after the Apostles there assembled at Carth- age a Council of sixty-six bishops or pastors, over which presided the martyr Cyprian. Fidus, a country pastor, proposed to the Council this question: whether "an infant might be baptized before it was eight days old ?" The very nature of this question sug- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 43 gests that it is quite probable that many of • the Jewish converts, accepting baptism in the place of circumcision, still adhered to the time when circumcision was performed, and proves further that the baptism of children was then a common practice. The question was not were they to be baptized under any circumstances, but whether they " might be baptized before they were eight days old!* Now, the decision of sixty-six bishops at that early period, when the practice and teachings of the Apostles must have been familiar to them, is very important. If any of them were Baptists, and believed that " infants " have no right to baptism, now we shall cer- tainly hear from them. The following judg- ment was the unanimous decision of the Council: — "Whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized before the eighth day after he is born, we were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your '■1: 8 4 tt ! i is ! |-» \ k 44 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. mind ; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born." Justin Martyr, who lived forty years after the Apostles, speaking of the members of the church, says : " A part of them were sixty or seventy years of age who were made disciples of Christ from their infancy." These must have been baptized by the Apostles, as they were " discipled" or baptized in " in- fancy" when the Apostles were alive. Now, Samuel, I have given you quite sufficient on this point, though I could give you more if necessary. I have furnished you with these, because the Baptists are too ready to tell ua that infant baptism was never practiced by the Apostles or their immediate successors. One might think that they suppose the whole question can be settled by their bold asser- tions. They venture to say that our practice is a human invention: an "innovation" which has crept into the church. But I think you will now see that history proves most con- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 45 . clusively that infants were baptized from the establishment of the Christian dispensation. I hope you are satisfied. Samuel. yes ; you have given me quite sufficient proof for your statements, and I can assure you that I am very much obliged to you for all the pains you have taken with me. My mind was unsettled, and as I could not see what good infant baptism accom- plished for the child, I had almost decided to reject it as useless and unnecessary ; and, hearing many Baptists ridiculing the practice of sprinkling "unconscious babes," I was not prepared to reply to their arguments, and, consequently, was about abandoning my position. I am very glad you have set me right. I shall not be afraid to meet any Bap- tist that may be longing for a controversial war. I think I shall not have to wait long for a battle. I now feel thankful to God that my parents dedicated me to Him in in- fancy ; I am persuaded it would be wrong in me to think of being re-baptized. John. Well, Samuel, I am glad we had this conversation, and that it has led you to •U ^ 46 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. see that it is your duty to remain in the Methodist Church. I know the Baptists would be glad to have you caat in your lot with them, but I am persuad /ou can. be as happy in the Methodist Church as any- where else. I can assure you that I have no desire to harm the Baptists; and, in the great work of saving souls, I sincerely wish them " God speed," though I despise their proselyting spirit, and the constant efforts to persuade members of other churches to join their church. I am aware they ridicule and laugh at infant baptism ; i with holy horror thev have told me th ould leave our church, if ever they chanced to be pre- sent when our minister baptized a child, sooner than remain and witness the cere- mony. They have more than once asked the foolish question: "What good does it do a screaming infant to sprinkle a few drops of water on its face?" I might have replied, — What good does it do to plunge an adult under water? It is what is signified that w^e must look to, I miglit have retorted, and held up to ridicule their ceremony of immer- CONVEUSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 47 sion, with its indecent exposures and innu- merable objections, but 1 did not feel inclined to stoop to their mode of warfare. As to the consciousness of a child, I may just say, that it does not require the " consciousness" of a child to make him the recipient of blessings. The slave child may not be cotiscioits tha'w emancipation papers are signed, and the fet- ters of slavery should never press upon his limbs ; but does it require that the child must be conscious of the fact before the papers can be signed ? Surely not ! No man would trifle with our reason by urging such an argumei t. Our consciousness has nothing to do w h our receiving all our blessings from God. If He were to withhold all bless- ings, except on the condition that we were conscious of their reception, it would be a sad day for our world. I will be very glad, Samuel, if you will call and see me at any time when you wish to have any further conversation on this subject. Samuel. I do not wish to consume your time, though I may accept your kind oli'er. V't 111 48 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. and call to have another conversation. Good evening, John. John. Good evening, Samuel ; I shall feel a pleasure in seeing yoi^ at any time, CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 49 ■■ 4^ CHAPTER 11. GETTING ESTABLISHED. Jesus, my Truth, my Way, My sure, unerring T !■ CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 53 for them they cannot prove it to be an "apostolical succession !" It is a small matter on which to differ, and unchurch all other churches; simply the question, How much water was used when you were baptized ? as if quantity of water constituted all that was essential. Samuel. Do you attach importance to any particular mode, or are you prepared to prove that " sprinkling" or " pouring" is the true scriptural mode of baptism ? John. I do certainly attach some impor- tance to the mode of baptism, because much depends upon the manner in which we fulfil the divine commands. I cannot, however, believe with the Baptists, as one of their leading writers asserts : " In baptism the mode is the ordinance ; and if the mode be altered, the ordinance is abolished." Now, if the mode of baptism were as important as such language intimates, then I am quite sure that the whole matter would have been placed beyond dispute by the clear and defi- nite language of Scripture, which could not possibly have admitted of a two-fold inter- ■8. \' l» t i f» 54 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. pretation. Now, the fact that the Scriptures are silent on the mode, so far as a 'positive command is concerned, is quits sufficient evidence to me that the mode is not so important as to render null and void the ordinance, except it be performed according to one particular method. Samuel. I thought you would have taken much stronger ground than I should judge you seem disposed to take. Do you not believe that "sprinkling" is the only mode of baptism taught in the Bible ? John. Personally that is my opinion; but I cannot expect my opinion to rule the world, and as in this case it is a matter not essential to salvation, I cheerfully allow others to entertain a contrary opinion. I cannot go beyond .yhat I believe the Bible teaches, and there is nothing in the Sacred Scriptures to warrant us in believing that any ove mode has been dimiiely appointed, and that all other methods of performing our duty must be regarded as unsoriptural. I am well aware that in taking our stand on such ground as I now indicate, our Baptist friends imagine ;a CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 55 we acknowledge the validity of their mode of baptism, as taught in the Scriptures, and they boast that all churches are in favor of immersion, even when they do not practice it themselves ; so that in Baptist publications you will frequently find reference to Wesley, Chalmers, and other distinguished Pedo- Baptists, as if they all acknowledged that immersion was scriptural and right. Now, I would like to remind you that they are only seeking to take advantage of our large-hearted Christian principles, and our willingness to allow others to think and act for themselves, when they claim us in favor of immersion. We reject as unscriptural the doctrine that immersion is the only rnode of baptism; nevertheless, as we do not attach as much importance to the quantity of water used as Baptists do, we are quite willing, for the sake of peace, to say to them, — " If you think baptism must be performed by immersing the candidate in water, you can do as you please, provided you do not uphold your practice as the only baptism taught in the Bible." I* .H 'I ! t If! I'llil! Hi nil' :!ii!' 56 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. Samuel. Do you consider a person wlio has been immersed to be truly baptized ? John. Most certainly ; but not because immersion is taught in the Word of God, but simply because I believe it is an open question, and churches may differ in the administration of an ordinance. Now, if Baptists would only consent to meet us on this ground, and give us credit for enough of common sense to know what we are doing, then all controvei'sy might cease while they could go on immersing and we could adopt what we believe to be the true scriptural mode ; but Baptists will not consent to such a settlement of this question; they venture to tell the world that they are the only Greek scholars in existence, and their rendering of "Greek verbs" must be accepted by all who pretend to understand "dead languages." They positively announce that all Christian churches, except their own, are unbaptized ; while they cherish the idea that if ever the world is made right the churches will be con- solidated, and the professing Christians will be Baptists ; and then, as if they were very Cm CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. to ek of rho }> bhe )n- 57 anxious to hurry on that hour, they are quite willing to take members out of any neighbor- ing church, and thus stoop to the meanness of proselyting co7iverted member's from other churches into their own, while thousands of sinners are perishing all around. You may think I have now stated what I cannot prove ; I will just read you an extract from a work by a Baptist minister. He tells " the world,'' — " We are confideiit of a very large amount of success in converting the world to our opinions; indeed, we are sanguine that the day is not far distant when infant bap- tism will be numbered among the things that were, and when all Bible Christians will be Baptists." The Baptists, then, have a great mission before them ; they are not laboring to convert sinners to Christ alone, but they distinctly avow their mission to convert all Christian churches into Baptist churches, and they are " confident" it can be done ; the time is " not far distant" when there shall be no Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, or Congregationalists, or any other sect, — • "the world" will be all Baptists. How Ml ili 68 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. I ii pleasant it will be for Baptists when that day comes ! But alas for human hopes ! they are not the first to build castles in the air, or, to change the illustration, I may just say, the foundation of thfir hopes is "unstable as Water :" tliey sliall not thus excel. Under these circumstances we are compelled to enter upon a controversy, not important in itself, but necessary because Baptist minis- ters and members are constantly seeking to persuade the younger members of our own and other churches to leave their own minis- ters and people and unite with them. It is therefore a matter of necessity that we "search the Scriptures" so that we may be able to assume the defensive. I am afraid we have kept quiet too long, until the Bap- tists are led to fancy that we are afraid to speak, and they can dictate to the world what "Articles of Faith" should govern the universal church." Samuel. Am I then to understand that "immersion" is taught as plainly in the Bible as any other mode ri baptism, and that so far as the authority of the Scriptures m CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 59 id tes is concerned you are prepared to accept im- mersion, sprinkling, or pouring, as of equal force, and alike sanctioned by the Word of God ? John. I do not wish to leave that im- pression upon your mind by what I liave just said. I am fil-mly j^rsuaded that the true scriptural mode is by " sprinkling " or " pouring." I think I have studied the whole question fully, and I cannot find a " positive command" for immersion in the whole Bible, neither can I discover a solitary instance where the Apostles immersed a candidate for baptism, I am aware that Baptists find immersion where no one else can see it : for having decided previously that immersion is the only mode of baptism, they wrest the , Scriptures from their plain and obvious meaning and interpret everything so as to harmonize with their previous opinions, • Thus, if baptism is performed where there is " much water," then Baptists can frame what is to them an overwhelming logical argu- ment; that as immersion can only be performed when there is much water — and I 60 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. there was " much water" where Jolm hap- tized — then it must follow that John im- mersed all he baptized. Now, we who do not wish to build up a theory, can find many reasons wliy God has given us "much water" in the world, apart from immersion altogetlier. I am not willing to receive as a doctrine