• ( fc , . ^' PRINCETON. N. J. % Presented by M'. S:muel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. ,4^iiru' Coll. on Baptism, No. C^<^^. *" 'SUf ■-■■ Va ^■^ .: :^^r^*6P Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/handbookonchristOOingh A HAND-BOOK CHRISTIAN BAPTISM HAND-BOOK CHEISTIAN BAPTISM A BY K/INGHAM. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO., STATIONERS' HALL COURT. 1865. LEEDS : PRINTED BY JOHN HAMEB, 7, BEIGGATE. PKEEACE. J. A. James. — "If the author had been acquainted with any treatise on the subject, in which the principles here laid down and illustrated had been sufficiently developed, he would have spared himself the trouble of this production." "As the author not only renounces all claim to infalli- bility, but is sorrowfully conscious of liability to error ; and as he is anxious to render this little work as useful as possible, he will be most happy, in case of its coming to a second edition, to avail himself of the hints of his brethren, and the remarks of friendly critics, in order to render it more worthy of public esteem, and more adapted to general usefulness. It is more than probable that on such a subject his views will be opposed by some ; and the moment they are shown to be opposed to the Scriptures, he will abandon them himself, and thank the man who has convinced him of liis error." — Clirts. Fell., pp. v., vi. Dr. Wardlaw. — "Some are disposed to deprecate all such discussions as the one on which I am now entering, under the common designation of unproji table controversy. That it is contro- versy, I admit, that it is unprofitable controversy, I deny" (Inf. Bap., p. 1). "To my friends . . . I would say with affection, but with firmness — the contest is not with persons, but with principles and systems. I have ever delighted in the friendly fellowship of all good men : I shall not be the first to relinquish it : but if it cannot be enjoyed in union with imtrammelled freedom in the dissemination of what I believe to be the truth of God, He who has said, ' Whoso loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,' requires the sacrifice" (Pref. to Ser. on John xviii. 36, p. ii. 1. "Controversy is not a work from which any well-constituted mind should slirink. If it be conducted in the spirit of the Master whom we serve, it is an important and indispensable means of eliciting truth." — Glas. Vol. Ch. Lee, p. 6. Dr. J. Buchanan. — "Many sincere Christians dislike controversy, and, so far from engaging in it themselves, can scarcely allow that others should. An enlarged view of the history of the Chris- tian church might serve to convince such persons." "That error, when it does appear, should be met by a bold re-eshibition of the truth, seems to be one of the first duties which the church owes to her Divine Head."— Di^c. on Nat. Jtcl. Est., pp. 3, 4. J. BUKNET. — "It is more pleasing at any time to harmonize with the great mass of mind around us ; but we think it one of the strongest proofs we call give of our affection and regard for all our feUow-men, to tell them where we think them wrong." — Lee. on Pop. Errors in Ret., p. 88. J. C. L. Cakson, M.D. — "The opinion prevails rather extensively in this generation, that it is the duty of Christians to avoid controversy. This, however, appears to me to be sacrificing truth to peace." — The Heresies, &c., p. 94. D. Fraser. — "If even unimportant differences could be removed, this itself were an end not a little to be desired." — Let. to Bev. C. H. Spurgeon, p. S. Dr. J. CuMMiNG. — "It is right that every one should express his deep and honest convictions in charity." — Sab. Eve. Rea., on Matt. iii. Dr. D. Thomas. — " I believe that the great Father has given to every mind a power to produce a something which no other mind can — to look upon a truth in some aspect, and to invest it with some feature of attraction peculiar to itself. ... To work out rightly this peculiar gift is at once its mission and happiness." — Prog, of Being, p. 16. Dr. J. Parker. — "For the sects, as such, I would not fight for a moment." — Ch. Ques., p. 5. Prof. E. WiLsox. — " Few in the present day, it may be presumed, deprecate all religious discus- sion, however they may regret the necessity for it. As a general rule it may be confidently stated, that as is the spirit in which controversy is conducted, so are its tendencies for good or for evil." "I patronize religious controversy, not becaiise it may occasion a little present disturbance; but as an agency calculated to produce eventually the harmony which is based on sound comprehensive knowledge."— !»/. Bap., p. vii. VI PREFACE. W. WiLBERFORCE. — '' If wliat sliall be stated should to any appear needlessly austere and rigid, the writer must lay in his claim not to be condemned without a fair inquuy whether his state- ments do or do not accord with the language of the Sacred Writings." — Prac. Chris., p. 20. JouN Ely. — "As far as my own library would enable me, I have always verified quotations." — Winter Lee, p. xii. The occasion of this Treatise is the jHiblication of a volume on T/ie Sacraments by an estinialjle, pious, and talented neighbour, the Rev. J. Stacey, at the time sui)erintendent minister in the New Connexion of Methodists at Halifax, and now in that denomination Principal of Ean- moor College, Sheffield. This work, issuing from the Methodist New Connexion Book-room, is written chastely, elegantly, nervously, and in a Christian spirit. The author starting, however, witli the idea that it is inconceivable that Christ should have confined the Christian ordinance to immersion, has at times, as might be expected, expressed himself with sufficient dogmatism. Some of his assertions we conceive to be opposed to truth, discreditable to the Baptists, inconsistent witli themselves, and dishonourable to our glorious Redeemer, Sovereign, and Exemplar. Not long before reading Mr. S.'s work, some attention had been paid to two volumes on the Sacraments by Dr.. Halley, of whose talents and ])iety it would be superfluous to speak, and of whose work on the Sacra- ments a cheap edition had appeared under the auspices of the Congrega- tional Union. Certain statements in these volumes aided the decision to write on this controverted question. These volumes, and others written by eminent P;^dobaptists, have been read and are applauded by Mr. S., who conceives that no writer coming after them would omit to read their works. Whether Mr. S. has read any volume written by a Baptist, is not in evidence. It is possible, if this had been the ca.se, that a few of his expressions would have been omitted or modified. Notwithstanding a conviction of much error in what has been written on baptism by ^Ir. S. and Dr. H., the present writer would not have handled his pen on this subject, if he had l)een acquainted with any work in its spirit and logic deemed suitable for circulation to expose the assuni})tions and correct the errors of these brethren. He had other emi)loyment. Controversy is not his forte or element. But most of the works written by Baptists on this subject are small treatises, or l)amphlets in reply to the work of some Piedobaptist. Although many are excellent as far as they go, they are not so comprehensive as it seemed desirable that some work should be ; and several are out of print. The admirable brief Guide by Mr. Pengilly, is now published at greatly too high a price. The still smaller work on Christian Baptism, by Mr. Wallace, and the one entitled Testimonies of Eniincnt Pado- baptists, are excellent p)il>lications ; but, through their brevity, they PREFACE. Vll omit to expose many assumptions and fallacies which continue to be uttered and printed. We have much admirable logic by Dr. Carson on this subject, but we have it only in fragments, his replies to different opponents being given in succession, the whole making a considerable volume, published with prefixed contents, but without an index to direct us at once to the places where certain truths and axioms are stated, and certain fallacies are exposed. Notwithstanding our high admiration of much that is contained iii this learned work, we conceive that the smaller works by Pencjilly, Wallace, Macallan, and others, are moi-e adapted than this for i;seful circulation among Psedobaptists. '^ A work comprehensive, correct, charitable, and inexpensive, that might be used partially, in accordance with need, as we use a Railway Guide, each looking at the place where his difficulty is noticed, where further infor- mation is obtainable, has ap^ieared to the writer desirable, and adapted for usefulness among Baptists and Psedobajitists. The writer began this treatise with the conviction that an examina- tion and exposure of the errors contained in the works of Dr. Halley and Mr. Stacey would embrace such a reply to other opponents of immersion as would well-nigh exhaust the subject, and these works were noticed with some degree of minuteness. He subsequently deemed it desirable for the greater benefit of all classes of Pjedobaptists to notice certain works of celebrity by Presbytei'ians and Episcopalians, as well as some other Independent and Wesleyan publications. The require- ments of consistency with the view to a pi-actical advance towards a more visible and real union in the now differing sections of the chiirch of Christ, have in this been made more prominent than in any work on baptism with which the author is acquainted. He firmly believes that if Christians of different denominations would cherish a spmt of candour and charity in regard to points of difference, would separate and stand aloof from each other no further than deference to their conscientious convictions of Divine truth demands, and would make themselves familiar with God's Word, occasionally reading each other's sentiments, laying- aside educational and other prepossessions, there would soon be a more thorough conformity to the I'evealed will of God, and a more extensive and glorious exhibition of that oneness among Christians, through which the world would believe that the Father had sent His beloved Son. The earnest wish of the writer is not to augment, but to diminish * From Mr. Noel's work we have made several lengthened extracts. To his Appen- dix in favour of open commnnion some will object. A work on baptism from the esti- mable lecturer on Peace, the P.ev. W. Stokes, which has a counterpart appendix in favour of strict communion, has just issued from the press. viii PREFACE. tlie distance between Christians entertaining different sentiments. Being firm in liis own convictions on Christian baptism, he may frequently liave used language sufficiently strong. He is aware of the ease with which we can applaud candour and charity, and yet sj)eak and write unadvisedly, and even re-peruse what we have, written without discerning our short-comings. In vindicating a sentiment declared to be "inconceivable," and a practice that is supposed to be greatly opposed to "convenience," " delicacy," and " propriety," especially in the refinement of this age and this part of the world, he has deemed it advisable to adduce the recorded concessions of very many Ptedobaptists ; believing that the bulk of Pasdobaptists are unacquainted Avith them, and that both Baptists and Pa^dobaptLsts are not yet as a whole so thoroughly candid that truth and logic will exert the same influence whether coming from Baptist or Ptedobaptist lips, and hoping that these becoming his coadjutors, much more will be established than that Christ's having enjoined immersion is conceivable. In elucidation and confirmation of sonic sentiments. Baptist as well as Piedobaptist writers have been quoted. Tliis may sometimes to some readers appear unnecessary ; and possibly there may be ' ' citations to superfluity." Some of these would have been more lengthened, from a desii'e to do injustice to no author; but to have quoted on all occasions the entire context would have been to print volumes. Some of them would have been less lengthened, had not the aim been "to do justly." All that has been wi-itten he desires to be examined by the infallible test of tnith and error, the Volume in which is revealed the whole of that obedience which God requires from man, the " blest volume" which contains numerous injunctions to forbearance and charity, and which exhorts to stand fast in the Lord, to quit oni'selves like men, and to be strong. " An endeavour to detect error and to establish truth," said a staunch Pa;dobaptist, "is an act of friendship to every member of the body of Christ." An c(iually staunch Baptist has said: "The Word of God is my only standard. It would be much more agreeable to my feelings, and more advantageous to my interest, to write only on such subjects as would meet the approbatioi^ of the great body of Christians. Yet with the full foresight of all the unpopularity that attends opposition to popular errors, I have often come forward to the support of injm-ed truth. It is in itself a grievous thing, that the time and talents of God's people, instead of being wholly employed against the common enemy, for the advancement of the common faith, should be employed PREFACE. IX in opposing each other ; but Avhile error is to be found among them, the thing is unavoidable." The author has written without the bursting fulness or kindled anger of Elihu, and without des^Jondency as to ultimate results. His conviction is that the assumptions and fallacies contained in works advocating infant sprinkling, are capable of exposure, and that an altered feeling and conduct towards believers' immersion will certainly be effected. He is not altogether ignorant of the change which has taken place in England since the time of Wycliffe, and of the difficulties with which the enlightened spirits of Locke and Milton had to contend in maintaining the rights of conscience. He has no doubt that truth is mighty, and that it will so prevail as to put an end to that diversity and opposition of sentiment now existing in regard to a solemn and practical injunction of our Lord and Saviour. And though he expects not to witness this desired consummation, he will be happy if his feeble exertions contribute to the hastening of that state of which inspired Writ assures us, when the watchmen of Zion " shall see eye to eye." For the accomplishment of this he believes that controversy, if enlight- ened and Christian, is not to be deprecated. Preceding and subsequent quotations show that this is the recorded oj^inion of some of the best and wisest of men in all Christian denominations. A hand-book so controversial as this, he admits to be very undesirable. One containing simply facts and directions is to his mind. But in the present state of sentiment and practice, preaching and writing on baptism, the statement of objections made by opponents, Avith an exposure of their futility, he believes to be necessary. The two honoui'ed brethren of the Independent and Methodist New Connexion denominations would have been followed less minutely, had the primary intention been to notice the arguments and assertions of so many others. He anticipates an objection not only to many quotations as unnecessary, but also to the noticing of many objections as being supererogatory, from a conviction that these antiquated objections have with shame been abandoned, and from ignorance to what an extent, publicly and privately, fallacious reasoning and glai-ing assumjDtions on this subject yet prevail. Possibly citations and the repeated reference to the power of prepossessions may be to excess ; but it is impossible to do justice to all without au objection from many in regard to superfluous matter. Almost every part of Holy Writ adduced by any Psedobaptist in favour of infant sprinkling is acknowledged by one Ptedobaptist or another to contain no proof, no valid argument, in favour of the hypothesis. One believes and confesses this in regard to one passage, and another in X TREFACK. regard to another. Tims one rejects reasoning on a certain passage as Avortliless, whilst another attaches such impoi'tance to it that he is ready to stake the Divine authority of liis procedure on that very portion of the inspired record which his learned brother admits to be isolated, irrelevant, and worthless for any proof on behalf of the beloved practice. It is the same in regard to arguments from other sources. But the same positive and unfounded assertions continue to be made, as if in ignorance that the most learned among themselves had admitted their entire irrelevance, complete untenability, and utter worthlessness for the purpose for which they are thus quoted. »Some of the quotations from Baptists would have been less necessary, had the work been written by one of the respected presidents of our colleges. Some sentiments have been uttered in the words of others for the sake of " convenience." This work wo\dd have been less diffuse, more scholarly, and in many respects superior, had it been written by one out of maiiy whose names the writer could mention ; but being the nearest neighbour to one esteemed opponent, and a work on baptism adapted in its spirit and in the extent of its information to the benefit of Psedobaptists of all sections, and to the benefit of some Baptists, being regarded by the writer as desirable, he has considered it his duty to use his best endeavours to supply the supposed deficiency, rather than to wait for or wait upon othei's. Had there been no pastoral and other duties, the work would have proceeded more rapidly; and had there been no tired- ness (jf this logomachy long before the conclusion was reached, and no failure of health — eventually confining the Aviiter long to his bedroom, which he was not expected to leave for further employment on eai-th, ;ind from which affliction perfect recovery is not anticipated — the Treatise might have been more to the approval of some. It is hoj)ed by the writer that all is truthful and jierspicuous, without which qualifications it is desirable no work should ever see the light. It is not meant by this that the writer is sure that no sentiment or argument of his opponent has ever been misapprehended. Not one is knowingly misre- presented. If errors have been made, he will desire to make such correction and reparation as may be in his power. But the discovery and exposure of such incidental errors, if they do exist, he will not rt!gard as a vc\Ay to the facts and arguments of the work. Whilst the writer admits that there may be a just complaint of some j-epetition and of occasional verbosity, he would remind the reader that mme of the repetition has been intentional, as, for instance, the repeated i-eference to the jjutent iutluence of ])rejudice, and the application of PREFACE. XI some recognized principle of interpretation or law of controversy. Tlie statement respecting the burden of proof is required to be repeated!}^ mentioned, that the irrelevancy or wortlilessness of each objection may be apparent, and that the reader who examines not the whole may fully comprehend the portion he peruses. Diffusion and repetition may also have been promoted by the insertion of an occasional thought or extract during the years of illness which have succeeded the first completion of this work. Also they might have been diminished had the author's present health allowed a more thorough and stringent revision along with the re-writing of certain parts, or had he habituated himself earlier to a more concise and nervous mode of uttering his thoughts. Certain expressions would have been more racy, and perhaps to some more efficient, had he not conceived that they would be less Christian. The alteration which has been made in some expressions, he feels assured will not be regretted on a death-bed. It niay be that the softening of other exj^ressions might then be regarded as a virtue, and not a failing. Aware of imperfection in diction, conscious of purity of aim, not "writing at the request of man or to please men, not writing for the sake of a denomination, not thoroughly approving of the appellations Baptist and Pfedobaptist, but desiring in all an increased conformity to the Divine will, and believing in the triithfulness of the sentiments enunciated and advocated, the work, — from tlie publication of which he has often shi'unk through anticipation of pecuniary loss, of mortification from the discovery of mistakes, from the possibly harsh and unjust treatment of certain reviewers, and fi'om the contempt of some who nevertheless must con- tinue to be held in high estimation, — is committed to the Christian public with the believing prayer to God that it may pi'omote an increased knowledge and practice of His holy and gracious will. Whether, if life is spared, the i-emaining portion of his manusci-ipt, referring to the subjects of baptism, will be committed to the press, the writer cannot now say. If such should not be the case, the works on baptism to which he has referred give instruction on the subjects as well as the action of baptism. Had not the author begun to write, he would not now commence ; and had he not felt a strong objection to the performance of works of supererogation, along with a conviction of adaptation to man's good and God's glory in what he has written, he would not have committed this to the press. Svich works as this, for the sake of examining the originals of all works that are quoted, should be written by those who have health and leisure, and who have access to many thousands of volumes, or whose finances enable them to purchase what they please. xii . PREFACE. In partial exculpation of the length to wliich he has gone, he might mention his oavti ignorance, at the time, of having proceeded so far; and the fact that he is defending what an estimable opponent deems it "incredible," yea, "inconceivable," that Christ should ever have com- manded : a practice which is supposed to be perpetuated only because a certain denomination is \inder "the trammels of a party." Although he is not conscious that the Baptist denomination has bowed its neck, wholly or partially, unwillingly or by choice, to any Conference or Association, Synod, Union, or Parliament, to any human jserson or persons, yet it would seem that this denomination is considered to be so carried away by some mortal being or beings, as in effect to have sworn allegiance to the same. May all be preserved from ha"vdng any other "Lord and Master" than "our Lord Jesus Chi'ist," and may "power from on high " attend all endeavoui-s to promote universal homage and praise " imto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever." Vale Parsonage, ToDMORDEN, December, 1864. ^►s^-'pMPESfr f?~ fe:w ^ M^.-- CONTENTS. PAGES Introditctort ........ 1-24 SECTION I. — Baptism a Divine Institution. .... 1 II. — Baptism a New Testament Institution ... 2 III. — Baptism a Permanent IxVStitution . . . . 3-5 IV. — On the Element of Baptism .... 5-7 V. — On Baptism as an Initiatory Ordinance . . . 8-10 VI. — Baptism not a CoNVERTiNa and Saving Ordinance . 10-12 VII. — Baptism a Practical and Probably a Clearly-Eevealed Ordinance . . . . . . . 12-21 VIII. — On Baptism as a Positive Institution, and from this Further Probability of Explicit Eevelation on the Subject ....... 21-24 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. I. — Preparatory and Philological Remarks . . . 25-36 II. — On Evidence from Greek Lexicons . . . 36-42 III. — On Evidence from Greek Writers . . . . 42-69 IV. — On Evidence from Ancient Versions . . . 70-75 V. — On Evidence from the Practice of the Greeks and the Greek Church . . . . . . 75-79 VI. — On Evidence from the Proselyte Baptism of the Jews 80-86 VII. — On Evidence from the Concessions of P^dobaptists . 86-99 VIII. — On Evidence from the Figurative Use of Baptize and Baptism - . . . . . . . 100-103 IX. — On Evidence from Associated "Words . . . 103-107 X. — On Evidence from the Distinct and Wide Difference OF Import Betwixt Immerse, Pour, and Sprinkle . 108-112 XI. — On Evidence from Invariable Adaptation . . 11.3-124 XII. — On Historic Evidence . . . , . . 124-164 1.— From Holy Writ ..... 125, 126 2. — From Aiwstolic Contemporaries and their Immediate Successors . . . . .. 126-128 3. — From the Greeks and the Greek Church . . 128, 129 4. — From Ancient Baptisteries, Ritual Regulations, and Confessions . . . . . . 129-138 5. — From the Acknowledgments of Numerous Paedobap- tists ....... 138-153 6. — From the Concessions of Psedobaptist Historians . 153-160 xiv CONTENTS. SECTION PAGES XIII. — On Evidence from the Futility of all Known Objections 164-554 § 1.— Futility of Pscdobaptist Philological Objections . 