that which rests on suppositions and inferences ; and cannot furnish a positive command or a single example. Samuel. You appear to take strong ground after all against immersion, or rather against that particular mode being the only mode of baptism. I presume you are aware that Baptists think that immersion is taught very distinctly in the Word of God. The Baptist minister told me plainly that the word -'bap- tize" in our translation should have been rendered "immerse," and that would at once settle the whole question. John. You have now stated, almost in one word, the whole foundation on which the Baptist Church is built as a sect, and I must confess thnt n I seemed to me rather a fine \ ll y. an tpon, or ' ' CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 61 upon which to buHd up a sect of Christians, — the meaning which may be attached to a Greek "verb." Baptists assert, with all bold- ness, that "baptizo" has but "one meaning," "^"~"5 and that " it not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it has never any other mean- ing." Of course it is not to be wondered at that they speak with gi'eat earnestness and decision on this point, for if "baptizo" does not always mean " immerse," if in any one instance it means anything else, then a " Greek verb" may have two meanings, and the Baptist Church is annihilated. Now, you will perceive that I am not forcing them to take this position, for their most learned and able writers boldly announce their will- ingness to stand or fall on the question as I have now indicated. Is not this, then, a small matter about which to differ. Is it possible tliat God has ordained that Christian fellow- ship and the "comnmnion of saints" must rest on the doubtful contingency as to whether I undei-stand Greek and can pro- perly translate the verb "baptizo." Must my Christian baptism be ignored, and the ' i il 62 CONVEESATIONSON BAPTISM. hand of fellowship refused, while I am treated as a dog not worthy to eat the orunabs which fall from my master's table, simply because I do not understand Greek, or, understanding it, prefer another meaning from that which a Baptist interpreter gives to a Greek word, and w}tich I have as much Hght to receive as the meaning which he prefers ? Alas for Christianity, when such small things inter- fere with Christian union ! Samuel. I do not wish to interrupt you, for I am glad you are so earnest and very clear in your statements this morning ! but I would like to ask you, before going any further, how would you translate the word t) at seems to occasion so much controversy ? If I am not mistaken, you graduated at Vic- toria College, and you ought now to be able to shed some light upon this matter. John. Yes, Samuel, my parents very kindly sent me to college. I think they expected ms to become a minister; perhaps I may some day, if God calls me to so great and glorious a work. I do not, however, wish you to imagine that I would venture to CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 63 settle, by my humble opinion alqne, so im- portant a question as that which you have referred to me. Happily for us, however, good books are numerous, and genuine Greek scholars have left their opinion in plain English, so that we can easily test the testi- monjr of Baptist scholars with the testimony of good and learned men, who are not of the Baptist school in theology. Samuel. Well, then, to alter the form of Hiy question, and not to tax your modesty too much, I would ask. What meaning is generally attached to this word in diction-^ aries of the Greek language, or has it but one meaning ? John. I can answer that question at once, and as the Baptists appeal to the lexicons, or dictionaries of the Greek languages, so can we. It 's a strange fact, that Dr. Carson, a champion of the Baptists, after making the unqualified and bold assertion that "baptizo'V always means to "dip," yet honestly confesses that "all the lexicographers and commenta- tors are against him in that opinion." Among other definitions I find the following: "To ■ V. A': T-r •:i| !^:i 64 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. ' i I It I ;: wet," to "moisten," and "wash." One author assigns the following definitions to ''hapto" : " To wet, by affusion, eftusion, perfusion, by yj*^"^ sprinkling, daubing, friction, or immersion." Several authors of lexicons give several meanings. I may mention a few of these authors : Scapula, Hedericus, St^phanus, Schrevelius, Parkhurst, Luidas, Schleusner, Grove, Ewing, Bretschneider, Wall, Stockius, Kobinson, and Greenfield. I mention* these few names because Baptists make a great parade of names, and I just want to convince you that, so far as names go, we could pro- duce any number of great names on our side of the argument. I am almost sorry we have been led into the discussion of a word ; yet it was unavoidable, for Baptists boldly say that our Bible should read "immerse" in- stead of "baptize," and then it would be a correct translation of the original Greek. Now, the only way to meet a bold assertion , is to give it a bold contradiction, and this I have now done by shewing you that good Greek scholars do not agree with the Baptists CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 65 when they assert that "baptizo" has but "one meaning >) Samuel. You would not, then, contend that "sprinkling" could be substituted for "baptize," and that would be a correct deh- nition ? John. Certainly not, though I am aware that Baptists have tried to ridicule our prac- tice by substituting that word in some of the passages where baptize occurs in the Bible. <^ A Canadian Baptist minister who has pub- lished a work on baptism, has taken . the pains to select a number of passages, in whicli he substitutes the word " sprinkling" for "baptizing," and then adds what must have been very gTatifying to his own soul, " Every one can perceive the utter nonsense such renderings would produce : while ren- dered immerse, these passages make sense. The whole thing is utterly absurd." How natural it seems for Baptists to imagine " every one " utters " nonsense " except they- agree that the doctrine of immersion is scriptural and riglit, and that no other mode of baptism is taught in the Scriptures ! We ■n ' J I ,1; i !• mm . 66 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. miglit easily collect a few passages, and by substituting "immerse" for "baptize," we could persuade ourselves, without a very great effort, that such passages did not make good sense, though very likely if we ven- tured to make such an assertion, our Baptist friends w^ould at once conclude that our reason had fled, and we were fit subjects for an asylum. How singular it is that no one can "make sense" out of the Bible except Baptists ; and all other ministers who ven- ture to express their views must talk " non- sense I" The same Baptist author wants to know " What the word baptize actually means ?" I might tell him, though I suppose he will treat it as " nonsense," and greatly prefer his own opinion. The word baptize has more than " one meaning, and to substi- tute any other word, which has but one definite meaning, is to run the risk of not making any text as clear and intelligible as the rendering we now have in our transla- tion. There is no doubt but that it has been ^ isely ordained in appointing a Christian ordinance, that we have a word with a variety CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 67 of meanings, any one of which may be adopted without affecting the validity of the ordinance. It is thus adapted to all classes and to all climes. Samuel. Have you seen the translation of the New Testament, which favors their view of this question, and in which the word "bap- tize" is not to be found. I never saw one until Deacon Jones, of the Baptist Church, handed me one, and told me to read it care- fully, as it would guide me into the right path. I told him I preferred walking in the '•old paths" trodden by the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. John. I am glad you have mentioned that fact, for I had nearly forgotten it; It will help me to show you how inconsistent Bap- tists are. They contend most vigorously that "immerse" ought to be substituted for "bap- tize" in the Word of God. They tell us em- phatically that the word baptize has but one meaning ; and yet, when a translation agree- ing with their assertions is published, they are ashamed to own it, and refuse to take it into their pulpits for the use of their churches. 1» 68 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. t If they believe what they say, why do they not take the translation which they assert is the correct one, and read from it in all their pulpits ? If I could bring myself to think as they do, I would consign every other trans- lation to the flames, and exalt the true version of the Word of God to a prominent place in tlie sanctuary. Why do they hesitate ? Do they not act as if they were ashamed of their own doctrine ? Samuel. Well, I must admit that I see plainly the force of all you have said ; but, is there no other way that would help me to decide so important a question, for it appears to me the whole case seems to hang upon the meaning of this one word ? We must decide this point, or, if we refer to any cases of bap- tism in the New Testament, and there seems to be any difticulties in the way of immers- ing the candidate for baptism, then Baptists will at once say, they must have been im- mersed, for tliat is what "baptize" means, audit has no other meaning. John. There is another way by which we can get at the meaning of this word, and it CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. G9 will be much more easily understood, and that is, to take the " context " into consider- ation, and examine all the verses which are connected with the text, so as to discover what it means. Samuel. That will be a very pleasant task, for it will lead us to study so much more of God's word, that I shall be delighted to have you suggest as many passages as you please. John. It would take a long time to search out all the Bible says on this question ; and though it would be pleasurable work for both of us, yet it is not needed in order to estab- lish what we are now searching after. If, therefore, we can find any one passage where baptize does not mean immerse, then we need go no farther, and the whole Baptist argument falls to the ground, for they con- tend that the Bible teaches no other baptism but by immersion. I think I can easily prove that " sprinkling " or " pouring " is clearly taught, and constantly illustrated by examples in the Holy Scriptures. Samuel. I shall listen very patiently to aU you have to say, for I am beginning to i' HI n r i, ?o CONVEliSATIONS ON BAPTISM.' I 111 I feel very much interested, and I desire to know what the Scriptures teach, so that I can perform my duty. John. I can assure you, Samuel, that I have no other object in view, but to convey to your mind what I conscientiously believe is taught in the Bible. Before I refer to the examples of baptism, in the New Testament, I wo aid like to call your attention to the ** divers washings " prescribed by the Mosaic law, and styled baptisms. It is worthy of notice, that all these baptisms were per- formed by sprinkling, and did not require the immersion of the person. Suppose, in reply to some Baptist, we were to admit that some of the "bathings," enjoined for ceremonial purifications, were immersions, — which we are not prepared to admit, — even then all that could be claimed would be, that in some instances only immersion was allow- able, while the large majority of ceremonial baptisms were positively by sprinkling, and not by immersion. Samuel. Why do you go so far back to prove the practice of sprinkling ? Christian \ ri^ CONVEUSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 71 baptism was not then practiced, and I can- not see why you should refer to Old Tes- tament usages. John. My reason for going back so far, is not to prove that Christian baptism was then practiced, but to show you what has been the practice of tlie church " from the be- ginning," in order that you may see the consistent harmony between dispensations, widely different in many respects, but re- taining enough of identity to prove that the church is still the same. I am aware that Baptist's do not like us to go so " far back " as the Mosaic economy to prove that " sprinkling " was then practiced as a re- ligious ordinance; they have no desire to go so " far back " to the time when children were acknowledged by the church. But it is not our fault if they do not relish these facts. The evil is in their system and doctrines. An intruder may venture to assert his claims to a valuable property, so long as the faithful old records ; reliable and honest old title deeds are kept out of siftiit. These valuable old documents are 1^ m ■•! i li " ! I i 72 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. laid away for safe preservation ; and some may suppose because they are not always speaking they can say nothing. They may soon discover that when they do speak, it is with a voice of thunder, and with the authority of a God. We do not wish to disturb these old sacred treasures on every triflinj^ occasion ; but, if our rights are invaded, if our legitimacy is doubted aud openly denied ; if we are to be treated as bastards and not allowed to sit at our Father's Table with the other members of his family ; then, to the law and testimony, let us e".amine these old documents, and if others do not enjoy these references I am sorry for them. Samuel. I am not unwilling that you should refer to the Old Testament, I only wished to understand the reason why you allude to the ceremonial law, when that law is abolished. But you can proceed and I will not interrupt you. John. It is true the ceremonial law has passed away, but the facts which it accom- plished when in existence, are those to CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 73 < /'i to which I desire your attention. Thus, for instance, in Leviticus xiv. 7, 16, 16, we have the ceremony of cleansing the leper. I will read it : " And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. .... And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." In verse 51 we have the ceremony of cleans- ing the house of the leper: "xVnd he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times." Li Numbers (viii. 5, 6, 7,) we have a more important ceremony for the consecration of priests : "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Take the Levites' from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, SPEINKLE- water of purifying upon them." And again in Exodus (xxix. 7, 9, 21): "Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his H CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. :r head And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about the altar And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, aiici sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him, and he shall be hallowed, and his gar- ments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him." Now, I want you to observe, veri/ particularly, this ancient law in regard to the consecration of priests to their office and min- istry. I am anxious that you should do this, because it establishes the fact that sprinkling was then practiced as the form of the conse- crating rite, and this is the ancient law to which Jesus referred when John modestly refused to baptize him, but was encouraged to proceed, because it was necessary that Christ "should fulfil all righteousness" (Matt. iii. 15) ; which he did by observing this law of consecration, not that he was unholy, but the ceremonial law was in force, the veil of the temple was still standing, the ancient form was still the rule j and Jesus, anxious to fulfil CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 76 111. ullil all law, submitted to be consecrated as our great High Priest. How was he thus conse- crated ? Let the ancient law, from which T have read you extracts, answer, and the ver- dict is distinctly given in favor oi*' sprinkling'* and "pouring!' and not by immersion. St. Paul refers to the mode of these ceremonial purifications when writing to the Hebrews (ix. 19) : " For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and ALL the people, saying, " This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you, moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry." Samuel. I had no idea that there was so much about " sprinkling" in the Bible, and so closely connected with the rites and cere- monies of the church. Surely these facts, if no others could be found, ought to prevent Baptists from ridiculing the ceremony of sprinkling, for it is quite clear that it was practiced by divine appointment for the rea- 76 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. sons you have now given. But how do you connect the "divers washings" or baptisms and ceremonial purifications, to which you have referred, with the dispensation under which we now live ? John. That is just what I wish to refer to. You must have observed that those who were regarded as unclean in the eyes of the cere- monial law, were, in obedience to the same law, regarded as clean, through th e ceremony of sprinkling. Or, to state it differently, the baptisms of the church as it then existed were performed by sprinkling, or po'jring, and not by immersion. I am not instituting a comparison between these ancient ceremo- nial baptisms and Christian baptisms as now practiced. I simply refer to them that you may see what mode was then enjoined for such services. Let the old records speak. We , who still practice sprinkling, or pouring, liko to hear ihese voices from the past. If modem sects do not like these old and es- tablished usages, and desire something new, let them pursue whatever plan they please ; but they shoiild not find fault CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 77 I If lit with us if we enquire for the "old paths" and walk therein. All this has a veiy intimp.te connection with the matte^* which we are now conversing about : foy baptism as now practiced represents tb as the mode is concerned, with the baptisms commanded by God, and practiced by his church, under a previous dispensation. I am anxious to hear how you will prove that sprinkling is sanctioned in the New Testa- ment. John. I shall not keep you in suspense. Perhaps I had bette^ state at once that " sprinkling" is one of the meanings which all Greek scholars (except Baptists) give to the word "baptizo," so that when we read in the 'New Testament that persons were " bap-» tized," we have just as much right (so far as the meaning of the word is concerned) to think they were sprinkled, as that any other mode of baptism was practiced ; while, as I will soon convince you, the circumstances attending New Testament baptisms furnish overwhelming evidence that immersion was not, and, in some instances, could not have been performed, so that baptism by sprinkling must have been practiced by the apostles. I will direct your attention to the Pharisaic baptisms alluded to in Mark viii. 3, 4 : " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they 80 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. I ' wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders. And when they come from market, except they wash (bap- tize) they eat not : And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptisms) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables^ Here, then, we have a clear case of baptism, in regard to "things;" but it will help us to ascertain what the word means. Does it here mean immersion and nothing else ? We might yield the point so far as "cups, pots, and brazen vessels," but what shall we say of the " tables" or couches, large enough to accom- modate a number of people reclining at full lengthy who assumed the posture when eat- ing ! Were these tables immersed ? Yes ! confidently reply Baptist theologians, for the word has but one meaning, and as they were baptized, or "washed," they must have been immersed. No one, however, who is not de- termined to maintain a pet theory, can bring themselves to believe that such large "tables" or couches, so large that they could accom- modate twelve persons, were plunged under CONVEESATIONS ON BAPTISM. 81 ring Les" )m- Ider water every time they were " waslifed," and particularly when we know that such wash- ings were not literal purifications, or house cleaning operations once or twice a year, but simply ceremonial observances performed constantly. Samuel. What you say is quite reasonable, and I shaU certainly doubt the immersing of such large " tables" as you have described, especially when there is no evidence in sup- port of such an idea, exccp' " assertion of Baptists that such bapti :.^, or washings, must mean immersions. John. There is another passage, bearing on a similar question, in Luke xi. 38. I will read it for you: "And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptized) before dinner." Baptists, to be consistent with their theory, are not inclined to hesitate before any difficulty, or unreasonable assertions ; hence they tell us the passage ought to be read, " And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he had not first immersed himself before dinner !" Who, for one moment, can believe (except Baptists) i im 82 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. i that the Pharisee marvelled hecause Jesus did not immerse himself before dinner. Now, the nature of the "washing" or "baptizing" referred to, may be ascertained by consulting Mark vii. 3, where we read, " For the Phari- sees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." This explains tiie whole case : for Scripture explains Scripture. The Phari- see marvelled that Jesus did not wash his hands ; and yet we are told by Baptists that the Pharisee marvelled because Jesus did not "immerse himself" The idea that the Pharisee expected Christ to immerse him- self as they (the Baptists) understand im- mersion, before he could partake of a social meal, and not only on this occasion but on all occasions ; such an idea it is almost diffi- cult to refer to in appropriate terms, and not give offence to those who venture to advance it. Here, then, we find baptize does not mean immerse, Samuel. You need say no more on that question. I could hardly keep from smiling as you referred to it. But we should not T' paMBiMBrMWiiiMRiWri CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 83 lat laugh at those who may conscientiously be- lieve what we as conscientiously reject. If Baptists have no better grou}id for their doctrine of immersion than such passages as you have read for me furnish them with, I think we shail soon get through our conver- sation. John. There are other passages that we shall have to look at ; but my reason for selecting those I have now directed you^ attention to is, that if we find a solitary in- stance where "baptize" does not mean " immerse," then the strong citadel is taken, and immersion is not the only mode of baptism. Samttel. It is true that such instances decide the meaning of the word in those particular oases ; but I would like to know what the sacred writers themselves described and understood by baptism. John. There is one passage just such as you require, and, what is better for our pur- pose, it is accepted by all parties as illus- trative or typical of Christian baptism. P r 84 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. hUH Samuel. That is just precisely what I need, for then we meet on common ground. John, Yes ; and what is better still, we shall find in the passage what the Holy- Spirit designates baptism, so that if we can only succeed in ascertaining what the word means in this instance, we shall at once accomplish what we desire. But you want the passage- I will turn to it It is in 1 Cor. X. 12 : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized in the cloud, and in the sea." Samuel. I remember the Baptist minister referring to that very passage in one of the sermons I heard him preach, and he told the congregation distinctly, if that passage did not establish the doctrine of immersion, he would abandon his position as not warranted l>y Scripture, John, I am aware they place much con- fidence in this passage, but it only proves how clearly they can see what others can not perceive. However, let us examine tlie CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 85 m- an lie text. In order to understand this reference to the baptism of the Israelites, let me read for you the original account in Exodus xiv. 21, 22 : " And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind, all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a waU unto them upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand, and on their left." Now, Baptists contend this is a clear case of immersion, because there was water all round the Israelites ; though, alas ! for their calculations, they were standing on " dry ground" and the water, or " walls" of water must, in some instances, have been a con- siderable distance away, for there were hun- dreds of thousands in the space between tho walls, and it is not at all likely they walked in " single file." However, the Baptists are not anxious to prove that the Israelites touched the water, or that the water touched them: indeed, I heard a Baptist minister 86 CONVEKSATIONS ON BAPTISM. say, that the " Israelites were not as much as sprinkled." How easily Baptists can make bold statements, without the shadow of a foundation in fact, and then fancy what they say must be true ! I am not surprised to find that Baptists experience much difficulty in explaining this passage. Dr. Gill, a be- liever in immersion, says of this text, he supposes the sea stood above their heads, and that they " seemed to be immersed in it." So you see they were not really im- mersed after all, they only " seemed to be immersed." Dr. Carson, another writer who advocates immersion, speaking of Moses in the Red Sea, tells us " he got a dry dip," and could not a person, literally covered with oil-cloth, get a dry immersion " in water ?" Certainly ; and if all we hear be true, the "day is not far distant" when " dry immersions" will not be uncommon in Baptist churches. Who will venture to predict what conveniences may yet be fur- nished to those who want to go under the water, and yet have a " dry dip ?" Who could hav^ supposed it possible for the w CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 87 advocates of immersion to resort to such reasoning as this ? How absurd it appears to us to speak of a " dry immersion" in . water ! Still, the point must not be for- gotten, the Israelites " were baptized." We thank our Baptist friends for the frank and honest confession that the Israelites were "dry" when they "were baptized," not so much as " sprinkled." What an astonishing fact ! A baptism actually performed on " dry ground," the candidates all baptized, and all dry, and this is held up to us by Baptists as an example, or type of immersion. Now, if others can place a dry Israelite and a wet Immersionist side by side, and try to per- suade me that both have been baptized exactly by the same mode, then I must say, as kindly as possible, I cannot trace any resemblance : for if this " dry" Israelite represents the mode of baptism., there must certainly be some mistake about the dripping Immersionist. But, alas ! for our Baptist friends, this baptism was not so dri/ an affair as they would make out, for the Israelites were certaily sprinkled, if nothing IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 'f ma 25 m IIIII2.2 Hi 1^ 1118 1.4 III 1.6 v: l ^^ /^ dp. Photographic Sdences Corporation i\ 4v ^ \\ ^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ;: Can you find anything recorded in the New Testament, which re- presents the mode of baptism, and which will enable me to settle this question, with- out referring to instances, or examples of baptism, where we must of necessity depend so much upon circumstantial evidence, and must decide what mode was adopted by the inferences we are left to draw from certain facts narrated ? John. I think I can find what you desire in the numerous