1G5-194 § 2. — Futility of Objections from Christ's Baptism of Sufferings ..... 194-199 § 3. — Futility of Objections from the Baptism of the Spirit . . . . .. 199-224 § 4. — Futility of Objections from the Baptism of Israel 224-244 § 5. — Futility of Objections from Burial by and in Bap- tism ...... 244-279 § 6.— Futility of Objections from 1 Peter iii. 20, 21 . . 279-282 § 7. — Futility of 0))jections from Prepositions . . 282-331 ,, „ ,, the Preposition e;; . 283-302 ,, ,, ,, the Preposition eis . 302-315 ,, ,, ,, the Preposition ck . 315-331 § 8. — Futility of Objectiuus from Johu's Baptizing in .-Euon ...... 331-339 § 9. — Futility of Objections from the Multitude Baptized by John . . . . . . 339-355 § 10. — Futility of Objections from Mark vii. 4, 8 ; Luke xi. 38; andHeb. ix. 10 . . . . 355-390 § 11. — Futility of Objections from Christ's Commission . 390-394 § 12. — Futility of Objections from the Baptism of the Three Thousand . . ... 394-414 § 13. — Futility of Objections to the Immersion of the Samaritans ..... 414-421 § 14. — Futility of Objections to the Immersion of the Eunuch . . . . . . 421-423 § 15. — Futility of Objections to the Immersion of Paul . 423-426 § 16. — Futility of Objections to the Immersion of Cornelius 427-432 § 17. — Futility of Objections to the immersion of Lj'dia . 432-435 § 18. — Futility of Objections to the Immersion of the Jailor ...... 435-441 § 19.— Futility of Objections from Eph. iv. 5 . . . 442, 443 § 20.— Futility of Objections from Heb. vi. 2 . .443 § 21.— Futility of Objections from Heb. x. 19-22; Titus iii. 5; Eph. V. 26; aud John iii. 5 . . . 444-446 § 22. — Futility of Objections from Old Testament Pro- phecies ...... 446--i49 § 23. — Futility of Objections from Occasional Impractica- bility. . . . . . . 449-452 § 24. — Futility of 01)jcctions from Supposed Danger . 452-455 § 25. — Futility of Objections from Alleged Indecency . 4.56-466 § 26. — Futility of Objections from Inconvenience and Alleged Inexpediencc . . . . 466-474 § 27. — Futility of Objections from Pi-esumed Moral Ends 474-477 §28. — Futility of Objections from Hosea vi. 6 . . 477-482 § 29. — Futility of Objections from Supposed Substantial Obedience in Sprinkling . . . . 482-485 CONTENTS. XV SECTION PAGES XIII. — On Evidence from the Futility of all Known Objections 164-554 § 30. — Futility of Objectious from Supposed Primitive Exceptions ..... 4SG, 487 § 31. — Futility of the Objection that Sprinkling is not Forbidden . . . . . , 488, 489 •§ 32. — Futility of the Objection from the Stringent Adhe- rence by Baptists to Immersion . . . 489-503 § 33. — Futility of the Objection that Baptism is Circum- stantial and Unhnportant . . /A . . 503-516 § 34. — Futility of Objections from Mark xvi. isf and 1 Cor. i. 14-17 ..... 516-523 § 35. — Futility of the Objection that Baptists allow of Deviations from God's Word . . . 523-526 § 36. — Futility of the Objection from the Aibnission of Women to the Lord's Table § 37. — Futility of Sundry Less Frequent Objections . 1. — On Evidence from the Fathers ..... 2. — On the Washing of a Part for the AVhole . . . . 3. — On One Person Immersing Another .... 4. — On Dipping, Pouring, or Sprinlding a Sign of Cleansing and of Spiritual Blessings . . . . . . 5.^0n Alleged Assumptions by Baptist.s .... 6.— On Dr. Johnson's Definition of Baptize and Baptism 7. — On Evidence from Carved and Painted Representations of Baptism ....... 537, 538 8. — On the Practice of the First Thirteen Hundred Years, as Coming Down to us Through a Popish Cliannel 9. — On the Silence of Scripture, and on the Burden of Proof 10. — On the Fe^vness of the Baptists .... § 38 — Futility of Objectious Relating to the Practice of Immersion rather than to the Meaning of Baptizo 541-554 1. — On Not Being an Anabaptist . . . . 5-11, 5-12 2. — On the Reflection that woiild be cast by Present Immersion on Previous Sentiments and Practice . . . 542 - 545 3. — On the Sufficiency of having Received the Thing Signified by Baptism . . . . 545 - 543 4. — On not Feeling the Conscience to Demand Immcr.sion 548 - 550 5. — On Baptism as not Essential to Salvation . . . . 550 - 553 6. — On a Scriptural Observance of this Ordinance as Adapted under Existing Circumstances to Diminish Usefulness . 553, 554 ADDITA. I. — On the Design of Baptism .... 555-559 II. — On the Utility of Baptism . . . . . 559-566 III. — On the Importance of Baptism .... 566-573 IV. — Some Concluding Kemarks . . . . • 573-584 527, 528 528- -541 52S - 531 531 - 533 533, 534 534 . 534 - 536 53G, 537 538, 539 539, 540 540, 541 XVI CONTENTS, APPENDIX I. PACES An Appeal to Baptists and P^dobaptists on Charity, with Eespect to Strict and Open Communion . . . 585-597 APPENDIX II. An Appeal to P^dobaptists on their Avowed Sentiments as Requiring them to Provide the Pitcher and the Bap- tistery Equally with the Small Font or Basin . 598-611 Index I. — Authors. ...... 612-620 „ II.— Subjects . . . . . . . 621-624 Y^, INTRODUCTORY. M^'V SECTION I. BAPTISM A DIVINE INSTITUTION. J. A. James. — " O God ! I render Thee my sincere and hearty thanks for the sacred Scriptures, that inestimable volume, which is given by Thine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. May I consider Thy Word the only infallible standard of truth ; and turning from all human authority, however I may avail myself of the teaching of uninspired men, may I determine to receive nothing as truth which is not taught here, and every- thing as truth which is taught here. Give me an enlightened understanding, and lead me into a knowledge of Thy will." — Cliris. Fathers I'res., p. 27. Neander. — "We must foUow not the spirit of the age, but the Spirit of God." — His. of Chris. Dogmns, p. 10, Bohn's Edition. Dr. Lkifchild. — "Watch the errors of your times and neighbourhood." — Counsels to Min., p. 48.* That baptism has been enjoined by the highest authority, whatever may be the import of the word, and whoever may be its proper subjects, appears to the writer indisputable, inasmuch as we have the express command, " Go ye, therefore, and teach " (marginal and proper render- ing, Make disciples of) "all nations, baptizing them," &c. (Matt, xxviii. 19.) This command is prefaced by the words, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," ver. 18. We read also in Mark xvi. 15, 16, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." In accoixlance with this law of the kingdom of beaven, on the day of Pentecost, to those who inquired, " Men and brethren, what shall we do"?" Peter replied, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you," &c. Subsequent conduct and instruction recorded in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, prove that baptism, whatever may be its import or advantages, was regarded as having been legisla- tively enacted by the adored Sovereign and Head of the church. Hence Acts ii. 41; viii. 12, 13, 36, 38; ix. 18; x. 47, 48; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 3-5; xxii. 16; Rom. vi. 3, 4; 1 Cor. i. 13-17; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 12; 1 Peter iii. 21. Baptism, therefore, is not indebted for its origin to the decrees of popes or ecclesiastical assemblies, to the whims, vagaries, inventions, or policy of uninspired, designing, or erring men. It is commanded by "the wisdom of God." It should not, therefore, be scorned or despised; nor should it be practically disregarded, unless the intention of God that it should be of temporary continuance, can be proved from His own Word. * The reader will perceive that some of the subsequent prefixes to the various sections of this volume are from Baptist writers, and that many of these prefixed quotations were not intended for baptism by their respective authors, but that they are here adduced because of their appropriateness and importance. B ^ NATURE OF BAPTISM. SECTION II. BAPTISM A NEW TESTAMENT INSTITUTION. Prof. Wilson.— "AVe may safely take little interest in the mere contest of party — the battle of man against man, Pjedobai)tist again.st anti-Pa-dobaptist ; but in the noble strife of solid facts and sound reasonings it should be our ambition to come off victorious. Christians must not despise the value any more than ' the day of small tilings.' "—Inf. Bap., pp. 68-70. Bp. Butler. — " Many persons, from different causes, never exercise their judgment upon what comes before them, in the way of determining whether it be conclu-sive, and holds. They are perhaps entertained with some things, not so much with others ; they like and they dislike ; but whether that which is proposed to be made out be really made out or not — whether a matter be stated according to the real truth of the case, seems to the generality of people merely a circum- stance of no consideration at all." — Pref. to Ser. Christian baptism is not an institution of Abraham, or of the inspi- red legislator, Moses, or of the Old Testament. It is an institntion of the New Testament, of the Christian dispensation, being enjoined by Christ on His disciples. John's baptism undoubtedly bore a gi-eat re.semblance to Christian baptism. ** John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Chi-ist Jesus." And the evangelist Mark, speaking first of John the Baptist, uses these words, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." The distinction between John's baptism and that enjoined by Christ, need not by us now be defined. Christian baptism is an ordinance of which we read, from the inspired wn-itings, only in the New Testanient. We learn fi-om the Old Testament that there were instances in which it was the duty of one person to wash another (Ex. xxix. 4; xl. 12; Lev. Aoii. 6). Whatever resemblance there might be in this to Christian baptism, we draw hence no arguments; we deem all inferences from this to be unnecessary, if not iiTelevant. We also read of the washing or batliing of the unclean (Lev. xiv. 8, 9; xv. 5-8, 10, 11, 13, &c.; xvi. 26, 28; xvii. 15, IG; Num. xix. 7, 8). These passages are adduced simply to shew that a bathing of the person was one of the required purifications under the law of Mo.ses. The po\u"ing of water on a person, by himself or by any fellow- creature, Is not mentioned In the Old Testament, except m reference to Elisha, who "poured water on the hands of Elijah." The sprmklmg of water, immixed with anything else, upon any person, by himself or by his fellow-man, is a circumstance not mentioned m the Old Testament. The pouring of oil on certain persons, and the sprinkling of blood, and of water mixed %vith ashes, and of water mixed with blood, are named (Num. vlu. and xix;* Lev. xiv. 5-7). God promised to pour out His Spirit, Prov. i. 23 ; Joel ii. 28, 29 : and In Isaiah xliv. 3, it is promised, " I will pour water upon him that is thu-sty, and floods upon the dry ground." Also in Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, is the prediction, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all yoiu- filthin(!ss, and frr)m all your idols, will I cleanse you." These last are not records of what man has done, or has been enjoined to do, but of what a faithful God graciously promised. OLSHArsEN.— " The .symbolical signification of the rite of baptism was so intelli- gible, that as soon as the Jews saw John practise it, they understood what he meant by it. Accordingly, this passage can afford no proof that baptism (in its distinction from mere lustration) was known before John and (Jhrist."— Com. on John i. 26, 27. • The water of puiifying refenod to in Num. viii. 7, was mingled with the ashes of the PERMANENCE OF BAPTISM. 3 SECTION III. BAPTISM A PERMANENT INSTITUTION. John the Apostle. — "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits." — 1st Epistle, iv. 1. Dr. Guthrie. — "I would not disparage outward ordinances and forms. They are valuable in their own place and for their own purposes ; frames, as they are, to set the picture in . . . caskets for truth's jewels." — Christ and the Ink., &c., p. 280. F. Clowes. — "Our blessed Lord, in founding this spiritual church or dispensation, yet saw it good to institiite two ceremonies — Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Surely He would have made it wholly spiritual had He not had some important reason for adding these two ceremonies. " — Imp. of Right Views, p. 5. Dr. J. Burns. — "I believe that to unlearn what has been taught us in the schools of human theology is exceedingly difficult." " The truth is the golden treasure, and however, and wherever, or from whomsoever it is obtained, it wUl enrich and bless the possessor." — G. B. R., p. 175. 1838. C. Stovel. — "It would be well to bear in mind, that great ingenuity is not so important in ascertaining the import of God's holy Word as prayerful attention, childUke simplicity, and an honest heart, with whatever state of feeling may commend us to the eternal teaching Spirit." — Bap. Rcc, p. 231. Dr. Wakdlaw. — "It is kind in that God who 'knoweth our frame,' not only to give us His Word, but to embody, as it were, that Word to om senses, to confirm it to our faith, and to im- press it upon our memories and hearts, by significant outward institutions." — Inf. Bap., p. 165. The perpetuity of baptism is believed to be tlie intention of the Di^Tne miiid ; — 1. Because baptism is an institution of the New Covenant. Although the Christian, compared with the JeAvish dispensation, is not distinguished by ritual observances, it is clear that two simple services, which are of this character, have received the highest sanction of Christ and His apostles. Bajjtism is the putting on of Christ; the profession of Chris- tianity, not of Judaism. 2. There is in the New Testament no intimation of baptism being a local rite, or temporaiy institute; of its Limitation to any period, or of its restriction to Je%vish or Gentile believers. " Go ye, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizmg them." " He that believeth," &c. 3. A Divine law can only be repealed by Di\'ine autliority. We are not acquainted with any intunation iu God's book of the repeal of the law of Christian baptism. We admit that the apostles on the day of Pentecost were enlightened far beyond what they had previously been, and that they afterwards became more extensively acquainted with God's merciful purposes in regard to the Gentiles; yet since there is not the least intimation of apostolic mistake when they, filled with the Spirit, taught, "Repent, and be baptized," or of the temporary character of this institution, we deem it unauthorized and dangerous to lay aside what is Divinely and so clearly enjoined. If without authority fi'om heaven we abolish one commandment, how can we consistently enforce any 1 Shall we mutilate that which is Divinely finished, and absolutely perfect 1 4. The perpetuity of baptism is implied in the commission and the annexed promise, "Go ye," &c., "And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Or if it is preferred, the conclusion of this state. The same words occur in Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49 ; xxiv. 3.) The promise being given in connexion with the commands to disciple, to baptize, and to teach, baptism is a link in this chain of requirements, obligatory for the length of time embraced in the cheering promise. Remove this link, red heifer. To this water of expiation, the preparation of which is descrihed in Niim. xix., allusion is made, as we believe, in Eze. xxxvi. 25. (See Hengst.'s Christol., vol. iii., p. 48, Clark's Edition. ) 4 NATURE OF BArXlSM. and the ckaiii Ls broken. The dnty of making clisciplca, and of teaching these disciple.s all things whatsoever Chiist has couunanded, has not a more solemn injunction, a higher sanction, or a more lengthened obliga- tion, than the duty of baptizing. We have here " not separate and inde- pendent laws, but consecutive clauses of one law." 5. The piu'poses of baptism are the same in nature and importance at all places, and throughout all ages. Baptism, according to the reasoning of au inspired teacher, is a powerful motive to holiness of conduct : — " How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein 1 Know ye aiot, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- tized into His death 1 Therefore we are buried with Him. by baptism into death ; that like as Chiist was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism also indicates among Christians the sameness of relation to God (Gal. iii. 26-28). 6. Baptism is associated with the most impoi-tant doctrines, duties, and privileges of the Gospel ; with the doctrine of the Trinity ; with preach- ing and belie \-ing the Gospel ; with the fulfilment of all righteousness ; and along with faith, with the promise of salvation : Matt, xx^dii. 19 ; iii. 15; Mark xvi. 1 G ; ^vith the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ; with the believer's dying luito sin and living unto God ; and with the })utting on of Christ, Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; Gal. iii. 27 ; with the fact of there bemg " one body, and one spirit," " one hope," " one Lord, one faith," " one God and Father of all," Eph. iv. 4-6 ; associated with reiDcntance, it is connected with the I'emissiou of sins, Acts ii. 38 ; and with salva- tion, when it is " the answer of a good conscience towai'ds God," 1 Pet. iii. 21. What is tliere that is temporaiy^ or local in preaching and believing the Gospel 1 in teaching and obeying what Chi'ist has commanded 1 in the duty and privilege of d}ing unto sin, and of putting on Christ 1 Where is it recorded or intimated respecting any of' the doctrines, duties, and privileges referred to, that primitive Chiistians alone weie interested in them 1 Is it less imporiant now to confess Christ, and to be separated from the world, than it was in apostolic times 1 Is baptism in any res- jiect less significant, imjiressivc, or appro])riate 1 Can Divine laws become obsolete without any intimation of this from the Divine lawgiver ] Wc admit that the spirituality of the Clnistian dispensation is declared by our Saviour, when He says, " The hour cometh, and now is, when tlie titie worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John iv. 23); and by the apostle Paul, when he wrote, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Kom. xiv. 17) : but that these militate not against the existence and couthmance of baptism, we maintain, because tlie same chaptei- wliich records the testimony of Christ to the spiri- tuality of the worship wdiich God requu-es, relates the fact " that Jesus made and" (by means of His disciples) "baptked more disciples than John" (John iv. 1, 2); and years after this utterance of the Saviour, He gave the solemn ijijunction to His apostles, to go and discijile all nations, baptizing them, Arc. The existence of the simple, symbolic, and signifi- cant rite of baptism, cannot militate against the spiritual worship which ELEMENT OF BAPTISM. 0 God requires. Also, the language of Paul is in the same epistle in wliicli he speaks of the momentous truths and duties which arc sjnnboli^ed in Christian baptism (Rom. vi. 1—6). Assui'edly he did not in the latter paii. of the epistle contradict what he had assei-ted in the former part, nor adduce an argument or fact in condemnation of his own practice in bap- tizing at Philippi, &c., and in breaking bread at Troas ; and in condem- nation of Christ's injunction, and of apostolic teaching and practice, so far as we can judge, from first to last. If baptism is obsolete on account of its ritual character, the Lord's Supper must necessarily be the same. " If for wise reasons God appointed in the Jewish church a number of magnificent, though burdensome ceremonies ; for reasons equally wise, He may have ordained in the Christian church, a few of a simpler cha- racter. If in regard to the infirmities of the Jews, as 'the Friends' assert, many ceremonial observances were ordained in the ancient church, for aught they know, there may be infirmities so inherent in human nature, or so generally prevalent, as to render a few simple forms desir- able, if not absolutely necessary, for the great majority in every age of the world."" Our Saviour at His baptism did not say, It becometh mp. to be baptized; but, "thus it becometh us to fulfil all nghteousness.'" That water baptism is not superseded by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, will be shortly noticed. The Scriptures are equally as silent on any change of baptism as on its discontinuance ; and the same authority is needed for one as for the other. SECTION IV. ON THE ELEMENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. CHtTRCH OF England. — "Holy Scripture containeth all tilings necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith." — Art. vi. J. C. Ryle. — " I know I can say nothing which has not been better said by better men than my- self : but every additional witness may be of use in a disputed cause." — Home Truths, p. C8. Bp. Butler. — "A subject may be treated in a manner which all along siipposes the reader acquainted with what has been said upon it, both by ancient and modern virriters, and with what is the present state of opinion in the world concerning such subject." — Pref. to Ser. The Scriptural element of Christian baptism, of that baptism wliich Christ has commanded us to administer to, and to receive from one another, we maintain, is water. In vindication of this sentiment, let the following be considered : — 1. That Jolm's baptism was a baptism with, or in water, is indisputable. " And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins " (Matt. iii. 6). "I indeed baptize you with (inf) water" (11 v.). "And Jestis, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of (from) the water" (.16 v.). 2. We read of Christ's baptizing (that is, by means of His disciples) * Dr. Halley's Cong. Lee, vol. x., p. 59, Cheap Series. Subsequent quotations from the Congregational Lectures are from this series, and those from Dr. Halley are from vol. x., unless otherwise specified. + Literally and properly in. not with; as will hereafter be sho^vn. C) NATURE OF BAPTISM. at the very time when John was baptizing, without any intimation that Christ baptized in or with any other element than that in which John bajjtized (John iv. 1, 2). 3. We find Christ commanding His disciples, some of whom had been John's disciples, to administer baptism in (into*) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; a command in which the element is not named, but which it appears to us, must, in the cir- cumstances of Christ and of the apostles, have been understood to mean baptism in or with toater. We are far from saying that from this pas- sage alone it could be proved that water is the element of Christian baptism : but consider it iia connexion with the practice of John, as previously recorded ; with the conduct of Jesus, rn being baptized by John in Jordan; and with the pre\aous practice of Christ's disciples under His sanction, and we conceive that His command would necessai'ily be understood by His disciples to mean, that they were to baptize in or by the element previously used, into the name of the Father, &c. 4. Water is expressly mentioned as the element with which, or in which baptism by the apostles, or under theii- sanction, was adminis- tered. In this is proof of the light in which the apostles understood their commission. "See, here is ivater ; what doth hinder me to be bap- tized ? . . . . And they went down both into the tvater, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the tvater," tfec. (Acts viii. 36, 38, 39.) "Can any man," said Peter, " forl)id water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we V (x. 47.) 5. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is invariably ascribed to Chris" alone. " I indeed have baptized you with (in) water, but He shall bap- tize you Avith (in) the Holy Ghost" (Mark i. 5). "He that sent me to baptize with (in) water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou .shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with (in) the Holy Ghost " (John i. 33). The baptism which Jesus has commanded, is to be administered by His disciples, not by Himself. " Go ye, therefore, and disciple all naticms, baptizing them," &c. (Matt, xxviii. 