passages that refer to "bap- tism" with the Holy Ghost. You will observe, in reading the New Testament, that whenever water baptism is referred to, it is ■til n It i« ''I t I'i '» 90 CONVERSATIONS ON iJAPTISM. closely connected with the "gift of the Holy Gho|t." Baptism by water was evidently designed, among other reasons, to be a na- tural and visible symbol of this heavenly gift. The baptisms by John had no reference to the gift of the Holy Ghost ; but "Christian baptism" at once directs our attention to the " promise of the^ Father." It was thus understood by the Apostles, as Peter af&rms : " Eepent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38). Now the question naturally arises. In what manner, or " mode " ^s^ere the disciples bap- tized by the Spirit ? If you turn to Acts ii. 1-4, you will read, " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as if by a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." I heard a Baptist minister explaining this passage, when he told us this was a beau- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. n a re tiful illustration of immersion, for the Holy Spirit filled the house ; and then he pro- posed the question, " If this house were filled with water, and you were in it, would you not be immersed ?" Very likely ; and it would not be a dry immersion either. But where does it say the Holy Ghost "filled the house ?" Not in the text I have just read : we are told the " sound " came from heaven, and it filled the house. " Precisely so," says a Baptist author, in a work I have in my library ; " they," the Apostles, " were buried in the wind" wherein there was a striking resemblance to the literal baptism of a believer in water. Well, this reason- ing may satisfy some, and all those who cannot so understand the Scriptures may be accused of uttering " nonsense ;" but I con- fess candidly, I doubt the correctness of these sentiments, and I fail to see how im- mersion is taught by walking on "dry- ground," or being "buried in the wind." As to the manner in which the Spirit was given to the Apostles, Peter's testimony is quite oleax: "And as I began to speak," in the 'U 1? 92 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. house of Cornelius, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them as upon us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15-17. And thus we find the New Testament always refers to this symbol of baptism, never representing the idea of immersion, but always giving as the mode of baptism, pouring, descending, shedding forth, showers, and resting upon those who were baptized. Thus it is that I am convinced, that when the baptismal element comes from above and falls upon the candidate, it represents clearly and fully the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Samuel. I shall not weary you any more this morning. I am very thankful for your kind assistance. I am quite prepared to accept the mode of sprinkling as taught in the Scriptures. It was certainly practiced for ceremonial purifications ; and all the types of baptism fully and clearly represent to my mind the idea of sprinkling or pour- ing. I remember when we had our last ■■ 'I CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 93 conversation you were quite familiar with the early history of the church. Can you furnish me with any evidence from this source in favour of sprinkling or pouring, as a mode of baptism ? John. I can if you wish me to do so ; though, of course, the testimony of Scripture is all-suffioient. I an: glad, however, to in- form you that not only the baptism of infants, but baptism by sprinkling, is sus- tained and supported by the early fathers of the church, and by pictorial representa- tions, and very ancient monumental evidence, which, of course, must speak the truth. These ancient pictures have been preserved to the present day, and they indicate the TThode of baptism from about A.D. 300, till A.D. 1100. Of these monumental repre- sentations, at least five exhibit the baptism of Christ. In four of these the ceremony is performed by sprinkling, while another re- presents John as pouring water out of a small shell upon the head of our Saviour. This ancient picture is from the centre-piece of the dome of the Baptistery at Kavenna, II 94 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. which was built in the year 454. Another ancient picture represents the baptism of the Emperor Constantine, in the fourth century. Eusebiug, the bishop, is pouring water on hia head from a small vessel which he holds in his hand. Another represents the baptism of a boy about ten or twelve years of age. He is standing erect, while the priest is pour- ing water on the top of his head. This picture is mow at Eome, but is the work of Greek artists. I might refer to many others, but these will answer my purpose, and be quite sufiicient to convince you that sprink- ling, as a mode of baptism, was evidently the common practice, as these artists, doubt- less, painted things as they were. This, then, is another argument in favor of sprink- ling. But apart from all this evidence, we have authority from the Word of God, which satisfies the large majority of Christians, that baptism is truly administered when a candi- date is baptized by sprinkling in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Samuel. I am much obliged to you, John, CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 95 for this conversation. There are a few cases of baptism mentioned in the New Testament, and I woiild like to hear your comments on them ; then, I think, I should understand the whole question fully. I will, however, wait until some evening when it will be conveni- ent for you. Would next Thvisday evening answer, or have you an engagement for that evening ? John. Our regular week evening pvayer- meeting is held on Thursday evening, so that I cannot spare that evening. I suppose, as you hgive not attended lately, you have for- gotten it. Samuel. I must confess it quite escaped my memory : I presume, owing to the fact that I have not attended a prayer-meeting for some weeks. I have made up my mind to do better, and I will attend the prayer- meeting next Thursday evening. Suppose we appoint the following evening ? John. All right, Samuel, that will suit me exactly, for I shall be at liberty. Now, I have some good news for you. As you were not in our church last Sabbath evening, you *> ;. 96 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. may not have heard that our minister an- nounced that he would preach a sermon on baptism next Sabbath evening. You will, of course, be present to hear it ? Samuel. Yes; you may rest assured I shall be in my place, not only next Sabbath, but every Sabbath ; I think you have cured me of rambling, and I trust, by God's assist- ing grace, I am now resolved to be more faithful, and continue walking in the " old paths." John. I am very glad to hear this, Samuel, for my anxiety is not that you should be a Methodist only, but also a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Good bye, Samuel. Samuel. Good bye, John. Thanks for your kind wishes. ( PI CONVEKSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 97 CHAPTER III. STEADFAST AND UNMOVEABLE. ** Not, as by sorcerer's charm, To rise renewed from the baptismal flood,— But given to Christ, to feel His circling arm Enfoldeth every good. " Yes ! bring the children soon I Christ will not utter one reproachful word. But * suffer them' that they may take the boon By royal hands conferred." —-PUNSHON. John. Good evening, Samuel, you are very punctual. Samuel. Good evening. I thought I would come early, so that we might have a long evening for conversation. It is so pleasant to search for truth, that I begin to wonder how people can talk about " dry doctrinal preaching," for the more I hear concerning doctrines, the more willing I am to read and study, that I may know the truth. 98 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. John. I have often felt grieved that so many of our young people prefer light read- ing, and consequently are not as familiar with Bible doctrines as they should be. It is not to be wondered at that such persons prefer sensational kind of preaching, .and can hardly endure sermons on doctrinal questions. But how did you like our min- ister last Sabbath evening ? Samuel. I was delighted. The sermon was much longer than usual, but I was sorry when it closed. What a pity our minister does not preach more frequently on contro- versial doctrines ! I was astonished when he told us that it is now five years since he preached on baptism, while during that time he has baptized 167 infants and 5 adults. I heard however, yesterday, that the Baptists were very much annoyed that our minister should preach on such a subject. One of their members said to my father, "What right has Mr. Wilson to preach on baptism V JoHX. I expected they would feel annoyed at our minister. Why have not we, as Methodists, just as much right to preach or I' CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 99 speak on such a subject as they have ? Wliy do they arrogantly style themselves Baptists, just as if no one baptized but them- selves ? I am glad that our minister has consented to break his silence of live years. I was much pleased with the sermon, and although I have read and studied the whole question, I obtained some new ideas from the sermon, which I wrote down when I reached my room after the service. Samuel. Did you observe whether there were any Baptists present in our church last Sabbath evening? John. I think some were present. I know one who was there, but has since said that he will never attend another service in a Metho- dist Church. The Baptists are continually pre idling about baptism, and when they have a solitary person to baptize they announce it from the pulpit for two previous Sabbaths, just to draw a crowd, as if they wished to make a public exhibition of a divine ordi- nance. Their real purpose is to get members from other churches and congregations, as they know the novelty of the whole thing 100 CONVEKSATIONS ON BAPTISM. atti'Jicts young people, who are curious to see a person put under water. They make no secret of this matter, as one of their ministers publiahes distinctly their object when he tells us, " Neither is there any likelihood that the Baptists will find discoursing on immersion an unprofltahle business and let it alone. We defy all the Pedo-Baptist ministers in Chris- tendom to keep away the hearers and members from our chapels at these particular times." It is, therefore, quite evident from such lan- guage, that the intention of all the announc- ing in view of such occasions, is to get the " hearers" " and members" of other churches to attend a Baptist chapel, for what reason we can easily infer. Those who profess to be so much attached to New Testament bap- tisms should not forget that the apostles baptized their converts the '* same day " they \s'ere converted, and never waited for two Sabbaths to pass by for "announcements," accompanied with a defiance to all other " ministers in Christendom " to retain their own members in their churches. The spirit of such language is plain, Baptists would take P r CONVEESATIONS ON BAPTISM. 101 all the members out of the Methodist Church, and every other church, without delay, if they could only accomplish their proselyting plans. Samuel. Our minister's sermon will settle the question for some time I hope. For my part I am about digusted with the conduct of those Baptists who are seeking to pursuade our young people to leave our church and join theirs. But let us now take up the question of inmiersion where we left oif. You pro- mised to direct me to several instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament. John. I am quite ready and willing to resume our conversation. I think we had better begin with the baptisms by John. You have, no doubt, heard them frequently referred to, for Baptists think they have an unanswerable argument in favor of immer- sion, because John baptized "in Jordan," or at Enon, where there was "much water." Before I refer to these two considerations, I would like to remind you that John's baptism was not Christian baptism ; there- fore, if it proved all that Baptists could ..■ i * 1 102 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. I! ii; wish, it would only prove that immersions did occur before Christian baptism was ap- apointed- But I have no wish to press this point, for you will at once perceive that immersion is by no means established by John's baptism. Samuel. I hope you will clear up this point satisfactorily, for the expression "in Jordan" seems to intimate the idea of im- mersion. John. It does so because Baptists first assert the doctrine of immersion, and then try to find all they can to support it. To us who have no favorite doctrine to sustain, there is no difficulty in the way whatever. In fact, we find insurmountable difficulties in supposing that John immersed. Now, as to the expression " in Jordan," the language simply intima^^es locality^ not the mode of baptism. Thus when we read, Mark i. 4 : " John did baptize in the wilderness ;" the meaning is evident it cannot mean plunged them in sand or under the ground : the place is designated, but not the mode of baptism. And when it is said he was " baptizing in CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 103 Bethabara beyond Jordan," there is simply reference to locality. The Israelites were baptized "in the sea;" but they were not immersed, as I have already proved. The priests were commanded on one occasion, " When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand stiU in Jordan" Joshua iii. 8. Here, " in Jordan," means at the brink of the river. You must not forget that the Greek word here translated "in," is rendered ten different ways in the Gospel by Matthew alone, namely, on, with, hy, for, among, at, through, unto, because of, and in. Now, suppose we render it here "at Jordan," or " by Jordan," what becomes of the immersion theory then ? Here, in this instance, as in others I have already spoken of, the Baptist theory depends upon "one meaning" being given to a word. The ex- pression " in Jordan" simply means " at" or " by" the river Jordan, and this interpreta- tion is supported by the circumstances and facts connected with John's baptism. It is quite certain that John could not have im- mersed all the multitudes flocking to his I 104 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. ministry. If we admit that his ministry- lasted six or twelve months, ^.nd that during that time " There went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and aU the region rcund about Jordan, "Matt. iii. 6 ; then it is quite evident that he must have baptized, if not millions, at least hundreds of thousands ; so that hun- dreds, if not thousands, must have been baptized every day. Add to this that John was alone and had none to help him. I con- fess that I cannot conceive it possible for one man to immerse such multitudes every day, for John did not possess such modern inven- tions as Baptist ministers, in some instances, are now furnished with. We have no reason to believe that he wore "vulcanized india- rubber baptismal pants," — such as Baptist papers now advertise — nor can we imagine that the ingenuity of John was equal to the task of heating the water for the comfort of those whom he baptized, or his own safety; so that we are forced to doubt the possibility of John's standing in Jordan, literally to im- merse thousands every day. Now, if we admit that John baptized the people, as 11 ' CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 105 ne he of so of m- we as Moses is said to have done in Hebrews ix. 19, when "he sprinkled all the people," then there is no difficulty in the case whatever ; and certainly this view commends itself to our judgment. John himself tells us (Matt, iii. 11) that he baptized "with water'' in Jor- dan: the subjects for baptism probably stand- ing like Saul. (Acts ix. 18.) It is a remarkable fact that there is a sect of Christians in the East at this day who call themselves tie " Followers ^f John the Baptist," and who baptize "in rivers" professedly in imitation of his example ; but they do not immerse. Their practice is to hold the infant near the surface of the stream, while the priest sprink- les him with water taken from the river. Here, then, we have river baptisms, but no immersion. Samuel. Then your argument is that John baptized " with water" taken from the river Jordan, but did not plunge the subjects for baptism under the water ? John. That is certainly the plain meaning of the language he employs ; while the cir- cumstances to which I have referred go to w 106 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. prove that such a conclusion is most reason- able, as we cannot suppose they were all baptized naked, or had suitable changes of wearing apparel for such an emergency as immersion, which was, doubtless, unexpected in many cases. Samuel. Well, suppose we yield this case, as this Greek proposition has different meanings, which not only make good sense, but destroy the doctrine of immersion in this instance ; still, how are we to account for the fact that John selected another lo- cality where there was "much water" unless he had adopted a mode of baptism which demanded sufficient water to accomplish his purpose ? John. If you can divest your mind of immersion for a few moments, and then ask the question. Why did John select a place for the exercise of his ministry where there was "much water?" you will soon be in possession of several reasons, which must have influenced the decision of John, when he selected Enon. I have already referred to the vast multitudes to whom he preached ; v\\ CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 107 such multitudes congregated together would need, for various domestic purposes, a large supply of water, Nothing is more common in our day than for Methodists to hold "camp-meetings" for several days, and in the selection of ground, it is always an im- portant question. Can we find a spot where there is " much water ?" Indeed, if there is not a good supply of water, whatever other attractions a place may furnish, it is at once rejected. Two years ago I attended a camp- meeting near Grimsby, on the shores of Lake Ontario, and another on the banks of the bright and clear river St. Clair, both of which were conducted by Methodists. Now, it is not at all unusual for the sacrament of bap- tism to be administered at camp-meetings. Why, then, should not a future church his- torian refer to all these facts, and tell how Methodists invariably held camp-meetings where there was " mitch water," and contend that these facts prove most conclusively that we, as a church, practiced immersion, when we baptized our converts ? This is one of the powerful arguments wliich Baptists employ I t 3 I I PF 108 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. in favor of immersion. They tell us John must have immersed all he baptized, became there was "much water" where he was bap- tizing. As well argue that Methodists im- merse all their members because they hold camp-meetings and baptize persons where there is " much water." It appears, then, that "much water" is absolutely required for the performance of immersion. What, then, shall we say of other instances of bap- tism recorded in the New Testament, when even Baptists find it difficult to discover any water ? As an eminent writer puts this argument, "Tnnch water is the exception, little water the rule. The ordinance could, indeed, be administered in the river Jordan, and at the many streams of Enon; but so simple was the rite, that its performance appears to have been equally convenient in a- private house, a prison, or a desert. If, then, the volume of the Jordan is requisite to pour vigor into the Baptist argument for immer- sion, how sapless and feeble must that argument become when its nutriment is drawn from the stinted supply of a prison, ^11 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 109 he mv r- at is n, or the thirsty soil of a wilderness ?" I cannot, therefore, believe that John's bap- tisms were by immersion; it is not positively stated what mode he adopted; and the whole circumstances taken together, are strongly in fovor of the idea that he would adopt a mode in harmony with the dispensation under which he was living. Samuel. I quite agree with you, and I think we may pass on. What comes next in order ? John. I suppose we had better consider the baptism of Christ. Samuel. I shall be glad to hear your in- terpretation, for I remember there was very great prominence given to the baptism of Jesus, in all the sermons which I heard in the Baptist church, and it formed a very conspicuous place in all their hymns. I heard them singing frequently those lines : *' In Jordan's flood the prophet stands, Immersing the returning Jews ; The Son of God the right demands. Nor dare the holy man refuse : DP i! no CONVERSATIONS ON HAPTZSM. But plunges him beneath the -wave. An eml'^om of hia future grave ; Ye heavens ! Behold the Saviour lie, Beneath the flood from human eye.'* To say nothing whatever about the poetry, I doubt the theology, or rather the inference from Scripture language, which these line? embody. John. Baptists, I believe, contend that Jesus was immersed, and that we should follow his example. Now there is no posi- tive proof in the Bible that Jesus was im- mersed, or that he was baptized, as our example. Having already shown you what we are to understand concerning the phrase " in Jordan," aU that I have said of John's baptisms will apply to the baptism of Christ, and I need not repeat it. There is another " form of words *' that Baptists think must prove immersion, ie., where we are told that Jesus went up " out of" the water. Here, again, Baptists claim only "one mean- ing" for these words. Everything, as regards their cause, depends upon one meaning, one CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. Ill idea ; for any other meaning, however legit- imate or scriptural, is fatal to their only mode of baptism, and consequently is re- jected. What are the facts in this case ? The word translated " out of," primarily signifies "/rowi." You will find this Greek preposition in very many passages in the New Testament, and in more than two hun- dred and fifty of them, it is rendered "from" and not "out of." In this same chapter, which contains the baptism of Christ, you will find an illustration. Thus we read. Matt. iii. 7 : " Who hath warned you to flee from*' (not out of) "the wrath to come." Now, if we observe the same translation when we come to the baptism of Christ, it would read, " And Jesus, when he was bap- tized, went up straightway from the water." Matt. iii. 16. If you will look in that new translation which your Baptist friend has given you to read, you will find that this Greek word has been translated, not as we have it in our version, but, a^ doubtless it should be rendered in this passage, " Jesus went up straightway from the water." I •i' mw i '\ 112 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. wish you would refer to this text when you go home. Samuel. I will do so ; but allow me here to propose a question. I see you are deter- mined to set aside the translation of preposi- tions when they refer to baptisms, and substitute other words, which you say would be a proper and correct translation, as the translators of our English Bible now in oommon use have so translated these very words in hundreds of other instances. Now, I would like to know, why have the trans- lators made an exception to their general renderings when they come to cases of baptism ? I observe, by what you have just told me, that they change the phraseology in the same chapter and translate the same Greek word differently. How am I to account for this ? John. The only answer I can give is to say that such facts seem to warrant us in coming to the conclusion that the translators of the Bible were determined to favor as much as possible the idea of immersion. We need not wonder at this when we consider the time when our present translation ap- m CONVERSATIONS ON BAl^ISM. 113 peared, and the men who were the translators. I do not wish you to think that I am disposed to find fault with our present translation. I should be sorry to do this. Samuel. I understand you ; it is not the translators you are blaming, for they only applied a meaning to suit their own pre-con- ceived opinions, when another meaning would have expressed the " mind of the Spirit" with equal correctness, and with no leaning to human opinions. But do you really contend that such a change' ought to be made, and "out of the water" should be substituted by " from the water ?" John. I am not very anxious for such a change. I only wished to convince you that such a change is allowable, and that such a translation has been given to this word in hundreds of verses in the Gospels. You have not forgotten what you promised to remem- ber when we were to have our conversation on this subject. The mode by which Christ was baptized can easily be ascertained by a reference to the law to which our Saviour* alludes when he urged John to baptize him : '\ ^11 !iir ill 114 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. " Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Matt. iii. 15. Now, if there is reference here to the ancient law which minutely describes the consecra- tion of priests, it is quite evident that Jesus was not immersed by John, for it is beyond doubt that John would be familiar with Old Testament usages, and adopt in his transition ordinances, the old mode recommended by the sacred writers. If this baptism of Christ was not a levitical consecrating baptism, but merely submitted to by Christ in order to give his assent and approval of John's min- istry, by acknowledging his character as the appointed "forerunner" or herald of the Gospel dispensation, still the argument from analogy remains ; the old mode of baptism (which was sprinkling) would be accepted by John when baptizing Christ. Samuel. You have intimated that the bap- tism of Christ is not to be regarded as an example of Christian baptism. How would you prove it ? • John. I am quite prepared to establish what I have said on this question. The bap- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 115 tism of Christ was not Christipn txiptism, for the simple reason, that Christian haptism was then unknown. He waa not baptized with "John's baptism," for you are aware that John's baptism was " unto repentance ;'* and, concerning Jesus, it is distinctly affirmed " he knew no sin." The baptism of Christ, was not what we call in our day " believers* baptism,** for then he must have exercised faith in himself, as Christ is the object of the believing adult*8 faith, when he presents him- self as a candidate for Christian baptism* We cannot for a moment suppose that he was baptized in his (nvn name ; yet Christian baptism must be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matt xxviii. 