19.) Hence the record that Philip, not the Lord, baptized the eumich. Hence Peter " commanded them (that is, Corne- lius and them that were with him, 24 v.) to be baptized in the name of the Lord " (Acts x. 48). We are not reflecting on baptism in the Spirit, or on baptism in water, as though either was of insignificant moment ; we are simply sta- ting a Scriptural distinction between the two, and the fact of Jesus having enjoined the latter. The former, ever administered by Himself, appears to have been innnediately and invariably followed by the posses- sion of miraculous gifts. See Acts ii. 2-4, and x. 44-46, compared ynth. xi. 15-17. If this view of the baptism of the Spirit is correct, it is altogether distinct and diflferent from yielding to the Spirit ; from being renewed by the Spirit ; from having the Spirit to dwell wnthin us, so that our bodies are the temple of the Spirit, and from being filled wdth the Spirit. To our being renewed by the Spirit, having the indwelling of * Liteially and i»roperly into, not in ; as will bo subsequently evinced. ELEMENT OF BAPTISM. 7 the Spirit, and being filled with the Spii'it, we attach the highest impor- tance, but do not feel authorized from God's Word to denominate these a hajitism of the Sjnrit. We do not say that it is sinful thus to desig- nate the renewing operations of the Spirit, and the abundant possession of His divine influences ; but it tends, as we think, in some degree, to confusion and misunderstanding on the subject of Christian and Scrip- tural baptism. To administer the baptism of the Spirit, no human or angelic being is competent. It is the sole prerogative of Him who in the beginning was with God, and was God. The baptism enjoined by Christ, and to be administered by Christians, we believe to be meant, when Peter said, " Repent, and be baptized," &c. (Acts ii. 38) ; also in all the baptisms subsequently mentioned, excepting that of Cornelius, and his kinsmen and near friends, mentioned in Acts x. 44-46 ; xi. 15-17, which pex'sons were afterwards baptized in water by the dii'ection of Peter, and in accoi'dance with the command which Christ had previously given. This baptism enjoined by Christ, and administex'ed by Christians, we believe to be referred to in Rom. vi. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xv. 29; Col. ii. 12; and 1 Pet. iii. 21, also in Eph. iv. 5 ; and 1 Cor. xii. 13, where we read, " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." By or in one Spirit, that is, through the operation, under the guidance, and in the possession of one Spirit, are we all by baptism introduced into one body, the church of Christ.* " One Lord, one faith, one baptism " (Eph. iv. 5). We do not believe that the baptism of the Spirit is here meant, fi^oni the fact that baptism in or by water was the instituted and ■well-known ordinance of the church of Christ, and that the divine Spirit had been mentioned in the immediately preceding verse; also because water baptism commanded by Christ, and practised and enjoined by the apostles, must now have ceased, if the apostle here refers to the baptism of the Spii'it ; or there must have been two baptisms ; or the apostle must have been guilty of an omission, nay, of a mis-statement, in sa}T.ng that there was " one baptism, "f This view of the import of inspired language, which appears to us unambiguous, and to be peremptorily required, we regard as consonant with every reference to baptism in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, the baptism of the Spirit being confined to those cases in which it is expressly thus designated. We shall only add our regret that the estimable body of Christians, called " Friends," along with some of other denominations, do not see from Acts x. 44-48, and from other passages where baptism is mentioned, that the baptism of the Spirit, when it pleased our exalted Redeemer to grant it, did not supersede that of water baptism, to which He had submitted, and which He had so solemnly enjoined. * Dr. Bloomfield. — " Eai gar en eni Pn., d-c, render, 'For through (the operation of) one Spirit we all have been baptized into (or unto) one body,' i.e., so as to form one body." — Gi: Tes., on 1 Cor. xii. 13. Dr. DoDDRrooE. — "For by, and according to the operation of one Spirit, we Christians are all baptized into one body" {Par. on 1 Cor. xii. 13). So we read that Simeon "came (en to pneumati) by the Spirit into the temple." Lukeii. 27. + Dr. Leif child, in a sermon on Eph. iv. 4^6, says, "We have here five points presented to us by the apostle, of great importance ; in which all Christians are agreed " {Disc. p. 346). But, in accordance with some, and in opposition to others, and as we think to all the candid, he says, " One baptism, — We prefer to consider this as the baptism of the Spirit ; the sign being put for the thing signified" (p. 349). See Drs. Doddridge, &c., in opposition to Dr. Leifchild. 8 NATURE OF BAPTISM. SECTION V. ON BAPTISM AS AN INITIATOEY ORDINANCE. J. A. .James.— "Only let us unsting controversy ; only let us speak the truth in love ; only let us controvert as brethren, and not as enemies ; only let us contend for truth, not for victory : only let us carry on our controversy about minor matters, with a recollection that we are agreed on greater ones ; . . . only let us argue and expostulate as we should with a brother we most tenderly loved, about something he held which we thought was doing him harm — and then we may be as zealous as we please about church government." — Church in Ear., pp 153, 154. Webster and Wilkinson. — "The Sacrament of baptism. . as being the initiatory rite of disciple jhip." — Or. I'es. on Ti. 3, 5. Dr. HALLT.y. — "I consider baptism t6 be the initiatory rite, and the Lord's Supper the com- memorative institution, of the Christian church." — C'mig. Lee, p. 6. " Baptism, as the sign of discipleship," says Dr. Halley, " was, in the first instance, enjoined upon every proselyte." " Our Lord instituted baptism," says Ai-chb. Newcome, "as a perpetual rite of initiation into HLs church." "Baptism," says Richard Watson, "was expressly made the initiatory rite by which believers of all nations were to be introduced into the church and covenant of grace. Baptism is an initiation into, and acceptance of the covenant of grace required of us by Christ as a visible expression and acceptance of that faith in Him which He has made a condition of that salvation." " Baptism is the grand initiatory act by wliich we enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual ble.ssings, and to take upon ourselves all its obligations." "From its very office as the rife 0/ initiation into the general cotnmuniti/ 0/ believers," says Mr. Stacey, "baptism must be regarded as an a)'pro2:)iiate, not to say indispensable, condition of participation in the Lord's Supper."* Mr. Arthur styles baptism " the badge of citizenship."t Without conced- ing all the effects and advantages claimed for baptism by our Psedobaptist friends, remembering that without holiness " no man shall see the Lord ;" that by "love one to another" shall disciples of Christ be known ; and that "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," we may yet admit and maintain that Scriptural baptism is an initiatory ordinance. The records respecting John's baptism teach that it might be called Initiator)/, because he preached, " saying. Repent for the kingdom of hea- ven is at hand ;" he "baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus ;" and they " were baptized of him in Jor- dan, confessing their sins." Even the baptism of our Lord, although an exception to the rest. He being without sin, &c., was His initiation into His public labours as "a Teacher come from God." But our concern being with what may most appropriately be designated Christian bap- tism, we assign a few reasons for regarding it as being by Divine ajipoint- ment at the commencement of a new life, and new relationship. When we speak of baptism as initiatory, we do not mean that it jn-eceded repentance and faith, or that it was in itself I'cgenerating, but that it was the first act required of the professing recijtient of the Gospel, the act in which, by Divine appointment, he signified his feith in Jesus and • The SncramenU, pp. 92, 93. Subsequent references to Mr. S. are to this work, unle.Hs otherwise exnrcs.<;ed. t The Tongue 0/ Fire, p. 9. BAPTISM AN INITIATORY ACT. 9 devoteduess to Him, and by which he was introduced, where Christians existed, into their society and privileges. In many instances, in the beginning of Christianity, it coxild not introduce into any particular church. But we believe that eveiy baptized person professed by bap- tism discipleship to Christ, and was acknowledged as a disciple of Christ, until, in exceptional cases, hypocrisy, inconsistency, or apostacy, being subsequently apparent, demanded another cour.se. 1. The language of Jesus to Nicoderaus we consider as describing the state of things under the Christian dispensation, and as teaching the initiatory character of baptism. "Yerily, verily, I say unto thee, ex- cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John iii. 5). We believe that being "born of water" refers to baptism, the law of the Christian dispensation being, that all be admitted into the church of Christ on earth, through water ; in other words, that the external opei'ation, inti'oducing into the visible kingdom of Christ on earth, be baptism ; and that the intex-nal operation, without which there can be no admission into the kingdom of glory, and without which there is no meetness for, or authority to enter into, the church of Christ on earth, is being born of the Spirit. On this passage our Wes- leyan brother Mr. Stacey, says, " To obtain admission into this kingdom the New Birth is requii'ed, and this is efiected by the twofold operation of the Si:)irit and of water, — by the Spirit, as to its substance, by water, as to its sign ; by the one as to its inward reality ; by the other as to its outward profession. It is as if the Redeemer had said, — a man can enter the kingdom of God formally only as he is initiated by baptism, and really only as he is purified by the Spirit. He is saved, as the apostle otherwise expresses it, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (pp. 76, 77). Thus our Independent bro- ther Dr. Halley, on the same Scripture says, " Unless he become a pro- selyte by baptism, he is not, ostensibly and as entitled to its external privileges, a member of that kingdom ; unless he become a convert by the Spirit, he is not, really and as entitled to its everlasting rewards, a member of that kingdom. To be completely a member of Chi'ist's kingdom, both acknowledged by the church, and approved of God, he must be both a baptized and a converted man" (p. 119). A similar view of the import of this passage is given by the Episcopalians Scott and Sumner, and by the Presbyterian Barnes, as well as by others. 2. The initiatory character of baptism appears from the commission solemnly given by the Saviour shortly before His ascension. This com- mission included three things enjoined upon the apostles, namely, to disciple* to baptize, and to teach'V the observance of all the will of Christ. * The original word, matheteuo, includes or implies the conmumicating of instruc- tion necessary to make disciples, which instruction must refer to the need of a Saviour, and to the iierson, character, and claims of the adorable Jesus. •Y The word didasko is properly rendered to teach. It embraces instruction con- cerning all tliat Christ has commanded, and all tlie obligations of His disciples to their Teacher, Lord, and Saviour. In imitation of Dr. Carson, and many others, the quotations from Greek, Hebrew, and Oi-iental languages, are given in Roman characters. We now deem it much prefer- able that such a barbarous appearance of these words should have been avoided, but adherence to the original plan is necessitated by a regard to time and expense. 10 NATURE OF BAPTISM. The first duty in the order of the three mentioned, is to make disciples, Tlie duty next mentioned is that of baptizing ; and the last-mentioned duty is that of teaching to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. We are aware that some who believe with us in the initiatory character of baptism, deny that we receive any instruction from the order in which duties are mentioned in this commission. We do not wonder at this, believing that a regard to order in the instruction of the Saviour would prove immediately fatal to the baptizing of infants. When we speak of the subjects of baptism, this objection may be noticed. 3. That baptism is, according to the Scrijitures, an initiatory ordi- nance, introducing into the church of Christ, or Christ's visible kingdom on earth, is confirmed by the record of the apostle Peter's instructions on the day of Pentecost, and of the j^ractical regard paid to the same. Peter bade the inquiring Jews, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of" them ; after which we shortly read, " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts ii. 41). 4. Every subsequent reference to baptism, in Holy Wiit, confirms this view of it as an initiatory ordinance. Hence, in Acts ■snii. 12, we read, " But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." It is a natural inference from the record res- pecting Lydia and her household {xvi. 14, 15); and is indisputably evident I'especting the jailor and all his (32, 33). It is again corrobora- ted in Acts xviii. 8 : " And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Loi'd with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized." Some of the truths implied, or figuratively represented in baptism, are exchisively or especially appro- piiate to the beginning of the Christian life. How ap[)ropriate at this time is the declaration of a belief in Christ's death, burial, and resurrec- tion ; and of a death unto sin on oiir part ! How ap2?ropriate the burial with Christ, and the rising uj) to walk in newness of life ! (Rom. vi. 2-G.) If a person has ignorantly or sinfully neglected baptism in the commencement of his Christian career, we do not recommend the con- tinued neglect of it, because it has not been attended to at the jii-oper time. Tlie piitting on of Christ is without doubt most approjiriate at the time of our becoming Christians (Gal. iii. 27). Every precept in regard to baptism, every record of its observance, and every reference to it in the volume of inspiration, fixvour the conclusion that it is an ordi- nance that should be observed at the beginning of the spii'itual, the new, the Christian life. SECTION VI. BAPTISM NOT A CONVERTING AND SAVING ORDINANCE. Dr. J. MoRisoN.— "A more fatal mistake there cannot be, than to attribute to baptism that change, of wliich it is only tlie appointed sign in the Christian church. It is lamentable, beyond expression, that professcil Pnitestants should require to be combated with tlie same weapons pre- cisely as tl)ose employed against the worst errors of Komanism. But so it must be, while the BAPTISM NOT CONVERTING AND SAVING. 11 pestilence of Roman heresy lurks within the precincts of a reformed church. As the outward sign of inward cleansing by the grace and Spirit of Christ, baptism is a most significant and instructive ordinance ; but those who would confound, or even identify it with the renewing of the Holy Ghost, have quitted the doctrine of the apostle, and substituted in its place a mere human invention. It is one thing to affirm that Christ has enjoined baptism as an initiatory rite of His kingdom : it is quite another thing, and an error of the most formidable dimensions, to assert that all bajstized persons are born of the Spirit." — Horn, for the Times, pp. 205, 328, 329, 342, 343. J. Staoev. — "The authority of men, though learned and pious, is worthless, when set against the autliority of God ; and tradition valuable in its own subordinate sphere, becomes unmixedly pernicious when employed to propound a doctrine, or establish an ordinance." — The Sfw., p. 17. We regai'd baptism as a solemn and signiticaut profession of disciple- ship to Jesus, as the divinely-appointed way of entrance into the body of Christ ; and we repudiate scornful remarks or erroneous ideas in re- gax'd to its insignificance. But we do not regard baptism as an act by which we become new creatures in Christ Jesus and heirs of everlasting life. We believe that faith, according to the Scriptui-es, is a pre-requi- site to baptism ; that we ai'e "justified by faith ;" that we "are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;" and that our views of the necessity of faith unto Scriptural baptism, whilst opposed by no part of Holy Writ, are affirmed or corroborated by every inspired precept and precedent. Should it be objected that we do not require faith, but the profession of faith, because we do not, and cannot, search the heart, it may be replied that the fault is in the unbeliever, when the profession of faith without the possession is made in his baptism, and the administra- tor has no evidence of his insincerity. The Scriptures, which, as we think, teach the necessity of faith to baptism and the Lord's Supper, no more require that the administrator of baptism should know the heart, than that churches should know the hearts of those whom they admit to membership and the Lord's Supjier. The great commission does not to us appear ambiguous in regard to the duty of baptizing disciples. " Go ye, therefore, disciple all the nations, baptizing them," &c. If a doubt should enter, another record is suffi- cient for its expulsion : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Apostolic injunctions and sub- sequent practice, as recorded in the inspired volume, perfectly coincide with our sentiments, that discipleship is the pre-requisite to baptism, and is professed in baptism. Hence, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you. . . . Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." " Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. . . . When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they were baptized, both men and women." Enlargement on this subject would be more appro- priate if we were writing on the subjects of Christian baptism. Suffi- cient has been written to show how far we differ from the following extracts : — .. ' ' Sin, wliether contracted by birth from our first parents, or committed of our- selves, by the admirable virtue of this sacrament, is remitted and pardoned ; by baptism we are joined and knit to Christ as members to the head ; by baptism we are signed with a character whicli can never be blotted out of our souls ; it opens to every one of lis the gate of heaven."* "Baptism, wherein I was made a mem- * Cat. of the Coun. of Trent. 12 NATURE OF BAPTISM. Ler of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kmgdom of lieaveu. "• ' ' The Gospel contains not only a doctrine, but a covenant ; and by baptism we arc brought into that covenant. "+ "Was I l)aptized in infancy? Then have I an additional incentive to gratitude; for from that early period has pardon of sin, free salvation, eternal life, with every new covenant blessing, been sealed to me. "J "The disciples were to be made by baptism, not made and titen baptized. "|| How decidedly opposed all these are to the inspired Word respecting the Great Teacher, tliat He " made and baptized " disciples ! We refuse to baptize all unconscious babes ; nor do we, according to high recommendation amongst Dissenting Psedobaptists, administer the ■ oi-diuancc indiscriminately to those who ask for it. We regard not baptism as a means by whicli grace and salvation are enjoyed, but as a personal profession of faith in Christ and dedication to Him ; which, according with God's directions, and symbolizing important truths, will be honoui'ed with God's piesence and blessing ; and the justified and obedient believer will go "on his way rejoicing." SECTION YTL. BAPTLSM A PRACTICAL AND CLEAELY REVEALED ORDINANCE. Dr. L. WooDa. — "The Bible is sufficiently plain to those who search it with simplicity of faith and with minds untainted with philosophy and science, falsely so called. Hold fast and inculcate those precious truths, which are written, as witli a sunbeam, in the Holy Scriptures, and which are plain to those whom Christ calls 'babes,' though contrary to the 'reasoning of the wise and the prudent.'" — Wvrks, vol. i., i)p. 7, 8. Dr. A. Keith. — "A coloured medium imparts its own tinge to the light of heaven, and to every object on which it rests. Pieces of variedly stained glass, if but large enough to cover the eye when jdaced before it, change the whole aspect of nature, and each, according to its own, gives it a false and varied hue. The discordant testimony of men viewing the same objects, while look- ing only thus, might well lead others to question tlie reality of things, and to doubt whether there be any light at all in which they can be triily seen. But let such tainted things be thrown away, and every eye be ojien ai'.d imshaded, and tlien, in the right use of the sense of sight, every object be.ars witness of itself alike to all, and things are seen as they really are, and as God made the light to shew them, and the eye to look on them So it is with the word of nature's God, when looked at in unveiled and unshaded vision with the eye of faith. It cannot be seen aright in the coloured glasses, formed by art and man's device, of which each person or party would choose his own adjunctory invention or favoui-ite hue." Dr. J. P. Smith. — "The reader will iierccive that numeroiis citations are introduced. For this no ai)ology is requisite ; and, indeed, so richly interesting are the most of these passages, that it would be a wrong to the subject, and to the reader, to have withheld them " — Comj. Lee, p. 9. S W. Clayton. — "Nor will he consider as disparaging, the charge that 'others have laboured, and he has entered ' into their labours." — Rui: Vim:, p. 7. Archbp. "WiiATKLY. — "I have freely availed myself of whatever remarks or illustrations I have chanced to meet witli in various authors, that appeared suitable to my purpose." — JEssays, p. 21. 7th Ed. In giving utterance to a conviction of the clearness of Divine Revelation as a whole, and especially of its freedom from obscui-ity in the preceptive portion thereof, it is hoped that none will charge us with assuming an air of infallibility or of self-importance, or a dictatorial and authoritative position. The sentiment recorded is no proof of a desire to exercise lordship over conscience; and is no evidence of a disposition to say to another, Stand by, for I am wi.ser and holier than thou. The necessary sequence from this sentiment is simply, that Baptists or Psedo- * Cat. of the Church of England, t Henry's Trc. on Prayer. X I>r. Williams, j». 164. 11 Staccy. § Extracts from this series of publications we have, for brevity's sake, generally recorded as Contj. La:, instead of giving the subject of the volume. BAPTISM PRACTICAL AND CLEARLY REVEALED. 13 baptists, from the force of prejudice, from deficiency in candour, or from other impeifections in themselves, have failed to discover the Divine mind on baptism. That one class or the other is in error, on this subject, is e"\ddent from the opposite character of their sentiments and practice. That this error arises not from any obscurity in the inspii-ed volume, where precept and precedent on this subject are recorded, it is by us firmly believed : — 1. Becaiise baptism being a practical precept, a something to be per- formed, and received or submitted to, it appears inevitably to reflect on the wisdom, or goodness, or also the equity of the Divine Being, to suppose the Divine records relative to this duty to be obscure, enig- matical, or contradictory. The Lord Jesus, speaking on the subject of baptism, speaks as Legislator, and ordains an institution, our duty in reference to which can be ascertained only from what He and His apostles commanded, and from what inspired writers have recorded as obedience to the Divine Legislator. " If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle ?" Is not God self-condemned, if His own warnings and instructions are obscure 1 And on the part of God, if this is the case, can it be other than intentional? Should not each one of us rather conclude that his own prepossessions render obscure to his own mind that which is clear, or cause in him some misconception ] An apostle has said, " Let God be true, but every man a liar ; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy saying.s, and mightest over- come when thou art judged" (Rom. iii. 4). In the same spirit let us impeach the wisdom, integrity, and goodness of oiu'selves, yea of the whole world, rather than dishonour the ever-blessed God. 2. Because the fact of disputation on the import of the Divine pre- cept, by no means proves it to be ambiguoiis; since there have been disputes on almost every subject and fact ! — on the Deity and Atonement of Christ; on the Personality of the Divine Spirit; on the possession of a Divine Revelation; and even on the existence of the Supreme Being. 3. Because prepossessions in good men may possess a force amply sufiicient to cause, and especially to perpetuate, the misconception that now distinguishes the Baptists or the Paedobaptists. The apostles of Christ, in their ignorance respecting Christ's sufierings, death, and resur- rection, till these events had taken place, and in their temporary igno- rance respecting the spiritual character of His kingdom, are a striking exemjDlification of the power of prepossession to obscure the plainest statements that can be uttered. For instance, what could be plainer than Christ's words, " The Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of men : and they shall kill him, and the third day He shall be raised again" 1 (Matt. x-\ii. 22, 23.) He had before predicted the same in a manner similarly explicit and particular; see Matt. xvi. 21. In general terms it had also been referred to; see Matt. xvii. 9. We read again at Matt. XX. 17—19, " And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apai't in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him ; and the 14 NATURE OF BAPTISM. third day He shall rise again." How far tlie twelve expected the betrayal, the crucifixion, and the rcsvirrection of the Lord, is known to all who are conversant with the sacred records. Who does not remem- ber the declaration of disaj)pointment, "We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel" ? (Luke xxiv. 41 ;) and the unbelief of all, especially of Thomas, in regard to His resurrection 1 and the inquiry, " Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" Prepossessions rendered those eminently good men for a time utterly blind to truths which had been delivered and repeated in language per- fectly free from any ambiguity. 4. Because the idea of obscuinty in the preceptive part of Divine revelation is opposed by the sacred writers themselves, as well as by Christians of almost every Protestant denomination. After the apostle Paul had said to Timothy, " From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus," he adds, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Is the design of Holy Writ, as here expressed by the apostle, a possibility, if the preceptive part of Divine revelation — not to mention Divine revelation as a whole — is obscure 1 Do God's perfections, or God's promises, encourage the idea of obscurity in any solemnly enjoined duty 1 Do Solomon's exhortations and assurances encourage this, when he says, " My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee ; so that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God'"? If God's will on the subject of baptism is obsciu-e, or unin- telligible, can He now say, " What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" To have deprived us of the possibility of objecting or neglecting, to have rendered the use of reason unnecessary, would have been to have deprived us of probation and free- agency. If the oracles of God ai*e disregarded, or are read with minds full of prejudice, instead of being read with minds open to conviction, and with an earnest desire to do whatever God bids, however contrary to custom and inclination, to flesh and blood in any way, how can the truth be known ? As we find God when we search for Him with all our heart, so may we not find Divine and practical truth if we search for it in the same manner ? Every thing that proves the importance of baptism, if any thing does prove this, militates against the supposition of the Divine will being obscurely revealed, either in regard to the action or the subjects of baptism. Do the following extracts from Holy Writ en- courage the idea of its obscure and ambiguous i^-ecepts ? — " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." "The commandment of the Lord is ])ure, enlightening the eyes." " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." " The entrance of Thy word giveth light ; it giveth understanding unto the simi)le." " Good and upright is the Lord : therefore will He teach sinners in the way. The meek will He guide in BAPTISM PRACTICAL AND CLEARLY REVEALED. 15 judgment: and the meek will He teach His way." "Search the Scrip- tures; for in them ye think ye have etei-nal life: and they are they which testify of me." " If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." We presume that perspicuity must necessarily distinguish God's revealed will, if it is worthy of His char- acter and design, and consistent with its own professions. What but satisfactory evidence of its perspicuous simplicity renders acknowledg- ments from Protestant theologians so nearly unanimous on this subject, when they are not treating on some controverted subject, and especially when Christian baptism is not the subject ] We may surely believe a sin- cere Christian to be on some subject under the blinding influence of pre- possession, without uttering the sweeping condemnation of Mr. A. Knox, who, in correspondence with Bishop Jebb, says, "The simple, direct view of Christianity has very seldom been taken. Most men, in all ages, have sat down to the Gospel with a set of prejudices, which, like so many inquisitors, have laid the Christian religion on a bed like that of Procrustes; and as it suited them, either mutilated it by violence, or extended it by force." Equally far should we be from him who said, "It is my wish and prayer that I may be saved from the simplicity of Bible religion." Our object, to use the language of a brother, is, "to conidnce the judgment, and not to irritate the temper, to establish the truth, and not to awaken prejudice, to defend an ordinance of Christ, and not to defame the Pa^dobaptists." But such backwardness in some of the people of God to the acknowledgment of our having a clear testi- mony from heaven on the subject of Christian baptism has the writer witnessed, that he deems it prudent to adduce the opinion of several, eminent for piety and learning, as decidedly accordant with his own. The following are from Baptist authors : — * Dr. Innes. — "There is no proposition in which I should feel myself, at first sight, more powerfiilly constrained to acqiiiesce, than this, ' that in cases in wliich every simple and unlettered Christian is immediately called to act, and in which he is bound to act in faith, we are to expect explicit direction from the Scriptures themselves. ' To me it would appear an impeachment of the Divine wisdom, nay, I might add, of the Divine jiistice also, to suppose that plain Christians are to learn from the ancient Fathers the way in which they are to observe an ordinance of Christ. ... If I in any measure substituted the usages of the Fathers in the room of Scriptural authority, I should dread inciuTxng the awful denunciation with which the book of Revelation concludes, ' If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are 'UTitten in this book. ' Antiquity may furnish us with fresh illustrations of doctrines, which we previously knew to be contained in Scripture ; or may afford us examples of the observance of institutions which the Scriptiu'es previously enjoin. But we must have the basis of all that we beUeve * If the quotations "sei-ve no other i^urpose, they may at least be iiseful in teaching the admirers of learned men and weighty names, that the sentiments set fortli are neither novel nor frivolous." Also, in maintaining that God's precepts for tlie regulation of oiu- con- duct are not difficult to be imderstood, let it be known that we are far from maintaining that "a knowledge of geogTaphy and chronology, of oriental customs, institutions, and imagery," may not greatly aid in comprehending the import and beauty of many " allusive and pictorial" expressions and phrases therein contained. 16 NATURE OF BAPTISM. or practise, in the Word of God itself I most readily allow that the best of rncu have differed on the subject [of Christian baptism] ; but this difference, I think, wo must admit to have arisen, not from auy defect in the Scriptiu-e, but from the influence of early prejudice and education, either on the one side or the other, at least; or fr(jm something having been plausibly interwoven with the argimient, which does not properly belong to it. As on this question there must be a right and a wrong, I have no doubt that Scripture fixes which side is right ; and it is l)y persevcriugly examining the testimony of the sacred volume in regard to it, that the truth is to be ascertained Am I to suppose, in a matter where evei-y Christian is immediately called to act, and where he must act in faith, that Scriptiu'C has left such indefinite directions that we must be guided by infor- mation derived from a source to which the great body of Christians have no access ? .... I think a little attention to this suliject will lead us to di'aw a very obxaoiis line of distinction between those illustrations of particular passages of Scripture which we may derive from an acquaintance with ancient usages : aud which, though highly gi-atifying to those who have access to this kind of information, is certainly not necessary to rcgidate our faith or practice : and those represented as in some measure necessary to be known, in order to regulate oiir conduct in a case where every Christian, learned or unlearned, is called immediately to act My mean- ing in some of those observations vrUl be best explained by an example : I learn from an anuicut heathen writer, that the punishment of ciaicilixion was only inflicted on slaves among the llomans ; that it was considered too ignominious to be applied to a Roman citizen. This, no doiil:)t, fiu'oishes me with a very strildng illustration of the ignominious manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death. But the knowledge of this fact, which I derive from this heathen aiithor, is by no means necessary to me as a Christian ; I might have remained entirely ignorant of it, and no part of my faith or duty would have been at all affected by that igno- rance. The case, however, is materially different with regard to Christian Ijaptism. Here every individual is called to act, and he must act in faith. Eespect for the Scriptures, then, as a perfect riUe, compels me to conclude there must be full (Iri'ec- tions in this matter (whether I have found them out or not), in these Scriptuxes themselves. I dare not look for direction from another quarter, because I am siu'e, in the first place, it was never the design of the great Lawgiver that I should ; and secondly, bocaixse I know that fallibility and uncertainty is stamped on every other source of inf oi-uiation. " — Eugenlo and Ejwnetus, pp. 187-192. C CiBBS. — "The cause of that deviation from the primitive mode of baptizing, which has been so iDrevalent in latter ages, must be sought for among the corruptions of Christianity, and not in the ambiguity of a New Testament legislative enact- ment; and that critical liy|iothesis which would make Christ the author of the strife and contention wliich has divided His church on this point, is in om- estima- tion, not less anti-christian than is the rite itself whicli the learned Dr. [W.] lal)oured to uphold." — Dtf. of the Bap., p. 61. F. Camekon. — " ' They pretend that the New Testament is a plain book.' They not only pretend this, but they mil main fain that this is its true character. Is not the New Testament a revelation from God ? And on the great things which it is intended to teach, the way in which sinners are to be saved and the path of the believer's duty, is it not plain ? A denial of this is an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of its Author." — On Bap., in reply to B. S. Bajjlei/, p. 4. D. Wallace.— "Any plain man with the English New Testament in his hand, is as coinpetent to dociile who are the subjects of the ordinance, as the gi-eatest scholar living." — Cliri.'^: Bap., p. 52. I. T. HiNTON. — "That language, as hitherto constituted, has in all ages proved but an imperfect medium for the communication of ideas, wiU not be denied. This arises mainly fr(im the employment of one word in various senses ; yet it is rare tliat the eonncxion or otlier circiunstances leave any material difficulty in deter- mining in what sense tlie word is to be used. It is "at once the glory and security of tlie faith of the Cliristian, that it rests upon facts, not conjectures; and that these are facts estal dished by evidence utterly undeniable. Tlie incarnation- death — resurrection- ascension — intercession — of Christ, are facts explicitly stated, and adequately proved, to all who julmit the inspiration of the Bible— itself a col- lection of facts resting on evidence so clear, that doubt can only arise from disin- cLinatiou to submit to its authority. JNIay not the Christian justly expect the same BAPTISM PRACTICAL, AND CLEARLY REVEALED. 17 satisfactory feature to be apparent, on tlie subject of the positive institutions of the Gospel economy ? If infants are to 1)e baptized, may not the fact of their being- baptized be expected to appear on the page of sacred history?" — His. of Bap., pp. 2, 92. Dr. Carson. — "In reading the history of Jesus also, it is not uninstructive to remai-k, that many things which appear to His enemies decisive evidence against Him, had no weight at all wdth His friends. This discrepancy shews how much ova- sentiments are under the inHueuce of our feelings, and consequently the guilt of unbelief, with respect to any part of the Di\ane counsel which we reject. Though we have no right to judge one another, we have a right, when God has given a revelation, to ascribe all ignorance of it to sin. I make this observation not merely with respect to the point now in debate, or to criminate my opponents. Tlie observation applies to every error ; and as no man has attained in every thing to truth, it applies to us all. I make the observation to incite my 1>retliren on both sides of this subject to search without prejudice, to inquire under the influence of an impression of great accountableness. " — Bap., in its 3Iode and Sub., p. 73. Dr. Newman. — "It is so far from being true that the New Testament is obscure on this point, or that the word baptism is hard to be understood, that I should not hesitate to affirm there is no word of equal importance n.ore clearly defined, more fully illustrated, or of which the meaning is more satisfactorily ascer- tained."— Bapt. Imm. Def., p. 18. C. Stovel. — "Our Redeemer embraced the plainest language of earth, and the most common figures of speech, to make His communication most intelligible and impressive on His hearers. The churches of Christ have risen from a state of darkness and corruption, the duration and perfection of which justify a reconsider- ation of D^^'iue law on every point of practice. The most vital and the most circumstantial pai'ts of Christian duty have all been baptized in pollution and error ; and, in rising from this filthy submersion, it requires an equal care not to retain an adhesive wrong, and not to reject a Divine right through the imdue influence of general and popular intervening customs. If it were possible, advantage could be derived from absolutely forgetting all that has intervened, and realizing the actual presence, communion, and converse of the Lord himself; not as if in the pTeseut time and the country in which we live, but, as at the time when and in the country where, the beloved Redeemer conversed with and instructed mankind. "The sacredness and merciful importance of the object ought to prevent dis- couragement arising from difficulty. No pains can be too great, when taken to ascertain a Redeemer's will, and to promote His glory in the midst of sinners whom He died to save. Still less shoiild apparent difficulty induce the conclusion, that He, who spake as never man spake, has chosen a word to express His meaning which coidd not with ease be understood by those who heard Him. If this were true, in every case of disobedience the Legislator himself would be to blame. Had Jesus expressed His will in words, the meaning of which the men of His time could not comprehend, faith in His word now would be perfect madness. The very ol>ject of His coming was to call men away from obscvirity, falsehood, and all the elements that induce distrust; and to utter in their' ears a word, of which none coidd mistake the meaning, and the stability of which should be greater in experi- ence than that which is foiind in the ordinances of nature. ' Heaven and earth shall pass away, biit not one jot or tittle of His word shaU fail.' If there appear to us, in laws designed for general observance, an obscurity of meaning, that fact itself is proof that we are wrong, rather than that He, the wise and merciful, has chosen words of doulitful import. " Were this the only inquiry that suffered obscui'ation in the dark ages, some of the rhetoric employed in setting forth the supposed unintelligible character of the Saviour's words, might have admitted an apology ; but nothing could justify it. If the supposition were true, the premises would call for universal moiu'ning, not for exultation. If in ordaining this initiatory rite, to be observed by all His fol- lowers, the Lord had used words that mean anjrthing or nothing, He might have done the same in His promises, in the declaration of His atonement, in describing His mediation, and in predicting its results. If His words were ill-chosen in the one case, they might have been so in another. Indeed, the same sujiposed ol^scu- rity has been alleged in almost every case, at different times, and on diff'erent occasions; and, by some, with exiiltation, not unlike that which now provokes 18 NATURE OF BAPTISM. rel)uke iu writings ou tlie nature of baptism. In the Council of Trent it was as liard to .sue the meaning of those wortls in which the Lord lias covenanted salva- tion to each believer, as Dr. Halley now makes it out to be to comi)rehend what was intended by comuiaudiug every believer to be baptized. Those ages of corrup- tion sjjread their gloom, not only over the page of revelation, but it was made to cover all existence. The clearest facts of nature were denied in the very face of absolute demonstration. The operations of earth had none to uuder.stand or admire them, and heaven exjianded her deei) blue bosom to mankind in vain ; the glory was still a secret, because the observer was 1)lind. ' ' By thus glancing at the evil we may learn its cure. The mind, though not altogether free, has, uotwitlistanding, in some departments, l:)eeu considerably emancipated; and the rule l)y which its liberty has Iteen so far gained for natural investigations, must work out its freedom in divinity. Wliere man has laid aside the iise of plausible conjectm-es, and coniiued his attention to facts, liy becom- ing a servant and intei'preter of nature and nothing more, knowledge has extended ; it has become more definite and clear, and eveiy human resource in action has been augmented bej'oud the utmost boundary of ancient thought. Let the same rule be applied to revelation, and every desirable result will be olitained. When preconceived notions have been laid aside, and the facts of revelation have been carefiiUy collected and arranged, instead of exulting over its obsciu"ity, reason will be found for using the words of David, 'The entrance of Thy word giveth light, it maketh wise the simple.' " — CJirisfian Disci, pp. 88, 480-482. A. Booth. — "Baptism w^as evidently intended for the disciples of Christ in general, a very gi-eat majority of whom, though thoioughly capable of imderstand- ing an express precept, or a jjlain example, relative to the ordinance, have neither capacities nor opportimities for long, abstruse, analogical disquisitions, in order to come at the mode and subject of baptism. Yet jjersous the most illiterate, and of the narrowest capacities, if really converted to Jesus Christ, must be supposed capalile of understanding what baptism is, and the Scr'qitural gi'oimds on whicli it sliould be administered ; or else it would never have been appointed for them by our gracious and omniscient Lord." — Pcedob. Examined, vol. iii., p. 116, Ed. 1829. The longtli and number of these exti'acts can or\\y be justified and commended by the importance of our being convinced that God lias not obscurely revealed His will. The following are from Psedobaptist writers : — Dr. Halley. — "Assuming the truth of our conclusion in the last lecture, that bajjtism is an ordinance of perpetiial oltligatiou in the Christian church, it does seem extnioi-diuary that Christians, in the honest and diligent study of the New Testament, should he unable to discover who are to 1 )e 1 laptized, or in what manner the rite is to be performed I cannot but think that if both parties proceed in the inquiry honestly, impartially, withoiit prejudice, and without preference, until the conclusion be fairly reached, the truth may be ascertained. To which side tlie latent prejudice which obstructs the force of evidence may belong, it is not for me to assiune, nor even to coujectm-e VvTi ether I have been succes- ful or not in pursuing the inquiry with an impartial and luibiassed mind, I do believe that if otlicr and abler divines on both sides will divest themselves of pre- judice, they may bring this disjnite to a satisfactory determination. Instead of saying, so quietly and comfortaljly as some good people do. Let us agree to differ, it would be more in accortlauce with our respect ivr the will and authority of Christ to say. Let us agree to find out the truth, ailhering closely to Scripture, seeking all aid in its correct inter])retation, assuming nothing without proof, and carefully endeavouring to detect the cause of the error, on whichever side it be, the profon pfniidos, which, lurking in the breast of one ])arty or the other, iu this as in almost e\'ery controversy, vitiates all the subsecpient reasoning, and, ever present in the dispute, colom-s witli a false light the arguments adduced on eacli 8iart of the body just as the candidate and the administrator might agree respecting it. We maintain tliat God's command is far othei-wisc. luo wora (lemanus, we adopt only m ajipbcation to the uyiayn of the term Divinely chosen to designate the action Divinely require that the term which God has chosen is specific as well as clear; but v God might not have commanded the api)lication of water to anv part o BAPTISM A POSITIVE AND PERSPICUOUS RITE, 23 rity which makes the institiition. Though we do not understand the reasons of the institution, if we see the command we must obey ; and though we coiUd fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an institution, if no such institu- tion appears, we are free, and ought not to believe there is such an institution, because we think there are reasons to l)e assigned why it should be." "I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture, but yet I will never admit of a mere consequence to prove an institution, which must be delivered in plain terms, as all laws ought to be." — Preaer. against Po., p. 419; and Ajjpendix, vol. ii., p. 23. Bp. Burnet. — "Sacraments are positive precepts, which are to be measured ONLY by the institution, in which there is not room left for us to carry them any farther." — Expo, of Th'ir. Nine Art., Art. xxvii. Archi. Hall. — "The appointments of the Deity concerning His worship, are not to be gathered from the uncertain tradition of the elders, the authority of men, or the dictates of oiir own reason : no, they stand engrossed in the volume of His book, which is the onh/ rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him." — Gos. War., vol. i., p. 30. Dr. Waterland. — "Positive laws, as soon as enacted, become part of moral law; because, as I said, universal obedience to God's conmiands is the first moral law, into which all laws I'esolve." — Scrip. Vindicated, part iii. Payne. — "Siu-ely so wise a Lawgiver as our blessed Saviour, would not give a law to all Christians that was not easy to be imderstood by them ; it cannot be said without great reflection upon His infinite wisdom, that His laws are so obscure and dark, as they are delivered by himself, and as they are necessary to be ob- served by us, that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further expli- cation."