19. Now, from all these facts, abundantly sustained by the Scriptures, we must conclude that Christ's baptism was not "Christian baptism,** and therefore he could not have been baptized as our example. There are other considerations that establish tlie character and reason of Christ's baptism. He was, at the time of his baptism, thirty ^ ears of age, — the age when Jewish priests !M1 m\ i 116 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. were consecrated. He was then about to enter upon his great work, and avow himself to be the " Great High Priest." He himself declares that it became him to "fulfil all righteousness." He therefore submits to the consecrating ceremony by which priests were set apart for their holy office, and, as he would not appear to despise ''law," he desires to be baptized by John. If Christ was bap- tized as our example, then it must be proved that we are about to enter upon the office and work of priests ; this, I am persuade, ycu will not attempt to prove. Then, again, as Jesus was not baptized until he was thirty years of age, if he was baptized as our ex- ample (and every pa'-ticular in an e tample ought to be observed, especially in the ex- ample of Christ) we ought not to be baptized until we are thirty years of age. Will Bap- tists take the example of Christ in this respect and follow it ? You are well aware that they do not. They will follow their "example" as far as it suits their own convenience and theory, but no farther; and then brand others as Weak, timid, and unbelieving Christians, CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 117 who are unwilling to follow Christ where he would lead us. One would suppose, to hear Baptists exhorting people to follow the foot- steps of Christ, that the only way we can prove our ohedience and readiness to follow wherever Christ leads the way, is to go under water ; if we hesitate here we are cowards, or we " shun the cross," or we are " ashamed of Christ," or wo " lack faith ;" and these ex- pressions are intended to represent the character of those who do not believe that Christ ever went down " into a liquid grave," or that he was baptized as our example. Surely, there have been martyrs in the Christian church who "w ere not Baptists ; or is it the strongest proof of zeal, of courage, of saK-denial, and of a readiness to suffer and die for Christ, which the young convert is capable of manifesting, when he musters up all his energies to go down into heated water? Why is the effort made to kindle such enthu- siasm over what is a mere trifle compared with other demands upon a Christian's courage and fidelity to Christ ? I have no wish to offend Baptists by employing such 118 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. language ; but when they publicly wound other Christians by insinuating, as they fre- quently do, that we shrink from immersion, because we desire to yield to the flesh ; and we practice sprinkling because it is easier and more convenient, thereby plainly assert- ing that if we had stronger faith, purer zeal, and greater love for Christ, we would follow him even under water ; then it is high time for us to speak and assure Baptists that where Christ leads the way we will follow through fire as well as water ; we will sing, as our father's have taught us, — " Saviour, where'er thy steps I see — Dauntless, antired, I follow thee ;" But we do not consider that the footsteps of Jesus lead to immersion, and that it is the highest type of Christian courage to be dipped in water. Samuel. I cannot blame you for using such strong language, for I am aware that Baptists appeal to the sensitive feelings of young converts very frequently, urging them to follow Christ, and of course a refusal on their part would indicate what they them- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 119 selves shrink from with abhorrence. I now see the answer to such an exhortation is to remind Baptists that Jesus was not immersed, nor was he baptized as an example for us to follow. Is there not a clear case of Christian baptism to which we can refer ? John. There are several : not as many r,s you would expect to find, for the Apostles did not glory in baptizing, nor suppose that special honor was conferred upon them when they baptized any one. Paul tells the Corinthians, " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." 1 Cor. i. 14, 17. What strange language this would be falling from the lips of a Baptist minister in our day ! Their chief glorying is not that so many are converted, but that so many have been bap- tized. To say that they have good reason to hope that all whom they baptize are con- verted, may be granted; but even that admission does not affect the fact that they give all prominence to baptism, as can be seen in any of their papers. Paul tells us, I • lii 1 1 II ill 120 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. he was sent " not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." He was " an apostle of Jesus Christ, not of men, neither by man." He exercised a perfect commission to preach the Gospel, yet did not consider it as an essen- tial requirement that he should baptize. Prom this it is evident, that a minister may ** preach the Goppel" without baptizing, it must therefore follow that baptism is merely an appendage of a Christian church, and Twt a part of the Gospel. I do not mean by this that baptism is to be dispensed with, for other passages are clear on this point ; I only wish to show you that Paul did not consider baptism as important as those do who deny the existence of a Christian church in the absence of immersion, regarding such a ceremony as indispensable to Christian communion. The Apostle is not to be un- derstood as ignoring baptism : his language is a firm and outspoken declaration of its great inferiority when compared with his divine commission to " preach the GospeL" Baptists practically announce that there is no gospel obedience without immersion^ and CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 121 consequently there ought to be no Christian fellowship with those whom they regard as unbaptizid. Here, then, to say the very least of such conduct, they create a division in the church of Christ, not on what is essen- tially an integral portion of the Gospel, but on a mere rite or ceremony. Paul practi- cally ignored baptism, lest it should be said he was baptizing in his own name, or seek- ing to raise a party feeling, or create a sect, leading some to say " I am of Paul ;" and as he did not consider that the question of baptism was of sufficient importance to warrant a division in the church, and know- ing that he could " preach the Gospel" and " not baptize," he wisely preferred to avoid contentions or divisions, on a question not of vital consequence or essential to the existence of a Christian church. Are Bap- tists commissioned by the same authority that Paul recognized ? Why, then, do they not tell their converts, in the spirit of Paul's language, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ; that is, baptism is so little a thing that I do flot'look upon it 122 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. as contained in the spirit of my commission, it is only added as a thing of practical utility to the outward church; and if I thought you would look upon yourself as any more acceptable to Christ, or a more worthy member in his church, on account of being baptized by me, I would now desist." When Immersionists can adopt such language as Paul used, the party spirit will give way, and men shall no longer glory in the fact that they were baptized by a Baptist minister, for they will acknowledge this to be too trifling a matter on which to differ, or refuse the hand of Christian fellowship to members of other churches. All that I have been led to say on this striking passage will help you to see why there is not greater prominence given to baptism in the New Testament. There are, however, some in- stances recorded. The baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch, which you will find in Acts viii. 36, 39, is regarded as a clear case of immersion by the^ Baptists, and I am quite willing to consider their strongest arguments, for we shall all the sooner dis- G0NVERSATI0N8 ON BAPTISM. 123 cover how little they have in support of their exclusive doctrine of immersion. Here, as in all other cases, everything depends upon " one meaning." We are told that Philip and the Eunuch " went down both into the water." I need not repeat all I have said about this Greek word (eis) translated "into;" still in addition to what I have said before, I may add that in this cha oter, which con- tains an account of the Eunuch's baptism, this Greek word occurs just eleven times, and it is translated into but once out of the eleven; and that once is where we read " th6y both went down into the water." I will just read you some instances. In verse 3rd we read " committed them to" not into " prison ;" 25th verse, " returned to" not into "Jerusalem ;" 40th verse, " came to" not into " Cesarea," and so on. Now, in all these places, amounting in the New Testament to hundreds of instances, this Greek word (eis) is translated " to." Why, then, should our translators depart from their ordinary prac- tice, and in the case of the Eunuch's baptism make a change, and translate the word 124 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. differently from their usual translations? We are, therefore, fully warranted in saying that Philip and the Eunuch went down out of the chariot " to the water," and no Baptist Greek scholar will dare to say that such a translation must be rejected. I will not dwell upon the meaning of the other words to which Baptists cling with great tenacity, for I have already proved that " out of" may properly be rendered "from" the water. Now, with these authorized changes, not in the original Greek, but in the English translation, the passage would read, " They went down both to the water and when they were come up from the water," &c. Here, then, there is no proof of immer- sion, and Baptists must find stronger and clearer arguments than such language con- tains, before they can convert the world to their opinions. With illiterate and careless persons, who have neither the disposition or ability to enquire into the meaning of words, they may succeed by keeping to a translation which suits their own dogmatic assertions ; but others, who will not bow down to Baptist CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 125 » scholars, and receive their interpretation of words, without any questioning, will not be so easily persuaded to coincide with the views of a church which asserts that a Greek word has but one meaning, and with the next breath contradicts itself and gives the same Greek word another meaning. I do not wish you to understand me as represent- ing all Baptists or their converts as illiterate ; I am far from entertaining such an idea. I desire, by what I have just said, to convince you that Baptist scholars, whose reputation as such is not to be questioned, ought not to use an argument based upon the meaning of Greek prepositions, when they must know that the very English words they make use of are not the only English words that can be used ; and that if other terms were intro- duced they would convey a very different meaning from those which the present trans- lation suggests. I repeat, therefore, that in adhering to the present translation in refer- ence to these Greek prepositions. Baptists use an argument that may appear weighty with the illiterate, or those who are thus led 126 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. to believe that the English words in our present translation are the only words which the Scriptures warrant us to use. Baptists, in all honesty and fairness, should tell their hearers that " into" and " out of might, with equal propriety, be " to" and " from." Samuel. I am glad you have enlightened me on the different meanings which may be applied to the Greek prepositions, to which there is reference so constantly in con- nection with New Testament baptisms. I now fully agree with you that our translators must have leaned to immersion. The simple change of a word renders immersion very doubtfid, if not impossible, John. I would like, before we leave this instance of baptism, to remind you that all the circumstances of the case are as much against the doctrine of immersion, as the meaning of the words. The place was a " desert." The Eunuch was a traveller on a journey. He was reading the prophecies of Isaiah, concerning Christ who should sprinkle many nations." Isaiah lii. 15. Being assisted by Philip, he obtained a clear view of Christ, CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 127 and desired to be baptized. Philip, being satisfied that he was a proper candidate for the ordinance, consents, and they went to tlie water, which just then the Eunuch dis- covered. We are not told there was " much water ;" it is altogether probable there was but a small supply. Standing at the water's edge, Philip baptized him, doubtless in ac- cordance with the mode he had just read of, and he returned to his chariot. We read of no undressing, or changing of apparel. Why are the Scriptures silent, and give no intima- tion in any of the baptisms recorded, of changing garments ? We are left to the con- clusion that no such changes were required by the mode of baptism which the apostles practiced. I have heard it stated, and with some justice, that if the baptism of the Eunuch proves the doctrine of immersion, it also proves that Philip must have been immersed, for ^'both" went down into the water. But, replies a Baptist divine to this argument, " To any reader of mere com" mon sfTise, the words 'he baptized him' show plainly that the Eunuch alone was baptized, i I Hi ! 