— Pres. against Popery. P. Martyr. — " It is necessary that we should have a clear testimony from the holy Scriptures, concerning sacraments." Bp. Hoadley. — "It cannot be doubted that He himself sufficiently declared to His first and immediate followers the whole of what He designed shoidd be iinder- stood by it, or implied in it. For this being a positive institution dep'euding entirely upon His will, and not designed to contain any thing in it, but what He himself should please to affix to it, it must follow, that He declared His mind about it fulh/ and plainli/; because otherwise He must be supposed to institute a duty, of which no one coiild have any notion without His institution ; and at the same time not to instnict His followers sufficiently what that duty was to be." — Works, vol. iii., p. 846. A. Booth. — "As an appointment of Christ it [baptism] originated in His will, and from a revelation of that will the whole of its obligation results. In propor- tion, therefore, as we annex the idea of obscurity to what He says about the mode and suljject of it, we either sink the idea of obligation to regard it, or impeach the wisdom, the goodness, and the equity of our I)i-\ane Legislator; for we neitlier have, nor can have, any acquaintance with a positive institution farther than it is revealed ; and a natural incapacity will always excuse the non-performance of what would otherwise be indispensable duty. We are therefore obliged to conclude tliat our Lord has clearly revealed His pleasure -with reference to lioth His jiositive appointments, in that code of law and ride of religious worship, which are con- tained in the New Testament. " — Pcedo. Ex. , vol. i. , p. 22. We sliould not have been so lengthened on the clearness with which God has revealed His will relative to the ordinance of baptism, but for the idea which we believe to be extensively prevalent, that baptism, on account of differences among Christians in regard to it, must necessarily be obscurely revealed, and of insiguilicant moment. The lafcter idea may be subsequently noticed. Tha,t the former, in accordance with reason and revelation, is strongly reprobated by many intelligent Psedobaptists as well as Baptists, we hope the reader has now perceived. Let us guard against the applicability to ourselves of a charge that has been broiight against some, of admitting sound principles, and yet of refusing tlieir application to our favourite sentiments and practices. Assured i hat God 24 ^ *» NATURE OF BAPTISM. lias clearly revealed His will, let us "seai'ch the Scriptures;" and, cleaving to " £lie commandments and ordinances of the Lord," imitate Him who vanquished the most subtle and potent adversary, saying, " It is written ;" " It is wi-itten." Then may we consistently say, " 'He that judgeth us is the Lord;' and 'What saith the Lord?' ought to be our sole inquiry."* "Our standard, therefore, is not early ecclesiastical tradition, however venerable or hoary-headed. "f " The errors of man- kind have been the consequence of depai-ture from the Scriptures ; thei'e is no remedy but in returning to the Sci'iptures.":[: Also we may extol the Scriptures, ha\dng convictions which we can express in the language of Prof, J. H. Godwin: "The prevalent opinions respecting the rite of baptism, and some other subjects, would exj^erience a considerable change if the motto — so much extolled, but so often forgotten — were consistently maintained : ' The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.' " — On Faith, p. 344. A recent and eloquent writer has the following on faith : — ' ' There is but little said in the Scriptures concerning the nature of faith. There is much said concerning the grounds of faith, and much concerning the object of faith, and much concerning the fruits of faith ; but very little concerning its nature. And what are we to infer from this cu'ciunstance ? We may naturally conclude that the inspired tvriters used the word in its common acceptation; and that all they wanted was to bring men to receive the testimony of God, and to rest upon it for hfe and salvation." — The Faith. IFzY., p. 139. So we doubt not the sacred writers used the word baptizo " in its com- mon acceptation," the least explanation being unnecessary. * Dr. Wardlaw's Inf. Bap., p. 4. + Dr. S. Davidson's Con'/. Lee, p. 1. X Dr. W. H. Stowell's Cowj. Lee, p. 191. 25 ^ IMPORT OF BAPTISM/ % E SECTION I. PREPARATORY AND PHILOLOGICAL REMARKS. Dr. Wabdlaw. — " It is tnith, Divine trutli, you should be in search of. Criticism is legitimate, and, like every other means of bringing out truth, only in reality valuable as it contributes to that end." — Sys. Thiol., vol. ui., p. 13. Werenfelsius. — "Some interpreters do not search the Scriptures so much for the meaning of the Holy Spirit, as for praise and honour : others, not so much for the sense of Scripture, as for their own opinion ; and others, not so much for the true meaning of Scripture, as for one that is useful and agreeable." — In Tes. of Emi. Per., p. C. Dr. E. Henderson. — " It is written in the language of men, and must therefore be studied and interpreted agreeably to the general principles of language." — Cong. Lee , p. 3S3. Bp. LowTH. — "The first and primary business of a translator is to give the plain literal and grammatical sense of an author ; the obvious meaning of his words, phrases, and sentences, and to express in the language into which he translates, as far as may be, in equivalent words, phrases, and sentences. A\Tiatever indulgence may be allowed him in other resjiects : however excusable he may be. if he fail in attaining the elegance, the spirit, the subUmity of his author : which will generally be in some degree the case, if an author excels at all in these qualities : want of fidelity admits of no excuse, and is entitled to no indulgence." — " It being, then, a translator's indispensable duty faithfully and religiously to express the sense of his author, he ought to take great care that he proceed upon just principles of criticism, in a rational method of interpretation." — Prelim. Diss., pp. Ixviii.-lxx. Dr. Owen. — " Every undue presumption has one lameness or other accompanying it;' it is truth alone which is square and steady." Prof. J. H. Godwin. — " The question with regard to the primitive mode of baptism depends chiefly on the meaning of the words baptizo, bapiistes, baptisma, baptismos." "The signification of these words will, in a great measure, determine what was the nature of the fact described, and of the duty commanded by them." — Chr. Bap., p. 4. It cannot be improper to consider, first, the import of tlie inspii'ed words rendered " baptize " and " baptism " in the authorized English translation of the New Testament. We adopt this course by no means from a supposition that the action itself is of more importance than the subjects of baptism : but it seems natui'al to treat of the meaning of the word, before we treat of the persons to whom the thing meant is applicable. The word "baptize" denotes an action requii-ed by the Di\dne law; and the simple question is, What is this action ] Is it immersion J Is it pouring 1 Is it sprinkling 1 Is it any of the three according to our pleasure ? Is it all the tlii-ee ? Is it something else than any of the three ] Or is it something in addition to all the thi'ee 1 * We maintain that the Greek verb haptizo, the only verb used by the sacred wi-iters when speaking of the baptism which John practised, of the baptism practised by our Lord himself through His disciples during His pubHc ministry, and of the baptism enjoined by oiu' Lord, and practised by the apostles and their* coadjutors after our Lord's resurrection, that the * Dr, Owen. — "AVTiat is baptism ? A. An holy action, appointed of Chi-ist, whereby," &c. Works, vol. i. , p. 491. To speak of the mode of baptism when definitely and simply the action is meant, is a biu-lesque on all propriety. 26 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Greek verb ha2)tizo signifies to immerse, and ought to be so rendered in our translation, and that the Gi-eek nouns haptisma and haptismos ought to be rendered immersion; of the correctness of which sentiment we shall now endeavour to adduce satisfactory evidence.* By immersion, we mean an entire covering or a complete surrounding with some element. Hence we accept this as the import of baptizo, to cause one thing to be in another so as to be covered and completely surrounded by it. Dr. Halley speaks of this sense of immersion as " the loose sense in which Dr. Cox uses the word immersion, without reference to mode" (p. 286). This we maintain to be the sense in which the English word is used ; and to accord with the use and import of the Greek baptizo. We differ not from Dr. G. Campbell, except in the last clause of the following: — " I should think the word ' immersion ' (which though of Latin origin is an English noun) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice." The element, it will be seen, is not expressed in the word baptize. But it has, we trust, been already shown that the Scriptviral element is water. That going down into the water is in the word baptize, we do not maintain; but if one person is commanded to immerse another, and if water is the appointed element, we believe it to be most natural, as well as to accord with the jirimiti^'e practice, for both the baptizer and the baptized to go down into the water. We maintain that the action alone — immersion — is enjoined, not the hiode of immersion. Further particularizing was not needed by those who were familiar with John's baptizing in the Jordan and other places, and with the baptizing that had been performed by Christ himself through the medium of His disciples; nor is further particularizing needed by ourselves. Also the religious significance of the Greek word is derived solely from the circumstances with which it is connected. Thus, when in obedience to the command of Christ, in Matt, xxviii. 19, this act is performed on the assenting believer, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is the Christian I'ite; it has a sacred relation and significance, and is distinguished from all other acts of life. In Mark vii. 4 ("except they immerse themselves"), and in Lu. xi. 38 ("that he had not immersed himself"), the act expressed by the same word is a superstitious Pharisaic ceremony condemned by our Lord; and in Heb. ix. 10, the mere ceremonial immei-sions of the Jews are meant. The act designated by the word in all tliese cases is the same; the relation and circumstances in which it is performed constitute the gi-eat distinction. In the Christian rite it is performed with a conscious reference to the burial and resurrection of Christ, to the pollution of sin, and to sanctifi- cation by the Sjiirit, and through the blood of Christ; whilst the import of baptize is only to immerse. The word dij), however unadvisedly, may have been used by some Baptist writers in the same sense as we are now using the word immerse, although without any explanatory remark afiirming this ; and, certainly, * When Greek writers, aa h sometiines the case with tliose wh(i wrwte after apostolic times, use tlic word trrhnicaUi/ in ai>plicatiou to tlie Chi-istian rite, the word baptism may be the most appropriate rendciinj;. PHILOLOGICAL TESTIMONY. 27 the assertion of Di\ Carson, that the Greek verb means invariably to dij?, lias been animadverted upon with sufficient severity by those who liaA-e excluded from the import of the English word every idea but that oi putting the object into the element. In several instances Dr. C. uses the word immerse wdien stating what he regarded as the invariable import of the Greek word. But his reasoning in favour of j^ufting into as being implied in certain occurrences of the Greek word among some of the Greek writers, we do not endorse; our conscious lack of poetic imagination forbids that we affirm or deny his statements; nor do we deem it in the least needed to prove and demand that immersion alone is baptism. The English words immerse and dip, unless we mistake, like the Greek word haptizo, are used generally to designate the putting of an object into a certain element; but sometimes, and especially the word immerse, when the encompassing of the object by the element is brought about by other means than its being put into the same. To such a meaning of haptizo Dr. Halley refers when he says, — "In the general sense, hajrio seems more nearlj' to resemble our word to dip, or put into a hquid; haptizo, to make to be in the hquid in any way" (p. 273). Again,— "We believe that haptizo is to make one thing to be in another by dipping, by immersing, by burj'ing, by covering, l)y superfnsion, or l>y whatever mode effected, provided it be in imiuediate contact. A body placed in a tomb, or a man shut in a house, is not strictly baptized ; but a body put in the surrounding earth of a grave, or a man covered with the ruins of a house, is l^aptiiied. As the action of the vei"b refers in almractice of the Christian church ? + Baj)tists are not alone in applying dip or immerse to the same action. Addison says : — " Achilles's mother is said to have dipped him in the river Styx, which made him invulnerable all over excepting that part which his mother held in her hand during this immersion." so IMPORT OF BAPTISM. liis- heart, aud to the closest possible communion iii every part of Di^•ine worship, all who loved the Lord Jesus, he dealt his unsparing blows at what he deemed contrary to the ti'uth of Scripture, and derogatory to its Divine Author; and sometimes, although, we doubt not, unintentionally, with deficient courtesy towards those who tliffered from him : thus rendering his work, however cogent and unanswerable as to the pi'incipal part of its logic, repulsive and of limited advantage to a considerable number of oiu* opponents. Wldlst refusing to vindicate every word and phrase used by the Baptists, and to endorse every sentiment advanced, we say not that Pajdobaptist writei's as a whole have been, in our judg- ment more free from dogmatism and discourte.sy. The Presbyterian " Professor of Sacred Literature for the General Assembly, Royal College, Belfost," the Rev. Robt, Wilson, D.D., in an elaborate volume, entitled ^'■Infant Baptism a Scrij:>tHral Serines, and Dipping unnecessary to its Bight Administration" of which he further speaks as " Containing a Critical Survey and Digest of the Leading Evidence, Classical, Biblical, and Patristic,^' assents to the import of haptizo given by Dr. Halley. He says: — "Let the baptizing element encompass its oliject; and, in the case of liquids, whether this relative state has lieen produced I)}' immersion, affusion, overwhehning, or any other mode, Greek usage recognizes it as a vahd baptism. Thus the sea- coast is baptized when the tide flows over itj cattle are baptized when the rush of an ' overflowing flood ' comes upon th^m and drowns them ; and the altar built by Elijah was baptized when his attendants poured ujion it the required quantity of water. Sometimes the action of the verb applies to the whole, sometimes to a part, of the baptized object ; this information, however, is not convej-ed by the term itself, but must be learned from the context, and generally from the surround- ing circumstances." ' ' The view of baptizo now presented, is not confined to writers who advocate the administration of the ordinance by sprinkling or affusion. It cltiims the support of respectable Bajjtist authority. Among others, Dr. Gale, probably the most learned author on that side of the question, felt constrained to attach to the verb a sense which any Predobaptist might safely adopt almost without modification." [Would that every P£Bdo)>aptist would not only adopt, but act upon this import of the word!] "'The word htiptizo,' he observes, 'perliaps does nt)t so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing's being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it ; though, indeed, to put into the water is the most natural way and the most common, and is, therefore, usually and pretty constantly, but, it may be, not necessarily, implied' " (pp. 9G, 97). All quotations from Prof. Wilson are from this work. Notwithstanding this candid admission of oiir Paedobaptist brother, which might be considered fatal to a designation of bafitism as the pouring or sprinkling of a little water on the face, this learned professor eloquently and earnestly wi-ites more than three hundred octavo pages on what he calls " mode of baptism," during which he seems to regard the Baptists as defeated because baptizo is sometimes used by Greek writers to express an encompassing of the object, without a litei"al putting of the object into the element ! This baptism by the over- whelming element being brought upon the object in supposed opposition to some of Dr. Carson's assertions, is of force to confovmd all "immer- sionists," and to satisfy every Pajdobaptist that a pouring or sprinkling of the least water on the face is a baptism of the person ! To what a didereut practical desire tlid the forefathers of our learned brother come, PHILOLOGICAL TESTIMONY. SI when in the time of King Charles the Second their petition regarding alterations in the Book of Common Prayer included this: "That the minister shall ask the parent the name of the cliild to be baptized, and naming him, shall either dip him under water, or else pour water on his face, if he cannot be safely or conveniently dipt." Our Wesleyan brother has followed in the wake of his Presbyterian predecessor, eulogising liis extensive learning and forcible reasoning. Having in these preliminary remarks used the expression "primary" meaning, in regard to baptizo, it may here be stated that by such an expression we do not mean the import of the word in those ages about which we know nothing, but its evident import in the first ages of its use with which we are acquainted, which is also its most frequent import, as the examination of its occurrences testifies; and by a secondary meaning we intend a meaning which is less fi'equent, taking into account all the known instances of its occurrence ; although, sometimes, by a secondaiy meaning may be meant one which was received subsequently to the primary in point of time, which is the case with baptizo in the sense of surrounding an object by bringing the element upon and around it, as compared with the sense of putting into or going into the element. It may also be here mentioned that when many Bai)tists have repeatedly said that bcqytizo is a word of mode, it is evident that they were considering immersion as contrasted with pouring or sprinkling, and regarding the Greek word as describing the former in opposition to either of the latter; and that when Dr. Halley here denies that mode is in the woi-d at all, having admitted that the word means to cover entirely, his meaning is that the word itself does not determine whether this entire covering may be effected by dip{)ing, by flooding, or in some other way. Thus may writers and speakers sometimes appear flatly to contradict one another when their explained assertions may nearly, if not perfectly, coincide. And thus also may a truthful assertion respecting the absence of mode in bajttizo be ignorantly or erringly, b\it most unwarrantably, constiaied, as shewing that sprinkling, or pouring, or the application of water in any way, is baptism. We maintain that the Gi'eek word means to immerse; but we do not believe that the word itself fixes the mode of immersion. The nouns baptisma and baptismos, — -rendered bajjtium in the authorized English version in every instance in which they occur, excepting Mark vii. 4-8, in which places the latter word is rendered washing, and Heb. ix. 10, where the plural number is rendered washings, — undoubtedly agree in import with the verb baptizo, as baptism with baptize, and as most nouns with the verbs from which they are derived. The Greek verb baptizo is derived from the root bapto ; but baptizo, and not bapjto, is the verb invariably used when the Christian ordinance is sfjoken of in the New Testament. The word bapto in any form occurs in the New Testiiment only in the following places : — Luke xvi. 24, " That he viay dip,'' &LC. ; John xiii. 26, " When I have dipped," &c. ; Rev. xix. 13, ''A vesture dippjed in blood." Bap)to occurs in the Septuagint in the following places:— Ex. xii. 22; Lev. iv. 6, 17; ix. 9; xi. 32; xiv. 6, 16, 51; Num. xix. 18; Deu. xxxiii. 24; Jos. iii. 15; Ruth ii. 14; 1 Sam. xiv. 27; 2 Kings viii. 15; Job ix. 31; Ps. Ix^-iii. 23; Dan. iv. 33; v. 21. In Daniel it is given in the common ver.sion loet; in Job, plunge; and in 82 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Lev. xi. 32, put into. In all the other places it is rendered by dip in one or other of its forms. The verhal adjective baptos occnrs in Eze. xxxiii. 15, and is rendered dt/ed. On dyed as an import of hapto, Prof. Wilson says: — " Among philologists it appears to be the pi-evailiug opinion that dip forms the original, and tizo would mean to immerse repeatedly ; and some have thought that it implies diminution. Thus we have read : " The woi'd hajytizo is derived from the verb hapto, to dip, and is a diminutive of it. Hence, according to the ordinary construction of the Greek verb, if bajJto signifies to dip, haptizo signifies to dip less." Some have maintained that it is causative in its import; that is, if haj^to means to immerse, haptizo means to cause to immerse, or to cause to be immersed ; wdiilst others maintain that haptizo has retained the primaiy meaning of hapto. That the termination zo is diminutive, has been abandoned as an untenable position : that it implies repetition, is the opinion of some lexicographers, but not, as we think, confirmed in the instances of its occurrence. That the threefold baptism, which early obtained, has had some influence in the belief that I'epetition is implied in the termination, we do not, dare not affirm. Mr. Wi'ight, in the Introduction to his Greek and English Lexicon, on terminations, says that izo, iazo, some- times signify simple action, inherent in the agent; . . . sometimes they signify transitive action, or, / make or render; . . . sometimes they have a neuter signification ; . . . but their most general signification is imitation" (p. xii.). The causative import has been maintained by some in reputation for learning on both sides of this question, and from otlier words ending in izo has a greater appeai-ance of sanction than any other of the adduced hypotheses. Hence, says Dr. Beecher, " I should incline to give the word the meaning, to cause to come into tliat state; and this idea is favoured by the termination 20." But as the causative import is opposed by others, and as practical I if to immerse and ciwse to immerse, at least cause to be immersed, amount to one and the same thing, contention and further enlargement are unnecessary. Prof. Wilson says: — "He must be a Sciolist in Greek who does not know that the meanings of derivatives in ;.o from other words are exceedingly diversified in relation to their primitives, and that no principle has hitherto been developed which can be said to hold out a credible promise of reducing PHILOLOGICAL TESTIMONY. 33 tliem all to a common standard" (p. 80). That ha2)tizo is synonymous with the pi'imaiy import of bapto, appears to the writer to have the most abundant confirmation from the instances where it occurs, admitting that bcijAo may more exclusively retain the idea oi imtting one tiling into another, v/hilst haptizo means to immerse, not only when the object is jjut into the element, but — as in occasional instances on record — when the element is brought upon and around the object. It is hoped that the unlearned reader will be assisted by these obsei-vations ; and it is confidently believed that he may form a correct judgment of the import of bajJtizo from the examples of its occurrence that will subsequently be adduced. The primary meaning of bcqjfo is to dip. Its secondary meaning is to dye, an operation which is performed by dipping. It also, though rai'ely, means to stain, to colour, which may be done by vai'ious methods. Baptizo is never used for dyeing or staining. It has, therefore, been confidently asserted, that baptizo is more explicit and definite in import than bapto, and stronger in favour of immersion than that word would have been; yea, that a word less ambiguous could not on such a subject have been possibly employed. It is to be regretted that from baptizo being a derivative of bapto, and having in numerous instances a similar, if not the same import, several Baptist and Ptedobaptist writers have given quotations from both words in order to prove what is meant by the New Testament ordinance of baptism, as if the meaning of either word, and not exclusively of the one divinely chosen, proved the will of Christ on this subject. Dr. T. J. Conant, an American Baptist, — whose preface to the translation of Matthew is now published sepai'ately by Triibner and Co., and designated The Cleaning and Use of Baptizein Philologically and Historically Investigated, — says, at pp. 158-1 G3: — "The word baptizein, during the whole existence of the Greek as a spoken language, had a perfectly defined and unvarying import. In its literal use it meant, as has been shown, to put entirely into or under a liquid, or other penetrable substance, generally water, so that the oVjject was wholly covered by the enclosing element. By analogy it expressed the coining into a new state of life or experience, in which one was as it were inclosed and swallowed up, so that, temporarily or permanently, he belonged wholly to it. The word was a favourite one in the Greek language. WTienever the idea of total submei-gence was to be expressed, whethei- literallj'^ or metaphorically, this was the word which first presented itself. The connection might be of the most elevated and serious, or of the most familiar and even ludicrons character. It was a daily household word, employed in number- less cases where the use of the word ' baptize ' would be a profanation. Salt, wool, the hand, a i)ole, a cork, a net, a fish-spear, a bladder, an ape, an insect, a salad, were with perfect propriety said to be baptized (evijmeesed). A man was baptized (immersed) when he was ducked in sport or revenge,* or was accidentally sub- merged by a swollen stream. A ship was baptized (submerged) when she was overloaded and sunk. So, metaphorically, one was baptized (immersed) in calamities when he was swallowed up by them as by an ingulfing flood ; in debts, when he owed vast sums and had no means of paying them ; in wine, when his faculties were totally overboi-ne and prostrated by it ; with sophistries, when his mind was wholly confounded by them. The relation in which it was used, * "We omit Dr. C.'s references to his numbered examples. With tliis exception we give a verbatim extract, although a few sentences may be deemed irrelevant or preniatiue. All subsequent (quotations from Dr. C. are from this work. :j4 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. assofiatetl with it, foi- the time being, tlie ideas peculiar to that relation ; but the word itself, protected by the daily and hourly repetition in common life of the act which it descril)ed, retained its primary meaning and force unchanged. " It was this familiar term, imderstood by all becaxise all used it in their every- day avocations, which our Saviour em[)loyed when prescribing the initiatoi'y rite of His church. It conveyed to the minds of His disciples a meaning as dear and definite as the words to ent and to driii/c, in His institution cf the Supi>er. The claim, that He used it with any other meaning than that whicli has l)een exhibited in this treatise, originated in ignorance of the literature of the word. No one, it is presumed, with a full knowledge of the case, would assert that the Saviour employed it in a uew sense, unknown to those whom He addressed; for that woidd be a charge that He used it with the intention, or at least with the certainty, of being misunderstood. To that mystical sense, supposed by many to have been shadowed forth in Christ's command, stands out in the strongest possible contrast, the sim})le, distinct, corporeal sense, to which the word was appropriated by unvarying usage. The act which it describes was chosen for its atatiou to set forth, in lively symbolism, the ground-thought of Christianity. The chaugu in the state and character of the believer was total ; comparable to death, as separat'ng entirely from the former spiritual life and condition. The sufferings and death of Christ, those overwhelming sorrows which He himself expressed by this word (Luke xii. 50), were the ground and procuring cause of tliis change. These related ideas, comprehending in their references the whole work and fruit of redemption, were both figured by the immeision of the believer in water. In respect to both, it was called a burial. By it the believer was buried, as one dead with Christ to sin and to the world ; and by it he pledged himself to newness of life, with Hiin who died for him and rose again. Can it be supposed that to obscure these ideas, by virtually cancelling the term on the clear expression of which the apprehension of them depends, is a trivial wrong against the body of Christ? "This view of the significance, and consequent importance, of the form of this Christian rite, is not peculiar to the body of the professed followers of Christ to which the writer belongs. 'And, indeed,' says Luther, 'if you consider what baptism signifies, you will see that the same thing [immersion] is required. For this signifies that the old man, and our sinful nature, which consists of flesh and Ijlood, is all submerged by Divine grace, as Ave shall more fully show. The mode of baptizing ought, therefore, to corresi)ond to the signification of baptism, so as to set forth a sure and full sign of it.' Matthies (Treathe on B<:tptiflication of water. In both these respects it misrepre- sents the Saviour's manner and intent. Concealing the form of the Christian rite under a vague term, which means anything the reader may please, it obscures the ideas thereliy sj'mbolized, and the pertinency of the insi)ired appeals and .admonitions founded on them. The essence of tiie Christian rite is thus made to consist in this mystical chvu'ch - relation, into which it brings the recipient. With this view associates itself, naturally and almost necessarily, the idea of a certain mysterious PHILOLOGICAL TESTIMONY. 35 efficacy iu tlie rite itself ; and, accordiDgly, we find the belief prevailing in the majority of Christian communions, that, through baptism, the recipient is not externally alone, but mystically united to the body of Christ. Thus the rite ceases to be the symbol of certain great truths of Christianity, and becomes an efficacious sacrament. The tenacity with which this fatal error is adhered to, even in communions not connected with the Stfite, is largely due to the substitution, in our EngUsh Bibles, of this vague foreign term of indefinite meaning for the plain, intelligible English signification of the Greek word. * "Among the several words, all agx'eeiug iu the essential idea of tolal submo'gence, by which baptizein may be expressed iu English, the word immepse has been selected for use in this Revision, as most nearly resembling the original word in the extent of its ajjplication. It is a common, secular word, used in the daily affairs of life to express the most familiar acts and conditions. It is not an ecclesiastical term. It is not a metaphysical term. It describes to every English mind the same clearly marked, corjjoreal act as is expressed l)y the Greek word. It is used metaphorically with the same applications. We speak of a man as immersed in calamities, in deljt, in ignorance, iu povei-ty, in cares, &c., always with the idea of totality, of being wholly under the dominion of these states' or influences. In all these apjJications, like the Greek woixl, through constant use in the literal sense, it suggests the clear image of the act on which tliey all are founded. It is, in short, the same potentiality in English as bapttzein in Greek, having the same meaning and the same associations; being therel>y fitted to make known to us the Saviour's will in prescribing the initiatory rite of His church, to exhibit the truths and relations symbolized by it, and the force of the insjjired appeals founded on it, precisely as this was done to those who fii'st heard and read the Gospel iu Greek." Tn endeavouring to prove that baptism is immersion, that course will be followed which appears to the writer most natural, equitable, and easy; and, consequently, most convincing as to the correctness or the error of the opinion advanced. Thus, supposing a person to be in- ignorance or in doubt witli respect to the meaning of the word I'endered baptize in the English translation of the New Testament, and desirous of being certified with respect to its true import by a sufficient investiga- tion of the subject, it may be conceived that he would say: — 1. Let me see the meaning < f the word as given in the Dictionaries of the Greek language, called Greek Lexicons. 2. Let me see its use, that is, the occurrences of the word, in sacred and jirofane writers before the time of oiir Saviour, at the time of our Saviour, and for two or three hundred years afterwards. 3. Give me a record of the meaning of those words which were used for the Greek bajAizo in all the ancient translations of the New Testament with which we are acquainted. 4. Inform me what has been the practice of the Greeks, and of the Greek church, in regard to baptism. 5. State to me what was the proselyte baptism of the Jews, which existed, at least, in the early part of the Christian era. 6. Relate to me the general opinion that has prevailed, and that does prevail, among men eminent for piety and learning, iu regard to the import of this word, primary, secondary. Arc, if it is a word of varied import. 7. Favour me with a sight of the figurative use of the words baptize and baptism in the sacred writings, that I may judge whether this use opposes or confirms the idea that Christian baptism is immersion. 8. Place before me the words with which bai^tism in Holy "Writ is associated, the prepositions and some other words, that I may see how * Other causes may produce, and have produced, the same perversion; but this is no reason why we should not remove the one within our reach. 3t) IMPORT OF BAPTISM. far they agree or disagree Avith the ideas of immersing, pouring, sprink- ling, purifying, &c., being the action intended by baptism. 9. Show the relevancy or irrelevancy of maintaining that one word cannot I'epresent actions so distinct as pouring, sprinkling, washing, cleansing, and immer- sing. 10. Let every New Testament instance of haptizo, baptisma, and baptismos be adduced, and let each word that has been most urgently pleaded for as the meaning of the original, be given in a separate column, that I may judge whether one meaning, and that alone, is applicable to eveiy occurrence, — other meanings, from their absurdity, being proved to be a pretence. 11. If a change from primary immer- sion to poiiring or sprinkling has taken place, can I have historical evidence of this fact 1 12. Can the objections to immersion as being the act which Christ has enjoined, be amply refuted ? In other words, Can a sufficient reply be given to any known objection against iuimei'sion as the New Testament ordinance in opposition to pouring or sprinkling? We do not admit that each of these is necessary as a separate link in a chain of evidence. For instance, if the second proves that baptism involves immersion, what are the rest but illustrations or confirmations of the samel If the 11th is satisfactorily proved, who will maintain that all the others are necessary 1 And so in regard to more of them. But on account of preposessions to no ordinary extent existing on this subject, in ourselves or in our opponents, it may be most advantageous to enlarge a little on each source or confirmation of evidence that the baptism of the New Testament is immersion. SECTION II. ON EVIDENCE FROM GEEEK LEXICONS THAT BAPT'ISM IS IMMEESTON. Dr. J. P. Smith. — " To bring forwards, tlierefore, the statements of the most competent authors, in their own words, is due to the right position of the subject, and to the satisfaction of the reader." — Cong. Lcc, p. x. M. Henry. — "Tlie pliilology of the critics hath been of much more advantage to religion, and lent more light to sacred truth, than the pliilosophy of the school divines.'" — In New Test., from Griesbach's Text, by S. Sharpe, p. iii. Archb. Whately. — "Explain Scripture; Scripture will preach itself." — In H. B. Hall's Companion to, &c., p. xxxLx. Dr. Cabson. — "A sound mind is better than the gift of tongues." — In To.?, of Emi. Pad., p. 8. T. H. HoRNE. — " The same method and the same principles of interpretation are common both to the sacred WTiters and to the productions of unin.spired men ; consequently the signification of words in the Holy Scriptures must be sought precisely in the same way in which the meaning of words in other works is or ought to be sought." — Intro., vol. ii., p. 3()3. Prof. .1. H. Godwin. — "The meaning of the word not only determines the mode in wliich Christian baptism was instituted, but it is also of much consequence in reference to its design, and the right interpretation of many important passages." — Chr. Bap., pp. v., vi. One of us reading an English book, and meeting with a word of the meaning of which he was in ignorance, or had doubts, Avould very naturally and properly repair to an English dictionary. Not that lexicographers are infallible; but that generally they are men of enlarged acquaintance with the import of words, and if they cite at sufficient length from authors using the respective words to which they attach various, and what tlicy conceive to be correct meanings, we are assisted by these quotations to judge for ourselves respecting the accuracy of their ascribed meanings. All the lexicographers we shall quote being TESTIMONY FROM LEXICONS. 37 Psedobaptists, theii* testimony in favour of immersion may surely be deemed unexceptionable. From a number of those that are in the writer's library, he records the whole of the meanings which they give, withholding only the quotations and refei*ences in the way of proof or illustration, which are too lengthened to be transcribed without necessity. The same he would do from Schleusner and others, but for their great prolixity. In the rest, quotations by others have been transcribed. These are presumed to be correct, though the whole may not in every instance be recorded. The works of a few from whom we shall now quote are not designated lexicons, but they bear such a resemblance to them that the most appropriate place for such quotations is amongst those from lexicographers. Some others whose decisive opinion on the import of haptizo will subseqviently be quoted, might possibly have been placed here. LiDDELL AND ScoTT. — " Bapt'izo. To dip Under ivdter : of ships, to slnh \heai : ehaptisan ten polin, metaph. of the crowds wlio flocked into Jerusalem at the time of the siege: — Pass., to bathe; hoi hehaptismenui, soaked In ivine, Lat. I'ino madidi; ophle mam beb. over head and ears in debt; meirakion bapjtizomenon, a boy droumed with questions. 2. To draiu uiater. 3. To bap>tize. Baptisma, baptism. Baptis- mos, a dipping in water ; baptism. Baptistes, one that dips; a baptizer. ho bapt. the Baptist." RoBiNSOK. — " Baptizo. A frequentative in form but not in fact; to immerse, to sitik. 2. To tvash, to cleanse by icashinri ; trans. Mid. and aor. I pass, in middle sense, to wash one's self, to bathe, to perform ablution. 3. To baptize, to administer the rite of baptism, either that of John or of Christ. Pass, and Mid. , to be baptized, or to cause one's self to be baptized, i.e., generally to receive baptism. Metaph., to baptize with calamities, that is, to overwhelm icith sufferings. Baptisma. Properly, something immersed; in N. T. baptism. Metaph., baptism into calamity, that is, afflictions with which one is oppressed or overwhelmed. Baptismos. 1. Washing, ablution; 2. Baptism, i.e., the Christian rite. Baptisfes. A baptizer, that is, the Baptist, as a cognomen of John the Baptist, the forerunner of our Lord." * DoNNEGAN. — " Bajifizo. To immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge — ^to soak thoroughly, to saturate; hence, to di-ench with wine. Met., to confound totally — to dii> in a vessel, and draw. Pass. Perf. bebaptismai, to be immersed, &c. Baptismos. Immersion ; submersion ; the act of washing, or bathing. Ba2)fisma. An object immersed, submerged, washed, or soaked. Same signification as the foregoing. Baptistes. One who immerses, or submerges, &c. See baptizo, one who confers baptism." Stephanus. — "Baptizo. Mergo, seu immergo, ut quce tingendi aut abluendi gratia agues immergimus. (To immerse or immerge, as things which we immerse in water for the sake of dyeing or washing clean.) Mergo, i.e., Submergo, obi-uo aqud. (To immerse, i.e., to submerge, to overwhelm, in or with water.) Abluo, lavo. (To ivash off, to bathe.) Baptismos et Baptisma, Mersio, lotio, ahlutio, i.e., ipse mergendi, item lavendi seu abluendi actus. [Immersion, washing, washing clean; i.e., the act itself of immersing, also ofivashing [or bathing] or of washing off.) Baptlstes. Qui immergit, qui abluit. [He ivho immerses; he who washes clean.") Schleusner. — "Baptizo. 1. Proprie: immergo, etc infingo, in aquam mergo, a BAPTO, et respondet Hebraico tabal, 2 Kings v. 14. (Properly to immerge and dip in, to immerse into water, from bajyto; and it answers to the Hebrew tabal, 2 K. v. 14.) . . Jam, quia haud raro cdiquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet, ut laretur, hinc 2, abluo, lavo, aqua purgo noted. (Also because it was wont not unfrequently that something should be immersed or dij)ped into water that it might be washed ; hence, * Dr. John Brown, in the preface to his Exposition of Romans, speaks of "Those most valuable helps to the study of the New Testament generally — Robinson's Lexicon, Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Idioms, and Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament " (p. ix.). 38 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. 2, it means to wash off, to ivash [or bathe], to cleanse in [or with] water.) . . , BArTiZKtiTiiAi non solum lavari, .sal ctkim se lavare shjiiificare, mullis locis prohari potent. (Baptizesthai can iu many places be proved to signify not only to be washeil, but also to wash one'.i self.) . . . Hinc trans/ertur ad baptismi r'ttum solemnvm iiointed. Matt, xxviii. 19, that \\'ho- ever might be instructed in the rites of the Christian religion, and might be willing to embrace and ju'ofuss it, shoxdd be initiated, so that hajiflzo may be : to baptize, to administer baptism, to practise baptism, or, by the rite of baptism to bind any one to the profession of the Christian religion;) baptizomai autem sensu passivo significet: baptismum accipere, sacramento baptismi initiciri: in medio vera, quod hahet signifi- cationem reciprocam, se bajjtizandum curare, (but baptizomai may signify in a passive sense, to receioe baptism, to be initiated by the sacrament of baptism; in the middle, indeed, because it has a reciprocal signification, to take care that he be baptized.) . . . 4. Jlletaphorice : nt lat. imbuo, large et copiose do ahque supjiedito, largiter prof undo. Matt. iii. 11, aidos humas bapiisei en pneumati /uigiokai puri. (4. Meta-. phorically, as in Latin, to imbue, largely and copiously to give and supply, abundantly to pour forth. Matt. iii. II : He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.) . . . 6. Per metaphoram baptizesthai significat: calamitatum flttctihiis obrui, mergi miseriis, mala perferre, etiam sjxmte se pericidis vitw offerre mortem adeo i]ysam sibi inferri jtati. Sic legitur in N.T., Matt. xx. 22. (. . . 5. Figriratively, to be bajifi'.ed, signifies to be overwhelmed in [or with] the waves of calamity, to be immersed in troubles, to endure evils; also voluntarily to e.xjmse himself to the dangers of life, so as to .suffer death to be brought to himself. Thus it is read in the X.T., Matt. XX. 22.") Pahkhuest. — " Baptizo. I. To dip, immei'se, or plunge \nv,-a.ter. 2. Baptizo- mai. Mid. and Pass., to tvash one's self, be ivashed, ivash, that is, the hands by immersion or dipping iu water. The Seventy use baptizomai, !Mid. for uxtshing o)te's self by immersion. 3. To bapjtize, to immerse in, or wash loith, water in token of p)urifioition from sin, and from sj'iritual pollution. Baj'tizomai, Pass., denotes the voluntary reception of baptism, to be baptized, receive baptism, to be initiated by the rite of baptism. 4. To baptize, as the Israelites were into Moses iu the cloud and in the sea. 5. In a figurative sense, to baptize with the Holy Ghost. G. Figuratively, to be immersed or plunged in a flood, or sea, as it were, of grievous afflictions and sufferings. Baj^tisnm. I. An immersion or uxishing with water. 2. Baptism or immersion iu grievous and overwhelming afflictions and sufferings. Bapti.wios. An immersion or washing in wafer. Baptistes. A bap/lizer." SuiiREVELius. — "Baptizo. Baptizo, mergo, ahluo, lavo. (To baptize, immerse, wash off,* wash [or bathe].) Angl. Bajitize. B.aptisma. Immersio, tinctio, bap- tisms, (Immersion, dipping,t ba])tism.) Angl. Baptism. Baptismos. Baptismus, lotio. (Baptism, washing. ) Baptistes. Qui immergit, hapti^ta. (He who immei'ses — abaptizer. ) Et Angl. Baptist." Wright. — '' Bajdizo. I dip, immerse, jilunge, saturate, baptize, overwhelm." Leigh. — ^'Baptizo. . . . The native and proper signification of it is, to dip into water, or to ])lunge under water. Baptisma. 1. Dipping into water, or toashing rvith water, often. 2. IMiuistry and doctrine of John." Under bajitismos he says: "If we are willing to observe the im])ort of the word, the term of baptism signifies immersion into water, or the act itself of immersing and washing off. Therefore, from the very name and etymology of the word, it appears what would in the beginning be the custom of administering baptism, whilst we now have for baptism rather rhantism, that is, sprinkling. " W. Gkeenfield. — ^'■Baptizo. To immei'se, immerge, submerge, sink; iu N.T. * The word cleanse might be used for ahluo ; only the idea in the word itself is of cleansing t);/ washing. It means to wash away, to wash clean. t Tinrtii) sij,niifies dyeing (U- dipping. It was used 1)y Tertullian and other.i, and has been adojitiMl by Latin lexicngi-aphers, when undoubtedly they meant not dj'cing but dipping. Tingo has been also thus used, as can easily be demonstrated. TESTIMONY FROM LEXICONS. 30 to wiisli, perform ablution, cleanse; to immerse, baptize, administer the rite of baptism. Met., to overwhelm one with anything, to bestow liberally, imbue largely. Pass., to be immersed in, or overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed with calamities; whence Baptisma, pr. what is immersed; hence, immersion, baptism, ordinance of baptism; met., miseiy, calamity. Baptisinos. Immei-sion, baptism; a washing, ablution." EwiXfJ. — "Its primary signification, I cover with water, or some other fluid. 1. I plunge into, or siuk completely under water. 2. I cover partially with water ; I am covered with water to a certain degree. 3. I overwhelm or cover -with water by rushing, flowing, or jiouring upon. 4. I drench or impregnate wath liquor by afliision; I pour abundantly upon, so as to wet thoroughly ; I infuse. 5. I opjjress or overwhelm by In-inging burthens, affliction, or distress upon. 6. I wash in general. 7. I wash for the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or ceremonial intrilication. 8. I administer the ordinance of Christian baptism ; I baptize."* If these lexicographers give us the meaning of bajjtizo, how unreason- able, absurd, and untrue are the assertions of Pa?dobaptists, like those of Dr. Miller, "that the Scriptures nowhere declare" "that baptism was performed by immer.sion " ! It is tJien asserted, "They now^iere describe the mode;" by which is not meant the mode of the immersion, but whether baptism was immersion, poui-ing, or sprinkling. These lexico- gi'aphers teach us that in the word the Holy Spirit has chosen, the Scriptures teach most plamly that baptism is immersion. They say not that persons were immersed by immersion, or that they were immersed by pouring or sprinkling. We are advocating the reality of the immer- sion, not the mode, except that it be done decently and in order. Do we say that spi-inkling and pouring, killing and healing, blaming and praising, do not mean sprinkling and pouring, killing and healing, blaming and praising, unless tlie mode of .sprinkling, &c., is described I Do we invent for these words, and foist on them other meanings, if we have no delineation of mode 1 Do we say that something else than sprinkling, &c., took place under such circumstances ] Hedeeic. — "Baptizo. Mcrgo, immergo, aqua ohruo. 2. Abluo, lavo. 3. Bap- tizo. (To immerse, immerge, overwhelm in [or with] water. 2. To wash clean, wash [or bathe]. 