128 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. although in order to this being done *both* had to go 'down into the water.' " Here, then, is a complete abandoning of the Greek pre- positions, as affording any solid proof of immersion ; for, as the author asserts, a man can go " into" and "out of" water, as Philip did, without being immersed. Nor is this Baptist author alone in this view. Another of the same school in theology tells us, " They " [Greek prepositions] " must be held insufficient to determine the controversy." Here, then, rather than admit that Philip W8,s immersed, when " both" went "into" the water, Baptists relinquish the argument which those words seem to furnish, and turn to their only hope, the verb "baptize." The whole question is now brought within the compass of a word, which they assert means " immerse," and has no other meaning ; although in making that assertion, their ablest scholar confesses that " all the lexico- graphers and commentators are against him in that opinion." I have already proved that " baptize" has several meanings, one of which is "sprinkle." So that the one verb CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 129 » 9 ir on which Baptists depend, with its *' one meaning" fails to support their doctrine of immersion. Samuel. I wonder why the Baptists do not refer to the baptism of Saul as frequently as they do to the baptism of the Eunuch ? John. The reason is very obvious. The baptism of Saul does not help their theory of immersion, and consequently they do not care to say much about it. In this case we have nothing whatever recorded about water. Ananias visited Saul in the Jiouse of Judas, who lived in one of the streets of Damascus, and after a few words of cheer, Saul " arose and was baptized." The original is very ex- pressive — "rising, or standing up, he was baptized." Here, then, is a clear case of baptism, performed in a house, where neither Ananias or Saul went down "into the water" or came up "out of the water." How, then, could there have been an immersion ? It is useless for Baptists to teU us that they must have gone out, in order to find water, for there is not a solitary word in the narrative to warrant such an assertion. It is quite !:il 130 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. evident, that so far as Saul is concerned, he simply " arose," it is not said he walked, or left the house, and Baptists should remember the last chapter in the Bible, and not "add" to the Holy Scriptures. If, therefore, Saul was baptized "standing," I need hardly tell you he could not have been immersed. Samuel. This instance is evidently a clear case of baptism, by sprinkling or pouring. John. It is not, however, the only case of baptism performed in a house. The baptism of Cornelius, which you will find recorded in Acts X. 44-48, is another instance in which the Apostles baptized their converts on the very spot they then occupied, and where there is no reference to rivers, or ponds, or any other accommodation for im- mersion close at hand. In this case, the Mediterranean Sea was not far off ; but we are not told they went down " into" the sea, while the language employed by the Apostle certainly warrants us to believe that he desired water to be brought, that baptism might then and there be administered. " Can any man forbid water that these should CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 131 not be baptized ?" If Peter had been a Baptist, he would have said, " Can any man forbid these persons being taken to the river or sea, and being immersed." Samuel. I am surprised to find such clear cases of baptism without any reference to '* much water," or little water, and I do not wonder that Baptists prefer to talk more about John's baptisms (which occurred before the Christian dispensation) and the baptism of the Eunuch ; but, if Saul and Cornelius were not immersed, then it must certainly follow that immersion is not the only w.ode of baptism. I cannot see how any one can undertake to prove that either Saul or Cornelius was immersed, for there is not a solitary word in the inspired narrative that seems to favor such an idea. John. I am glad you are so well satisfied with these instances of baptism, as furnish- ing unquestional)le proof in favor of sprink- ling or pouring, but I have other cases equally clear. I have no doubt you are more familiar with the baptism of the Phil- ippian jailor, Acts xvi. 19-40. In this case. 132 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. baptism was performod in a " prison," and at midnight. The nearest water we read of was a "river," and that was "out of the city," verse 13 ; while we have positive proof that Paul was not out of the prison during that night, for he boldly avowed his deter- mination not to leave the prison until those who had thrust him in would come and " fetch them out." "We are also quite sure that the jailor would not release his p:ison- ers after having received a special charge *' to keep them safely." But, Baptists would settle the whole difficulty by one of their bold and unfounded assertions, for which they have no proof, and yet they expect the world to believe them, for the only reason — they have said it, and it must be true. As they cannot possibly get the jailor and his family out of the jail, then their fertile imagination has discovered a tank, or cis- tern, inside the prison walls, and there the jailor was dipped. Where are we to find all this ? Is there anything about it in the Bible ? How do Baptists know that there were cisterns or tanks, in this ' CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 133 Philippian jail ? Or, supposing there were such conveniences for immersion, how can they prove that the jailor and his family were immersed in a cistern ? We want proof y not simply Baptist opinions or stbp- positions. Here, then, we find insuperable difficulties in the way of immersion, and those who can believe that the jailor was immersed under such circumstances as those recorded by the inspired narrative, we venture to say, will readily believe what the large majority of persons will reject as un- reasonable, and without foundation. Samuel. I think we need not dwell any longer upon individual cases of baptism. You have fuUy established the fact that bap- tisms were performed by the apostles where it was not possible for them to have im- mersed the persons whom they baptized ; you have also clearly proved by numerous quotations from the Bible, that the meaning of the words employed by the inspired writers, does not sustain the idea that im- mersion was practiced, so that I confess my mind is fully satisfied, and as I have searched ii I 134 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. in vain for some positive command in the Word of God concerning the mode of baptism, I must therefore conclude, from the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, that the apostles adopted the old mode of sprinkling and pouring, being left free to choose what mode they pleased. John. There is just one more passage to which I would like to call your attention, not that I esteem it so very important, but as Baptists make use of it to favor their doc- trine of immersion, it is but right that I should say a few words about it, I refer to Rom. vi. 4, though I would advise you to read the whole chapter, then you will see the argument of the apostle, and discover the true meaning of the text. Samuel. I am very glad you have not for- gotten this text. I heard so much about it at the Baptist Church, that I was forced to believe they regarded it as an unanswerable argument in favor of immersion. I could not, however, persuade myself that the apostle was here speaking of the mode of baptism. CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 135 i I John. There is no doubt but what you are correct. Let us refresh our memories by reading the passage, " Know ye not that so many of us, as ^Vere baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death. There- fore we are buried with him hy baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the gloiy of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Now, as you have just intimated, there is not the slightest reference here to the mode of baptism, and no one but a Baptist would think of ^vater while reading the beautiful and expressive language. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. I shall give my opinion on this passage, though I expect Dr. Carson, a great Baptist, will honor me with a position among those " doctors of divinity " who talk " like mad- men" because they do not speak like Baptists. Is it not quite clear that the apostle means, that when we, professing faith in Christ, are baptized, our old nature, or to use the language of the apostle, " our old man is crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed." What r 136 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. " body " is the apostle here speaking of ? Can any one suppose he is here referring to the material structure we now inhabit — to the " flesh and bones," — and. giving instructions as to what we are to do with it ? The apostle adds in the 8th verse, " Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him ;" and in the 11th verse, " like- wise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin." I think it must certainly be evi- dent to every unprejudiced mind, that the apostle is not attempting to describe the mode of baptism, and to attach such a mean- ing to this language, is to rob it of its glory, by ignoring the glorious objects which the apostle had in view, in portraying the nature and extent of that change wrought in the sinner when he believes in Christ. The apostle is here defending the doctrine of justification by faith from the slanderous assertion that even those who are justified still live in sin. This he does by proving that all such will not " continue in sin ;" that all those who have believed in Christ are "dead" to sin, they are "buried" and the CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 137 " body " of sin remains buried as a dead body. There is no literal dying, or burying, or planting, or crucifixion, about the chapter. The apostle forcibly describes the great doc- trine of justification by faith ; the work of the sanctifying Spirit is beautifully illus- trated, and the blessed consequences of that spiritual change are made apparent in the be lievers' life and conduct You will observe that the apostle here makes use of three fig- ures, "buried," "planted," "crucified;" but Baptists pass over two of these and exalt the other, because their imagination helps them to trace some resemblance between bury- ing a dead body in a grave, and putting a living j^rson under water. I heard a Baptist minister once ask the question, " Would you think one of your friends was buried if some water was sprinkled upon him ?" Certainly not ; our object is not to hury people wlien we baptize them, neither could we bring our- selves to imagine a friend bz.ried if a Baptist minister should plunge him under water for an instant. The apostle is not speaking of burial in water, or with water ; but " we are 9 ' 138 CONVKliSATIONS ON BAPTISM. buried with him (Christ) into deaths " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his deaths How ivater can be brought into this text, as a prominent idea, I cannot possibly under- stand. We are to be " planted together in the likeness of his death ;" we are to be " crucified with him ;" and all this is signified hy baptism. Now, if immersion in water, which the apostle never hints at, is here taught, I cannot find it. I repeat what I have said, that the mode of baptism was evidently not in the apostle's mind, and should not therefore be in ours, when consulting this passage; for the design of the whole chapter is to declare what we have a right to expect as the after consequences, or immediate and continuous results of being " baptized into Jesus Christ.'* As we have therefore declared " hy baptism" (not by the mode of baptism, but " by bap- tism " without any regard whatever to the mode) that we are " dead to sin," and united to Christ ; we must now walk worthy of that profession of faith ; and being made " free 79 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 139 from sill, and become servants to God," we must exhibit lo the world all the marks or evidences of " righteousness" and ''holiness ;" while as a stimulating argument the apostle closes up the chapter with the assurance, tliat if we continue to manifest all througli life what we have declared " by baptism," we shall attain in " the end everlasting life." Samukl. I think you have now fully redeemed your pledge, and satisfied me that immersion is not taught in the Bible, nor sanctioned by the practice of the apostles. Am I to understand that Metliodists hold to these views all over the world ? I have heard that some Methodist ministers l)a])tize by immeraioii ; and 1 distinctly heard the Baptist minister quote Mr. Wesley himself as in favor of immersion. John. It is not for me to answer for the whole Methodist Church "all over the world." All I can say is that the " articles of religion" adopted by Methodists, and wliich they be- lieve the Bible teaches, do not specify any mode of baptism ; they recognize " one bap- tism " just as much as Baptists do, but they 9# 140 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. do not believe that "one baptism" means one nwde of baptism; consequently I suppose Methodist ministers feel at liberty to exer- cise their own conscientious convictions "1, to some extent, may be governed by cir* in- stances and the educational surroundings of candidates for baptism, Methodists do not believe that the "mode is the ordinance." As to Mr. Wesley's opinions, we deny what Baptists assert. In Mr. Wesley's early days, and before the organization of the Methodist Church, he favored immersion ; but I could read you extracts ' from his works wliich would at once settle the question, and e ')- lish what I have asserted, that Mr. A\"fc., .y did not believe immersion to be the only mode of baptism. (Works, vol. vi. p. 13.) Samuel. I have heard of some cases where Baptism could not be administered by a Baptist minister, because the persons desiring baptism could not be immersed. John. There are several serious objections against immersion as the only mode of bap- tism, one of which you have just mentioned. It cannot be questioned, or denied even by CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 141 Baptists, that there are times when immer- sion can not be administered with safety to the health of the candidate. I knew a young person who was converted when very ill and weak, "nigli unto death." The parents believed innnersion to be tlie only allowable mode of baptism. The physicifin in atten- dance, who was a mem])er of the Baptist Church, was consulted, and although he agreed with the parents in their views of baptism, yet he gave it as his decided opinion that his patient could not be immersed with- out risking life. The result was that no baptism was p( ifonned, and the person died unbaptized. I mi not disposed to question the salvation of a person dying under such circumstances; but that is not the only ques- tion such a case presents. Baptism is a divine institution, commanded by God, de- signed to be universally practiced, from which no circumstances or condition should exempt us. Have we, then, any authority to adopt such a mode (without the sanction of scripture) of administering this ordinance, which, of necessity, compels us to refuse it 142 CONVERSATIONS OX BAPTISM. to those who are legitimately entitled to the rite ? I consider the mode of sprinkling more preferahle. as in every instance it could be ad- ministered in a sick-room, or to a dying man, who felt it to he his dut}^ to "fulfil all righte- ousness," and tl^^ts follow the example of Christ. Will Baptists pretend to argue that when a person is near death, they are released from all obligations to do their duty ? and, if not, on what ground have they declined taking all risks, and proving their faith, and zeal, and courage, by lifting a man from his dying bed, and plunging him in a river ? Here, then, the doctrine of immersion, as the only mode of baptism, fails in its practical working; and one instance of failure, accord- ing to their own statements, must prove the wl ole theory useless and unscriptural. Samuel. 1 never thought of looking for arguments apart frojn the Scriptures ; but I now see there are objections to one mode of baptism, for certainly immersion cannot be universally observed, under all circmnstances and in all climates. John. What you have now stated has COXYERSATIOXS ON BAPTISM. 143 been felt to l:)e so serious an objection to immersion, that some who advocate tliis mode as the only mode of baptism, have been forced to confess that it is not adapted to all climates. Here, then, is a serions difficnlty, — if baptism is (what all admit) a divinely appointed ordinance of religion, closely connected with the " gospel " which is to be preached to " every creature." It has been ascertained that not less than eight millions of human beings inhabit the polar and frozen regions. These parts of .tlie world are thus described ])y an able geographer : " In Greenland, Lapland, and tlie coldest countries of this region, brandy and mercury freeze during the winter. The iidial)itants of the coldest parts remain crowded together in small huts. The whole inside of a hut, or ship, is usually lined with ice, formed from the vapor of breath, which must be cut away every uK^rning. If the cold air suddenly enters tlie house, the vapors fall in a shower of snow. Every part of the b(Kly must be covered in going out, or it is instantly frozen. The air, when breathed, i 144 CONVERSATIONS ON BABTISM. seems to pierce, and even rend the hmgs. The Clip often freezes to the lips, if it be touched in drinking. The provisions must be cut with hatchets and saws. Trees, and beams of houses are split by the frost, and rocks are rent with a noise like that of fire- arms." Who would venture to practice im- mersion in such a climate ? The ordinances of Christianity are adapted to universal ap- plication. But if immersion is the only mode of ])aptism, then what obstacles Chris- tian Missionaries will have to encounter ? A former dispensation had its bloody rites and painful sacrifices : these have all passed away, and now we must place our whole attention and faith upon Christ alone, and not on symbols, signs, ceremonies, and modes. I am not charging those who exalt modes and ceremonies beyond what we think they should be, witli losing sight of Christ. I would faithfully warn you that all outward rites and forms are of no avail ; circumcision ghall profit you nothing; baptism cannot render you acceptable in the sight of God ; faith in Christ alone saves. This is the ■ CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 145 grand central truth of the gospel dispensa- tion, and there is great danger if we attach undue importance to any religious ordinance, and especially if we attach too much im- portance to the mere mode of discharging a religious duty ; there is great danger that we lose sight of the idea, beautifully ex- pressed by the author of the "Reformation," " Olirist saves, not the Church." Samuel. I am afraid that Baptists make important and essential what is, after all, a mere form of ceremony, and which the force of circumstances may compel us to deviate from, for who could practice immersion in such a climate as you have just described ? I do not think we ought to be " creatures of circumstances ;" neither can I believe that God would enjoin what cannot be univer- sally practiced. John. I regret very much that Baptists are inclined to perpetuate differences and divisions on the question of a mere mode or ceremony; and that, growing out of this, there is the practice of "close communion." If the Baptist Church had established certain 146 CONVEKSATIONS ON BAPTISM. rules, and adopted a form of cliurcli govern- ment, which led them to decide that their own members alone sliould partake of the ** communion," without expressing tlieir judgment in regard to otlier churches, who does not see that this is another matter en- tirely distinct from the views of those who adopt the policy which Baptists announce? Baptists reject other Christians, because they do not consider them qualiiied for tlie ordinance, and thus 7iot worthy of associating with them at the Lord's table. It may serve to smooth this harsh judgment with some persons, for Baptists to say that there are " good people " outside of their own com- munion ; good people " that rvill get to heaven!' Indeed ! is that possible ! ! How kind and thouglitful ! We are really told there are good people " outside " of the Bap- tist church. Surely, it is not necessary to give the world that information ! Or does such language mean, that unless others were told what is thus announced by Baptists, ilicre ndght be some doubt about the matter, and some might reasonably conclude that I : CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 147 the pradice of tlie Baptist church was so exclusive, that all in it believed that there were no " good people " outside their own denomination ? I liave heard of a person who tried to paint a ship, and when he ac- complished his task he wrote immediately under his painting, " This is a ship." Now, we honestly think that the world will know our character without troubling our Baptist friends to write under a Methodist Chris- tian, " This is a good man, although he has not heen immersed." But all this kind feel- ing, for which we sincerely thank them, will not set aside the naked fact that, "good people " as they say we are, we are denied admittance to the " Lord's Table ;" and more than one instance has occurred where they have been led to apologize for their practice, and excuse their custom, to ministers of other churches, whom they invited to preach in tlieir pulpits, and then at the close of the service were compelled to j)erform the awk- ward task of telling them they could not be admitted to the " Lord's Table." (To their credit be it spoken, some Baptists reject 148 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. " close communion.") Now, all I wish to prove here is this, — Too much importance is attached to a mere mode or ceremony, when such results follow. As well might churches differ in regard to the mode of receiving bread and wine at the Lord's Supper ; and one might say, Unless your members will kneel at the Lord's Table, we cannot have fellowship with them. Another might argue, The Apostles did not kneel, it is evident they sat at supper, and unless you will sit with us we cannot admit you to the Lord's Table. And yet another miglit contend most warmly and loudly, Neither sitting or standing is the true mode : the Apostles evidently reclined, as was the custom of the Jews, and unless you adopt this mode we cannot associate with you. How sad a state of affairs would such useless arguments bring about ! But not mere so than to contend about the mode of baptism, and make that a test by which one Christian will decide whether he will commune with another. I am therefore led to the conclusion that where this is done, too much importance is at- CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 149 tached to a mere mode or ceremony. As an instance of this practice, let me refer to a fact A lady, who was dying, a member of a Christian Church, sent for her pastor and requested the privileo-e of receiving the Lord's Supper. A few pioug friends as- sembled together, everything was in read- iness, Avhen her husband was invited to commune with his dying wife. He at once positively refused, assigning as a reason, that his wife was a Methodist, consequently, in his estimation, un-baptized ; and that he was a Baptist, and could not commune with any one outside of his own church. And he stood hy while his dying loife commem- orated a Saviour's love. If immersion leads to such consequences it is open to objections. ^ Samuel. 1 have heard it stated that Bap- tists will not admit a person who may have been immersed by a Methodist minister to their " communion." Is that true ? John. I believe that is their rule; and their argument to justify it is that the Methodist minister himself was probably not immersed, and therefore could not immerse any other 150 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. person. Thus, it appears, in order to con- stitute a valid baptism we must trace back, to make sure tliat the one wlio immerses has himself "Been immersed. I would like to ask Baptists how far hack must we go to make sure that one Baptism, under such cir- cumstances, was scriptural ? Will a break in the cliain spoil the " succession " of pro- perly qutilitied immersers, and invalidate the ordinance ? If tliey can certainly establish their claim all througli the " dark ages " up to apostolical times, then, will they be kind enough to tell us by wliom were the apostles baptized ? When and where were the " dis- ciples " (" the number of the names was about one hundred and twenty ") — Acts i. 15, 16 — baptized, wdio constituted the first Christian church before the day of Pentecost ? It ap- pears, then, that a valid and scriptural baptism can only be performed by a Baptist minister, and that he only l)aptizes when he immerses the candidate in water; but did it ever strike your mind that Baptist minister's do not immerse the person baptized, for the candidate himself immerses his own person CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 151 in part. Now, if a complete immersion of tlie candidate under water, by one who himself has been immersed, is absolutely required to constitute a valid and scriptural baptism, then where shall we find sucli a baptism ? for Baptist ministers only immerse a certain portion of the candidate for baptism. What part of such a candidate is properly im- mersed; the part of his body which by his own act he immersed, or the remaining portion which a Baptist minister puts under water ? I may be told in the language of one of their strong arguments, this is " nonsense," but I imagine there are those, not " madmen," who will see that what I liave now stated nnist follow, from their own exclusive doctrine of immersion by a Baptist minister. Thus, you see, Baptists assume the position that no other church has a rviht to baptize but themselves, and that Methodist ministers have no right to immerse, because they have not meekly requested some Baptist minister to immerse them, and tluis the whole world is made to depend upon Baptist ministers 152 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. for a true and scriptural sacrament. How very easy it is to bo exalted above measure ? Samuel. I have now consumed so much of your valuable time, I feel that I must tres- pass no longer. I believe that while you have led me to feel more strongly attached to the Methodist Church, and firmly resolved to live and die within her fold, you have not roused any feelings of jealousy or dislike to other denominations. T am now persuaded that our church is both scriptural and reason- able in observing religious ordinances, par- ticularly in relation to the sacrament of Christian baptism. I shall always feel thankful to you for these conversations ; they anested me when I was "almost won" over by the plausible arguments of our Baptist friends ; and had I not been thus providen- tially led to open my mind to you, I might before this have left the church of my fatners, thus grieving my parents, whom I love dearly, and wounding the kind heart of our own minister, who has watched over me with peculiar tenderness, ever since he was the CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. 153 instrument in God's liand of bringing about my conversion. John. My dear Samuel, I am truly thank- ful to God, that, by His grace assisting me, my humble effort has proved of any service in leading you to understand the doctrines of the Bible. I should feel very much grieved if I had awakened in your heart any feeling of hatred to the Baptist Church. I have been compelled to use strong and plain language while we have been conversing together ; but I can assure you that it is not because of any ill-will which I feel to Baptist ministers or members. I certainly must condemn them when they persist in proselyting our members. I must defend our practice when I believe we are acting in accordance with Scripture. I cannot submit to have my baptism ridiculed and denied. It is hard to keep silence when I am plaiidy told that I have not "common sense," or I am a " madman." I am aware that such lan- guage is too frequently heard from both parties in this controversy ; still, I hope that 1 have not been animated by an unchristian 154 CONVERSATIONS ON BAPTISM. spirit in anything which 1 have said to you. In all that indicates true spiritual prosperity, and in the gxeat work of saving souls and converting sinners, I most lieartily pray that Baptists may be honored of God, and that their church may prosper abundantly ; and having said this, I need say no more. I suppose we must now part. I may not see you again for years, as I leavf, next week for our Theological College, where I hope to prepare for the work of the Methodist ministry. Good bye, Samuel, Be a true Christian and we shall meet in heaven. Samuel. Good bye, John. May God Mess you, and make you a useful minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. TOROK T** PRINTED AT THE WK!iljJSYA.N ONFBRI li OFFICB. I you. •erity, s and \f that I tliat ; and re. I Lot see ;ek for Dpe to thodist a true 11. )dMess • of the ICK.