3. To baptize. ) Baptts^la.. Jmmersin, tinctio. (Immersion, dipping into.) 2. Baptismits. (Baptism.) Baptlsmos. Idim. (The same.") In subsequent lexicographers who have wiitten in Latin, the original has been given where we have had the opportunity of transcribing it. Scapula. — "Baptizo. Mcrgo, sen immergo. (To immerse or immerge.) lievi tingo; ut quce tingtndi, out abluendi gratid aqnrp-f immtrgimus ; (also to immerse,:}: as things which we immerse in water for the sake of dyeing, or washing clean ;) item mergo, .mbmergo, ohruo aquce.f (Also to immerse, to submerge, to overwhelm in [or with] water.) Baptizomai. Mtrgor, sidnnergor. (To be immersed, to be submerged.) Baptismos et Baptisma. Mersio, Lotio, Ablatio, ipue immtrgendi, item lavendi sen abluendi actus. (Immersion, washing, washing clean; the act itself of immersing; also of washing, or washing clean.") SuiDAS. — "Baptizo. Mergo, Immergo, Tingo, Intingo, Madefacio, Lavo, Abluo, * These meanings given by Mr. Ewing to baptizo are taken from Dr. Cai-son, who maintains that in every example to which Mr. E. refers, immerse is the only idea that is contained in the word baptizo. f Whether tliis ought to be in the ablative, the writer has not the means of ascertain- ing by an examination of the original. X If Scapula, by this tingo, meant not to immerse, but to dye by immersion, it proves oiily that he, like some other lexicogi-aphei-s, had not sufficiently distinguished baptizo from bapto, as baptizo is nowhere to be met with in the sense of to dye. 40 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Pnrgo. (To immerse, to immerge, to clip, to dip in [or to steep in], * to wet, to wash [or liathe], to wash off, to cleanse.") He quotes from a Greek writer now unknown: "Desu-ing to swim through, they were hninersecl by their fuU armour ( ebaptlzonto tqmtes panoplias." ) ScHOETTGEN. — " Baptizo from Bapto; properly to plunge, to immerse, or plunge in water. To baptize, to immerse in, or wash with water." Bass. — " Bcq^tizo. To dip, immerse, plunge in water; to bathe one's self; to be immersed in sufferings or afflictions." Dunbar. — " Baptlzo. To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink, oversvhelm; to soak. In New Testament, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse, to ))aptize, generally by immersion. Baptisinos. Washing, ablution, baptism. Baptisma. What is immersed; immersion, clipping. Baptistes. He who dips or immerses; a bap- tizer." Morel. — "Baptizo. 1. Mergo, immergo, aqua obruo. (To immerse, to immerge, to overwhelm in [or with] water.) 2. Abluo, lavo. (To wash clean, to wash [or bathe].) Baptisma. 1. I mmersio, intinctio. (An immersion, a dipping in.") Laing. — "Baptizo. To baptize, to plimge in water." T. S. Green. — "Baptizo, pr., to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize. Baptismos. Act of dipping or immer- sion; a baptism, an ablution. Baptisma, pr., immersion; baptism, ordinance of baptism." [See the same meaning in Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament.] Grove. — ' ' Baptizo. To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to wash, cleanse, purify ; to baptize, to depress, humble, overwhelm. " Jones. — " Bajytizo. I plunge, jilunge in water, dip, baptize; phinge in sleep, bury, ovenchehn ; initiate into a knowledge of the Gospel ; plunge in air or wind, purify ; plunge in fire, consume or purify with fire. Baptisnui. Immersion, baptism, plunging in affliction." Stockius. — "Baptizo. Generatim ac vi vocis intinctionis ac immersionis baptizo notionem ohtinet. Speciatim proprie est immergere ac intingere in aquani. (Generally, and by the force of the word, it has the idea of dipping in and immersing. With special propriety it is to immerse and to dip into water.") lloBERTSON. — "Baptizo. Merge, lavo. (To immerse, to wash [or bathe].") vSuiCER says that "bapto signifies to dip, to dye by dipping; hence he is said baptein udrian (to dip a bucket) who draws water out of a well or river, which cannot be done unless the whole bucket is immersed under water. Wool and garments are said bajJtesthai (to be dipped), because tliey are entii'cly immersed in the dj^eiug vat, that they may imbibe the colour. Baptizo has very properly the same signification in the Ijest Avriters. Baptizein eauton eis thalassan, in the ancient poet, is, ' To plunge himself into the sea.' From the proper signification of the verb, iKipfisma or baptismos propei'ly denotes immersion, or clipping into. Hence baptisma is used in the same sense as katadusi.s: Ba])tisterion. The place where baptism was administered; the pool or bath in which the baptized were immersed." ScHWARZius. — "Baptizo. To baptize, to immerse, to overwhelm, to dip into." [To authenticate this as the primary meaning of the term, he adduces the following authorities: — Polybius, iii., c. 7*2; v., c. 47. Dio. xxx^^ii., p. 84; xxxvii., extr., p. 64 ; i. , pp. 492, 502, 505. PorphjTius de Styge, p. 282. Diodorus iSiculus, i. , p. 33. Strabon., vi., p. 421. Josei)lius Bell. Jud., p. 259. Joseph. Anticj., ix. ex., g 2.] "To wash, by inmiersing (Luke xi. 38; Matt. •vni. 4). Sometimes, to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon." [His only authorities adduced for these latter ideas are the two follo\\ing : — First, YEschyl. Promcth. Vinct. , p. 53: " Didehton en sphragaisi baj^sasa xip/tos." Here bapto, not baptizo, is the word which occurs. Secondly, Apud Platon. in conWv., p. 316 : " Kai gar hii autos eimi ton chthes hebaptismenon. For I myself am one of those who yesterday were Ijaptized." The allusion is to those who had drunk so freely that thej'^ might be said to be drenched in licjuor, to be bai)tized in wine. Whether the reference produced docs not confirm the idea of immersing or overwhelming, rather than that of sprinkling or pouring, let the reader judge.] " To purify and consecrate to God by immersion. Baptistes. The Baptist, wlio sustained the singular and sacred oftice of immersing ; men desirous * As tingo is frequently used in the sense of to dip, although its primary import is to dye, so intingo most usually means to dip in. TESTIMONY FROM LEXICONS. - 4-1 of salvation, that they might know themselves to be devoted to God." [See Booth's Pffido., vol. i., pp. 57, 58, in which plunge is given for immerse.'\ MiNTERT. — '■'■ Bapt'izo. To baptize; property, indeed, it signifies to plunge, to immerse, to dip into water: but becaiise it is common to plunge or dip a thing that it may be washed, hence also it signifies to wash, to wash clean. Baptlsinos. Immersion, dijiping into, washing, washing clean. Properly, and according to its etymology, it denotes that washing which is performed by immersion." Pasor. — "Baptizo. Immerip the bread does not say moisten tlie bread, yet it is known that the oljject of the dipping is to moisten. Now, it is from ignorance of this principle that lexicogi-aphers have given meanings to words which they do not possess, and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive criticism on controverted subjects, with res[)ect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be said with equal propriety, deit.sai en oino, or bapsai en oino, 'moisten in wine, or dip in wine ;' and from this circumstance it is rashly and unphilosophically con- cluded that one of the meanings of bapto is to moisten. "Let it be remembered that my censm-e lies against the critical exactness of lexicograi^hers, and not against their integrity, or even their general learning and ability. I go farther, — I acquit them of misleading their readers with respect to the general meaning of the passages, on the authority of which they have falsely assigned such secondary meanings. The ideas which they affix to such words, are iuiphed in the passage, though not the meanmg of the words oiit of which they take them. But this, which is harmless with respect to most cases, is hurtful in all points of controversy, as it gives a foimdation for the evasive ingenuity of sophistiy in the defence of error. It may l>e of no importance to correct the lexicographer who, from finding the ex})ressious deusai en oino and hapnui en oino employed for the same thing, asserts that here bapsai signifies to moisten. But it is of great importance when the error is brought to apply to an ordinance of Christ" (p. 57). As an illustration and proof of correctness in the preceding state- ments, it may be mentioned that several have spoken of haptizo as meaning to immerse partially, one of the . meanings of the word accoi'ding to a lexicon previously quoted, and that in proof of the word having this meaning we are referred to a j^assage in Poly bins, where he speaks of soldiers passing through waters, baptized (immersed) up to the breast. A. 2ya'>'tial immersion is certainly described in this passage; yet it is not expressed in the word baptized, but in the words up to the breast, which qualify the immersion of which the author sj^eaks. How far Dr. Halley agrees vnth Dr. Carson in regard to the secondary senses of words, may be judged from the following : — "For my own part I am bound to say, althoiigh I differ from many of the most intelligent of my brethren, who hold Dr. Carson in this particular to be especially imsound, that in his remarks on the varying and secondary senses of words, I can detect nothing imfair or unreasonable. His great principle, if I correctly under- stand him, is tliat whoever assigns to a disputed word a secondarj' sense, or any variation of usage, is Ijouud to the proof of it. Can au;yi;hiug be more reasonable ? The difficulty, I fear, will ])e found in adjusting the previous question, 'What amount of evidence ought to be deemed sufficient in these cases ? " (p. 343. ) With these pi'eliminary remarks, we jiroceed to examine the impoi-t of haptizo from its use l)y Greek writers before and after the time of o\ir SaA'iour unto at least the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Our selection will be, unless through ovei'sight there be an omission, of every instance of the occurrence of the word that we have seen noticed by Psedobaptist waiters, and of many others, that have been quoted, so far as we know, only by the Baptists. Orpheus, nearly a tlioiisand years before Christ (or the author of what is attributed to Orpheus), uses this word in his Argonantics, line 510: "But when the sun (baptizeto) immerses himself m the waters of the ocean." It is not necessary to observe that the sun does not literally, but apparently, go down into the ocean. Instead of immerses, could we in justice to Orpheus, or to common TESTIMONY FROM USE. 45 sense, adopt pours, sprinkles, toashes, or purifies? Would not any of these forms by every one be rejected 1 and is not the word diji, or immerse, the very word which every one might use 1 Dr. Halley admits this to be the meaning of the word in the note in which he says that the poem, though undoubtedly ancient, is falsely ascribed to Orpheus. Similarly test every extract, in order from its use to know the certain import of this Greek word. Pindar, born A. c. 520, referring to the impotence of slanderers, whose calumnies, though they might for awhile affect a good man, could not ruin him, says: "As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am I ( alxvptistos ) unhn- wersed (or 2uiinimersible"*) {Pi/th. ii., 140). The ancient Greek scholiast explains: "For like the cork of a net in the sea I s\^am, and (ou baptizomai) am not immersed. As the cork, though loaded with the tackle {ou dunei), does not sinl; so T also am (abaptistos) not immersed (or not immersible). They rail at me indeed, but as when tlie net is cast, and sunk imder water, the cork remains (abciptistos) iinimmersed (or nnimmersihle), and swims on the surface of the sea [abaptistos), being not immersed (or not immersible); in like manner am I (abajitistos) not immersed {not overwhelmed, or not capable of being overwhelmed) in the calumnies and detractions of others ; for I am of another nature, and as the cork is in a fishing net." Is any encouragement given to pouring or sprinkling when the word is applied "to that which is not or cannot be submerged ?" Its applica- tion to Pindar is metaphorical. He was not, or he could not be, overwhelmed by calumnies, but was like the cork, ifec. ^sop, who died A.c. 561, in Fable 156, The Ape and the Dolphin (or one of the -(Esopic Fables) says : ' ' The dolphin, vexed at such a falsehood {baptizon aiiton apekteinen), immersing {him), killed him." If this and some others were not written by the writers to whom they are ascribed, they are so ancient that their authorship does not affect the present question. Anacreon, who flourished about a.c. 532, says: "Platting a garland once, I found Ciipid among the roses; taking hold of him by the wings {ebaptis' eis ton oinon), I immersed him into the wine, and drank him up with it." — In White and Miller's Edi., 1802, p. 92. j^schylus, who died about A. c. 456, is thus quoted by Dr. Eyland : " ^Immersing his two-edged sword in slaughter.' Douljtless hy jilunging it into their bodies, not by holding it before a small puncture to be sprinkled." Alcibiades [or in an epigram attributed to him], about A.c. 400, sa5^s: "You dipped me in plays; but I, in waves of the sea immersing {baptizon), wiU destroy thee viith. streams more bitter." Eiibulus, a writer of comedies, about A. c. 380, says, with comic extravagance, of one whose vessel is wrecked in a storm, and becomes a i^rey to the ingulphing floods: "Who now the fourth day is immersed {baptizetai), leading the famished life of a miserable mullet." — Frag, of Com. Naiisicaa. Hippocrates, who died A.c. 361, describing the respiration of a patient, says: "And she breathed as persons breathe after being immersed {eh tou bebaptisthai") (On Epid., b. v.). Also, "He breathed as persons breathe {el: tou bebaptisthai) from being immersed" {On Epi., b. vii.) Again, in a work attributed to him: "Shall I not laugh at him who (baptisanta), having immersed his ship with many burdens, then blames the sea for having enguphed it full laden?" — Epis. to Damagetus. If the breathing is affected either by a person being immersed in * Abaptistos is a participal form of baptize, with a negative prefix. It means, not baptized, or not baptizable. Liddel and Scott give one first, and Donneg.in gives the other first; Stephanus gives only unimmersible. 40 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. ■watei', or by Laviug a large q\iantity cla.shecl upon him, the passage afFoi'ds no froof that haptizo has hei*e an unusual sense, or any other sense than immerse. When applied to a shiji, which, being overloaded "with its cargo, sinks and is lost, undoubtedly it means nothing less than immersion. " Bapt'izo" says Dr. Halley, referring to Dr. Cai'son, " is sufficient, as he knows very well, to sink tlie largest ship in her Majesty's navy " (p. 3o8). Again, in a work attributed to Hippocrates — and if these works are not his, they are uu questionably of an ancient date — it is directed to dip the pressary into oil of roses, or Egyptian oil, "and again immerse {bapt'izehi) it into breast-milk and Egyptian ointment " (^Oii Bis. of Women, b. i.). Professor Wilson here translates kai haptizein palin es gala yunaikos, and dip it again in breast.milk ; but teaches that the I'eading "in the end may turn out to be sjiurious," and tliat we should wait until we have "a good critical revision of Hippocrates." It is too clearly in evidence of immersion, although we do not accept his translation of the preposition. He also quotes with commendation from Dr. Halley the following: — "In two instances he (Hippocrates) speaks of a peculiar breatliiug, as of persons ' after being baptized,' which is applicable to persons having been under water, whether dipped or over- flowed, and so tliey teach nothing concerning mode; or rather, being used where no intention of expressing mode ajapears, they confirm our opinion," If our Independent, Presbyterian, and other Pajdobaptist brethren, did in any decent mode bring " under water " in baptism, their reasoning and practice would be much less contemptible." (See Dr. W., pp. 104, 105.) PLato, wlio died al>out A.c. 348, using hnptizo figuratively, speaks of his "knowing a youth to be {Ixipthoinenon) overwhelmed (or immersed) " with (or in) questions and subtleties. Aristoi)Lanes, in Plato, says: "I am one of those who yesterday were (hehaptismenon) immersed ;" meaning, who drank much, or, as an Englishman woidd say, who had well soaked ourselves ; as Shakespeai'e, speaking of "spongy officers," plied "with wine and wassel," says: — ""\\nien in swinish sleep Their drenched natures lie." In another jdace he says, " Ba2)tisasa," &c., — ^^Hamnfj overiohelmed Alexander with much wine." Aristotle, who was born about A.c. .384, when speaking of several strange narra- tions, observes : " They say respecting the Phenicians, who inhabit the parts called Gadeira, that they, sailing beyond the pillars of Hercules for four da3-s with an easterly wind, came to some desert places, abounding with rushes and sea-weeds, which on the ebb {me hapfae.sthni) are not immersed, hut in the flood [katakluzcsthai) are deluged." — De Mirahil. Auscidt. 136. Hei'e the immersion was not by the desert places being dipped into the sea, but by the sea coming upon and covering the desert places. And because these desert places are baptized when covered by the adv'anciug tide, our Picdobaptist brethren are most strangely confirmed in their convictions that a man is baptized on whose face a little water Ls pound, or a few drops are sprinkled; yea, to whom water in any way is applied ! Because baptism here is a submersion, or because the immersion is also a submei'sion, the rolling tide having covered these desert places, and the use of haptizo in one or two other places with similar clearness and emphasis encourages sprinkling or }>ouring, with TESTIMONY FROM USE. 47 marvellous rapidity and by a certain route tliey reach the conclusion that it has " a breadth and variety of meaning which claim for it a power and pliancy of universal application " ! (Stacey, p. 87. See Wilson, p. 333.) We shall believe this when we believe, with one Ptedobaptist, that submersion " rejiresents an idea as foreign to that of dipping as to that of sprinkling " (Stacey, p. 184). Heraclides Pouticus, who lived about a. c. 335, when moralizing on the fable of Mars being taken in a net by Vulcan, says : " Neptune is ingeniously supposed to deliver Mars fi'om Vulcan, to signify that when a piece of iron is taken red-hot out of the fire, and [kudatl bapt'izetai) immersed In water, the heat is repelled and extinguished by the contrary nature of water." — Alleyor., p. 495. It has been said, " Why may not the water be put over the hot iron, as well as the iron be 2^ul into the water," as Dr. Gale renders it '? " If the iron were covered with water, the heat would be effectually expelled." The present writer does not advocate the exclusive sense of putting into as the meaning of baptizo; but this opponent of Di-. Gale does not honovir himself by ignoring the common sense, «»4,'w© believe^ universal p^g^iiim of smiths. Mr. Stacey, however, is much bolder than Dr. H. He says, "without any qualification (although in opposition to what is dietated^by cowtmon'ffense, and to what is accordant with the syntax of the passage, and with practice pi*esent and past), " It is employed fur the pouring of water on heated iron." This is another specimen of the conclusions to which our Piedobaptist friends leap under the influence of prepossession. We adoiit that the use of the dative here without a preposition, may be considered to make "with water" a more correct rendering. To such a rendering we wall not strongly object, but will maintain that immersion took place, even if effected by pouring. Prof. J. H. Godwin translates: "For a mass of iron, heated to redness, being drawn out by the smiths, is baptized [overwhelmed, dipped] with water, and that which was fiery by its own nature, being quenched with water, ceases to be so." He explains being baptized, by "overwhelmed, dipped." Gesner's translation is, '' Siquidem ignea Jerri massa, fornacibus extracta, aqace immergitur." Similarly, Stephen, in his Thesaurus, says: "Abaptos siDEROS, Non temperatum ferrum, ab A priv. et bapto, hitingo. Nam ferrum intingendo in aquam, temperature He had not the sagacity to know any other practice of smiths in tempering iron than " by putting it into water " (Art. A bajytos). The only meaning of intingo in Dr. W. Smith's Latin Dictionary is to dip in. In speaking subsequently of the dative when the preposition en is understood, Noel and his quotations in proof will be adduced. Demosthenes, born about a.c. 381, showing what class of persons Aristogeiton was accustomed to harass by false accusations and extortion, says : ' ' Not the speakers [pul:)lic orators], for these know how to lilay the immersing Match (diahap- tizesthai) with him, but private persons and the inexperienced." — Against Aristog., Ora, i. 5. In this and in some other instances the rendering of Dr. Conaut is given. His work on Baptizein, giving the Greek and the English, and adducing most copiously the occux'rences of baptizo in Greek writers of every character and age, may be consulted with great advantage. In this instance, and in some others, baptizo appears compouiided with a 48 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. preposition ; but in all cases of tlie prepositiou, whether dia, indicating thoroughness; or Jcata, down, downward; or en, in; the simple idea is strengthened rather than diminished, and the import of haptizo, to immerse, is corroborated. Evenus, of Paros, about 250 A.c, .says that Baccliiis "immerses {haptlzei) in sleep, neighbour of death." — l^pig. xv.. We may here insert some Greek "wi-itings of an ancient and uncertain date, by unknown authors. J^^sopk Fables. — ' ' One of the salt-bearing mules, rushing into a river, accidentally slipped down; and rising up lightened (the salt becoming tlissolved), he perceived the cause, and remembered it ; so that always, when passing through the river, he purposely lowered down and immersed [haptizein) the panniers." Fable of the Shepherd euul the Sea. — "But a ^^olent storm coming on, and the ship being in danger of beiyig immersed [baptizesthai], he threw out all the lading into the sea, and with difficulty escaped in the empty ship."* Fable of the Man and the Fox. — "A certain man . . . immersing (baptisas) tow in oil, bound it to her tail, and set fire to it." Dip and similar words might be used instead of immerse, but fidelity to the evident import of the original will never allow such words as pour or sprinkle to be given as the rendering of the Greek haptizo. Life of Pythagoras. — "As to enter into the ship, or not to enter, is in oiu* own power ; Ijut the sudden coming on of storm and temjiest, in fair weather, depends on fortune; and that the immersed {JKiptizomenen) ship beyond all hope is saved, is of the providence of God." Archias, a writer of uncertain date, speaks of a "fishing rod thrice-stretched, and cork unimmersed [ahaptiston) in ivater {kath hudor)." — Epigram x. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, made in the third century before Christ, which also contains, in Greek, the apocryphal writings, in the folio wing places has the word baptizo:—2 Kings v. 14; Isa. xxi. 4; Judith xii. 7; Eccles. xxxi. 25. " Naaman went down and (ebajytizato) dip2)ecl himself seven times in Jordan." The Hebrew word, which our translators have rendered " dipped," is rendered by the Septuagint ebaptizato. We regard this as confirmatory of our sentiment that the meaning of bapiizo is to immerse. Dr. Halley on this passage says: "Dr. Cai-son says he dipped himself; his ojiponents say, because, according to the law of his purification, the leper was to be S2:)rinkled seven times, — he sjninkled himself. Agreeing, as I do, with Dr. Carson, for the Mosaic law of the leper is inapplicable in this instance, T can see nothing in the passage to determine the sense of the word. Prove from other passages that it means to dip, and there is no objection to admit that sense in this verse" (p. 379). We think that not only Dr. Carson says, but that the English translation, in accordance both with the Hebrew and the Greek, says that Naaman " dij)pcd himself" Besides, the simple assertion that the * The word haptizo oft occurs in connexion with vessels wholly or partly immersed. Achilles Tatiu.s, about the middle of the fifth century after Christ, sjieaks of lightening "that part of the ship that was immcr.^ed (hajitiznmenon)-" and of the wind shifting "to another quarter of the ship, and the vessel is almost immersed (haptizdai)" (In Dr. Conant, pp. 25, 2G). He also uses the word figuratively in the sense of overwhelming, and literally in tlic sense of dipping, when he describes the E^yjitian boatman drinking water from the Nile hy letting down his " hand and immersing (baptisas) it hollowed, and filling it with water." TESTIMONY FROM USE. 49 leper, according to the law of puriticatiou, was to be .sprinkled seveu times, is a statement of bnt a part of the law of purification, which is a course adtxpted to deceive. With water, over which a bird had been killed, the leper was to be sprinkled seven times; also, it is added, *'And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and ivash himself in ivater, that he may be clean. But it shall be ou the seventh day that he shall shave all liis hair off his head, and his beard, and his eyebi'ows, — even all his haii- he shall shave off : and he shall wash his clothes; also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean " (Lev. xiv. 8, 9). Mr. Stacey says that the dipping is '' prohahly to be understood in the sense of a partial ablution;" and that "the defence of the common translation ' he dipped himself,' rests principally on the assumption that tahal, of which hajitize is the representative, means only to immerse;" and that scholars of the first eminence, according to the testimony of Dr. Beecher, " ' of whom it is enough to mention Suicei*,' believe and affirm that it passed early from the sense of to dip to that of to wash ; a judgment which admirably meets the requirements of this case," and which is confirmed by " the Vulgate " (a Latin translation), which gives lavo both for Elisha's command and Naaman's obedience, and that the Avord tahal not only acquired the meaning of "to wash," but also " that of to dye, to stain." (See Stacey, pp. 189, 190.) In reply to the above, we observe, first, that his probalnlity of a partial ablution is not only unsubstantiated, but is opposed to the natural import either of "dipped himself" or "Avashed himself," and also to the law of the leper's purification. Prof. Wilson, referring to the Lyaistrata of Aristophanes, says: "Persons are spoken of who must be (leloumenos) ivashed, bathed; and as no part is specified, and none appears to bo excepted even by implication, the washing is not partial, but must be understood of a total ablution." He says : " We see no ground for objecting to the general principle, that when the verb is employed, without any regimen expressed or implied, the washing is not confined to a pai't, but comprises the whole body." " Of this usage, the appro- priateness of v^'hich commends itself to the good sense of mankind, numerous and pertinent examples from the classics have been produced, and especially by Dr. Carson"* (pp. 154, 153). Secondly, we are entirely ignorant of the assumption of which M):. S. speaks. We do not know that any Baptist has ever assumed this. We stand in no need of such an assumption. In maintaining that haptizo invariably means to immerse, using, as we do, the English word accoi'ding to its English import, we do not say that every Hebrew or other word, for which haptizo may be given in rendering the same into Greek, must also necessarily mean neither more nor less than what hapttizo means. Truly, says Dr. Carson : * Tills same writer, we are aware, afterwards says, on 2 Kings v. 14: "From this occurrence of the verb haptizo, no independent eAddence can Le extracted In support of any mode of baptism" (p. 173). And he teaches, 1. That it is "not unreasonable to conclude that the washing enjoined by the prophet was partial." 2. That cleansing being the gi-and aim, "only some application of water was contemplated," and, therefoi-e, "immersion, affusion, sprinklinrj," "that latitude of meaning," says he, "which we maintain to be the birthright of haptizo," remain undisturbed ! (pp. 173, 4). E 50 IMPORT OF BAPTlS^r. "Words may in certain circumstances be commutable, when they are not at all identical in meaning." Also Dr. Wall : " Words in different languages do seldom exactly answer one another in the "whole import of each" (vol. iv., pp. 194, 195). Elsewhere Mr. S. can say of a Latin and a Greek word, that " both terms, though hy no means muhially inter- changeable, were used, the one by the Greek and the other by the Latin fatliei-s " (p. 7). We think that the assumption belongs to j\Ir. Stacey. Prof. Wilson says : — ' ' If tliere is evidence that Xaaman dippetl himself, we have candour enough to admit, that in so doing he comphed substantially with what was required of him. " Further, ' ' AVe cherish, as cordially as Dr. Carson coidd have desired, the strong conviction that two or more terms may, in certain situations, be interchangeable, while they are by no means sjTionymous. It is no uncommon thing, though a perfectly transparent fallacy, to suspend identity of meaning on the mere cu'cum- stauce that in a proposition one word may 1)e substituted for another, without altering the sense. We may say indifferently the ship foundered, or the vessel perished, in relation to the same catastrophe ; but this phraseologj' does not imply that shi]} and vessel have precisely the same meaning, or that foundering and jxrishing express the same thought, without moditicatiun " (pp. 147, 148). Thii'dly, the language of Mr. S. clearly admits that the primary meaning of tahal is to dij). He .speaks of its passing from this meaning to the sense of washing, dyeing, staining. If this is the case, according to the canon of interpretation to which we presume every intelligent and candid mind will consent, it devolves on Mr. S. to prove that the word has here the secondaiy meaning of to wash, assuming for the present that the word did acc^uire this secondary sense. What Dr. Beecher and Suicer have written resj)ectiug tliis Hebrew word, we do not know. Suicer has already been quoted in jH'Oof that the meaning of haptizo is to immerse. That the Greek word haiito has the primary meaning of to dip, and that it is also used in the sense of to dye and to stain, we admit. That tahal may in some instances of its occiu-rence mean to stain, we neither deny nor affirm. We are aware of the unusual rendering of the Septuagint in Gen. xxxioi. 31. Our affii-mation has reference to the meaning of eaptizo. We may mention that the subsequent use of tahal in the same book does not, to our minds, encourage the idea that it had passed to another sense. See 2 Kings viii. 15: " And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died : and Hazael reigned in his stead." In every other instance of its occurrence it is rendered dij) by the English translators, excepting Job ix. 31, where it is rendered " ])lunge." It occurs in the following places: — Gen. xxxvii. 31; Ex. xii. 22; Lev. iv. 10, 17, ix. 9, xiv. 6, IG, 51; Num. xix. 18: Deu. xxxiii. 24; Josh. iii. 15; Ruth ii. 14; 1 Sam. xiv. 27; 2 Kings v. 14, viii, 15; and Job ix. 31. That the Yulgate gives lavo, a word signif}T.ng to lathe, we admit. A Latin word more appropriate to designate washing or bathing, to represent washing in the sense of bathing, we do not know. Mr. Stacey reasons on the false principle, exposed in the former part of this section, that because one word is iised for another, it ought, as its representative, to be its perfect s3'nonym. Furthei', on supposition that the word used by Elisha in his command was a word which signified to wash, and TESTIMONY FROM USE. 51 uiigiit hetve been pvopei'ly used whether Naaman "washed himself pai*- tially, or wholly dipped himself in the river, we have to do with the retiord of inspii'atiou respecting what Naaman did. If the command of Elisha was not such that obedience to it must necessarily have been another act than that of dipping himself, the latter record, the record of Naaman's conduct, remains in all its force, that he ebaptizaio, dipiicd himself seven times in Jordan. That the Hebrew word rahhalz, used by Elisha in his command, is perfectly accordant with JSTaaman's conduct in dipping himself, any one may ascertain by examining Hebrew lexi- cons, or the translation given in our English Bibles. It is rendered hathe in more than a dozen instances of its occurrence ; and when it is rendered to wash one's self, there is the highest authority for the affir- mation that, at least usually, it means to bathe one's self.* The Septuagint gives louo (the import of which as given by Robinson is, to hcdhe, to tvash), to which the Latin Icwo is nearly equivalent. The Septuagint, in changing the word when describing JSTaaman's obedience, is more definite, and more consistently following the Hebrew, than is the Vulgate, which uses again the same word; although the Latin involves no obscurity when the words in connexion ai'e considered along with the import of lavo. We treat with disdain the assumption and fallacy involved in the following: — "As then, in the example under notice, the Hebrew word may possibly denote something less than to immerse, so may its Greek representative haptizo; and this conceded, the possible, viewed with especial reference to the circumstances of the case, becomes all but certain" (p. 190). We may further observe, that the HebrcAv word tahal is the very word employed by the Mishna to express the proselyte baptism of the Jews, respecting Avhich " Professor Stuart affi.rms it to be ' on all hands conceded, that so far as the testimony of the rabbins can decide such a point, the baptism of the proselytes among the Jews was by immersion ' " (In Wilson's Inf. Bap., p. 205). Also Dr. Halley says:—" I feel bound in candour to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt whatever" (p. 309). As confirmatory of the correctness of our views, we may quote the following : — Keil and Bertheau. — "As soon as he dipped iu the Jordan seven times, according to the word of Elislia, liis leprosy is removed." "He dipped himself seven times in Jordan."— Co??«. on 2 Kings v. 8-14. Clark's Edi. Thos. Bissland. — "He went down and dipped himself seven times iu Jordan." —Ch. o/Eng. Marj., p. 88; 1837. Dr. W. Smith's Biblical Dictionary. — Elisha sends to iSTaaman "the simple direction to bathe seven times in the Jordan." At length "he goes down to the Jordan and dips himself seven times." — Art. Elisha. G. (G. Grove.) Dr. Kitto does not appear to doubt the correctness of Avhat is so * The word rahhatz occm-s in Gen. xviii. 4, xix. 2, xxiv. 32, xliii. 24, 31 ; Ex. ii. 5, xxix. 4, 17, XXX. 18, 19, 20, 21, xl. 12, 30, 31, 32; Lev. i. 9, 13, viii. 6, 21, ix. 14, xiv. 8, 9, XV. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27, xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28, xvii. 15, 16, xxii. 6 ; Num. xix. 7, 8, 19 ; Deu. xxi. 6, xxiii. 11 ; Jud. xix. 21 ; Ruth iii. 3 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 41 ; 2 Sam. xi. 2, 8, xii. 20; 1 Kings xxii. 38; 2 Kings v. 10, 12, 13; Job ix. 30, xxix. 6; ■ Ps. xxvi. 6, Iviii. 10, Lxxiii. 13; Prov. xxx. 12; Can. v. 3, 12; Is. i. 16, iv. 4; Eze. xvi. 4, 9, xxiii. 40. 52 IMPOKT OF BAPTISM. explicitly assei'ted in our authorized, and, for auytliiiig we know, in every other version. He says that " The prophet sent out a message directing liim to go and batlie seven times in the river Jordan. The self-esteem of the distinguished leper was much hurt at this treatment. . . . His attendants, however, succeeded in soothing him, and persuaded him to follow the prophet's directions; and when he rose, perfectly cleansed, from the Jordan, his feelings turned to conviction and gi-atitude." — Pic. His. of Pal anil the Jews, p. 575. Knight's Edi. Dr. John P. Durbin. — "Looking upon the transparent watei-s, they seem to apologise for ' Naamau the leper, ' when, mortified and indignant, he turned away from the ' prophet in Samaria, ' who had directed him to ' dip himself seven times in Jordan, ' and exclaimed, ' Are not Alcana and Pharphar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the Avaters of Israel ; may 1 not wash in them and be clean ? ' Surely he was right, if a comparison of waters was to decide the cpiestion. " — In Kitto's Dal Bi. lllus., pp. 133, 134. In the Septuagint, haptho occiirs again in Is. xxi. 4. It is here used figiiratively, in application to the mind : "Iniquity {me haptizei) immerses {overwhelms) 7ne." The common version of the Hebrew is, " Tearfulness hath affriglited me." The figurative import, " overwhelm," naturally follo"\vs from the literal, "immerse." Mr. Stacey says: "We can feel the propiiety and beauty of the figure which makes iniquity overwhelm^ but not the elegance of that which makes it immerse, or f/?p us" (p. 192). Can Mr. S. feel the propriety or elegance of a figure which makes iniquity to sprinkle or pour us ? Are these words ever thus used tropically? Is not immerse frequently used in the figurative sense of overwhelming, but sprinkle never in such a sense % Dr. Wilson teaches "that the idea of overwhelming" "constitutes the fovuidation of this bold figure" (p. 179). Again, in the Apocryphal book Judith, the Seventy use this word: "She {ehajitizeto) immersed herself in a fountain" (xii. 7). All that we assert is, that the apociyphal writer affirms that Judith, a woman of Bethulia, near which city the Assyrian army lay encamped, repaii-ed to this fountain during the night, .ind bathed herself therein, and returned clean. It is sufficient for us, independently of the fact that bathing was one mode of puiification, that there is no proof that haptho is used hei'e in a sense ditlerent from that which it has elscwdiere. Dr. Halley says: "Whatever others may be able to do, I can learn nothing from such a use of the word."'" Dr. Stuart says: "She washed herself." We now proceed to the last use of this word in the Septuagint. We read in Eccles. xxxi. 25: (^Baptizomenos apo nekroti, (kc.) "He who is immersed from the dead, and toucheth it again, what doth he * Dr. Conant say.s : "Compare, in ch. vi. 11, ' the fountains that were undei- Bethulia;' eh. vii., 'and [llolofenies and his horsemen] viewed the ^w-war/cs up to the citi/, and came to the fountain of their waters, and took them;'' v. 17, 'and tlicij [the Ammonites and Assyrians] ]')itch,ed in. the vullci/, and took the waters, and the fountains of the chihJren of Israel.' There was evidently no lack of water for the imnier.sion of tlic body after the Jewish manner; namely, by walking into the water to the i)roper depth, and then sinking down till the whole body was immersed . "One of the oldest Greek miuiuscripts (No. .^)8), and the two oldest versions (the Syriac and Latin), road 'immersed {l>aiiti-:id) herself in the fountain of water' (omitting ' in the camp'). According to the common Greek text, this was done 'at the fountain;' to which she went, Ijecause she liad there the niesuis of immersing herself. Any other use of water, for purification, co\dd liavo been made in her tent'" (p. 85). TESTIMONY FROM USE. 53 2>rofit (to loutro) hy his bathing?^' The common version is: "He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing'?" (xxxiv. 25). On tlie form of the expi-ession, baptized from the dead, which to some readers may appear uncouth. Dr. Couant remai-ks : — " In this constniction {iminerse from), the writer puts the means for the effect; immersion of the body l>eing the means (symhohcally) by which one Avas freed from the polhition of contact with the dead. ^Sprinkled J'roin an evil conscience,^ is the correct transhitiou of Heb. x. 22, where also the writer puts meauH for effect; for the metaphoi-ical application of the phrase presupposes tlie literal use of the same form, Uiid we must give the literal meanijig, unless we \\ouId sink the writer's metaphor. This brevity of expression is so common au idiom in the sacred writings (and in the early imitations of them), that it has become a recognized figure of speecli (Compare Winer's Grammar of the New Tes. , § 66, 2). For example, 2 Cor. xi. .3: 'So your minds should he corrujited from the shnplkify that is in Christ;' 'corrupted from,' that is, turned from by being corrupted — the means pxit for the effect" (p. 86). Dr. Halley appropriately says : "It assumes the construction of words denoting to wash from uncleanness — ])recisc]y the construction Avhich may be found on opening any Greek author, and turning to any page in which a clean.sing from pollution is mentioned " (p. 380). That the law of the Jews respecting those rendered unclean by the touch of a dead body required, among other things, that they should bathe themselves in water, we learn from Num. xix, 19. Polybius, who died about a.c. 124, speaks of soldiers wading through deep waters, and expressly limits the application of baptizo to that part of the body which was covered with water. ' ' Tlie foot-soldiers passed with difficulty {Jjaptlzo- tnenoi), being immersed up to the breast" (vol. iii., c. Ixxii.). Again, speaking of Melon's cavalry, he says : ' ' Wlio, coming into near proximity with the forces of Zencetas, through ignorance of the localities required no enemy, but themselves by themselves immersed (haptizomenoi) and slnlcin;/ (hatadunontes) in the pools, were all useless, and many of them also perished " (His., b. v., c. xlvii. 2). Elsewhei'e he says : ' ' Such a storm sviddenly arose through all the country, that the ships ivere immersed, in the Tiber." Also, speaking of a sea-fight between the Cartha- ginians and the Romans, he says : ' ' They [ebaptizon) immersed many of the vessels of the Eomans" (b. i., c. xxxvi.). Diodonis Siculus, who flourished about A.c. 44, says: "Whose ship [baptistheises) being immersed." Also, speaking of animals when the waters of the Nile over- flowed, he says: "Many of the land animals, carried away by the river (baptizo- inena), being immersed, perish." Prof. Wilson i*enders the words thus: "The greater number of the land animals, overtaken by the river, perish {baptizomena), being baptized," and proceeds in coiToboration of sprinkling as Chi-Lstian baptism, to say on this quotation : " The land animals are browsing upon the pasture- ground : the flood of waters rushes upon them with irresistible inunda- tion; a few narrowly escape, but most of them are overwhelmed, and perish." " The overflowing water came upon the animals, surrounded them, overwhelmed them, and in this manner their destruction was effected" (pp. 108, 109). Describing the operations of certain engines, Diodorus says: "Which being done, some of the vessels fell on their side, and some were overturned ; but most of them, when the prow was let fall from on high, being immersed (baptizmnena), became filled with sea-water and with confusion" (His., b. viii., c. 8, 4). Again, speaking of the manner of taking the sword-fish ; "And even if the spear falls into 04 IMPORT OF BAPTISJI. the sea, it is uot lost ; for it is compacted of both oak ami piue, so that wlieu the oaken part is immersed (hapthomenon) Ly tlie weight, the rest is buoyed up, aad is easily recovered." — Ills., b. xxxiv., c. 3, 7. Again, "The river, borne along by a more \ioleut current (ehaptife), immersed many" (b. xvi., c. Ixxx.). Instead of the process of imtting into the water, we ai'e correctly tauglit by Prof "Wilson that the river both '' could and did overwhelm and destroy them." We assui'edly may here make a different application of words with which the Prof supplies us : "No ingenuity is requisite to discover the tnie meaning, as no philological torture can draw from the words a confession in favour of" si^rinkling, or anything short of immer- sion, as the import of hajdizo. This advocate of sprinkling so glories iu this quotation from Diodorus, that in conclusion he says : " One such example Ave hold to be capable of upsetting for ever the preposterous interpretation that would bind doAvn haptho in all its occurrences to the modal sense of immersion" (pp. 110, 111). How common sense or the highest intellectual endowments can here see anything short of immer- sion, we know not. On the mode of immersion we are not arguing. We are pleading for the thing itself ' ' Also, on the battle of Salamis, Diodorus says : ' The commauder of the fleet, leading on the line, and first joining battle, was slain after a brilliant conflict ; and his ship being immersed {haptistheises), confusion seized the fleet of the barbarians' " (b. xi., c. xviii. ). He also \ises the word figuratively, saying: "But the common people [ou hajytizousi) they do not overwhelm with taxes." Dionysius, of Haliearnassus, who lived diu'ing the Augustine age, alluding, in the Life of Horner, to the I6th book of the Iliad, 333, where Homer says of Ajax, "He struck him on the neck with the hilted sword," remarks: "In this he expresses gi-eat emphasis; the sword {J)optisthentos outo) being so immersed as to be warmed." — Vit. Horn., p. 297. Mr. Stacey, when referring to this, says that the word baptize here is employed " for the flow of blood from a newly-made wound on a warrior's sword" (p. 187). Let any man endeavour to make any sense in this or in any occurrence of hcqytizo, by xising the words here given by Mr. S. for baptize. Prof Wilson says : " That the sword, then, was baptized, or overwhelmed with blood, is the sense at once sustained by the construc- tion, and in accordance AAath the matter of fact" (p. 117). Could the sword be warmed with blood by sprinkling, or without immersion, by whatever mode effected 1 Strabo, who died A. D. 25, speaking of the lakes near Agrigentum as having the taste of sea water, but being of a different nature, says: "Nor does it happen to those who do not swim (baptizesthai) to be immersed there; they float as wood does" (vi. 421). He speaks of a river in another place, whose waters, saj's he, are so buoyant, "that if an arrow be thrown in {molis baptizesthai), it leoidd with difficvlfy be immerised" (xii. 809). Also he mentions the lake Sii'bon, on the top of which bitumen floats, in which "there is no need of swimming, nor is one wlio goes into it (hnptlzcsthai) immersed, but he is borne up" (xvi. 1108). Also, si)eaking of the lake Tatta, in Phrygia, as a natural salt-pit, he says: "The water .solidifies so readily around everjiihing that is immersed (bap>tisthenti) into it, that they draw up salt crowns when they let down a circle of ruslics" (Geog., b. xii., c. v., § 4). Again, speaking of the darmg attempt of Alexander at Phaselis, at the foot of Climax, a mountain iu Lycia, betwixt which and the sea the pass is very narrow, he observes that at high water, and especially iu winter, at which time Alexander was there, it is overflowed by the sea; but, notwithstanding, the king, impatient of delaj^s, led on his army, and "the soldiei-s marched a whole day through the water iliapVaomenon), immersed up to the waist." — Lib., xiv., p. 982. TESTIMONY FROM USE. 55 Prof. Wilson gives to haptizomenoi "the seuse of being covered by the water." We merely maintain an immersion to the extent stated by Strabo. Prof W. teaches that "we may, indeed, if we please, imagine the immei'sion of the soldiers to be indicated by this verb; but it is a mere gratuitous hypothesis, inconsistent with fact, and possessing no claim to foundation in figure" (p. 128). Conon, who flourished about the beginning of the Christian era, in describing liow Thebe murdered her husband Alexander, mentions her as ^'having over- whelmed (^ja^^^isfWrt) Alexander with much wine, and put him to sleep." — Narra. L. Philo, of Alexandria, a Jewish writer, about a.d. 40, says: "I know some who, when they easily become intoxicated, before they are entirely (haptizomenon) immersed [or overvliehned]" &c. (v. ii., p. 478). Philo also speaks of those who, glutted \di\i drink and food, are "as though the reason ^cere overwhelmed (bajJtizo- menou) by the things overlying it." — In Eusebius, Prejhfor the Gos., b. viii., at the end.* Demetrius, the Cydoniau, about A.D. 50, on contemning death, says: "For the dominion [of the soul] over the body, and the fact that, entering into it, she ?s not wholly immersed {hebaptisthai), b\it rises above," &c. (c. xiv. 4). Josephus, the Jewish historian, who died a.d. 93, and who consequently waa nearly contemporary with the apostles, has several times used the word haptizo. To him, one would siippose, si^ecial importance might be attached, t He says concerning the ship in which Jonah attempted to flee from the presence of the Lord: "When the vessel was (mellontes haptizesthai) about to he immei'sed.'' — Antlq., b. ix., c. viii. He uses the same word twice concerning the death of Ai'istobulus, the brother of Mariamne, who was drowned at Jericho according to Herod's order, by certain Greeks, who enticed him into the water to swim, and then, "under pretence of play, immersing {J)aj)tizontes) him, they did not cease until they had completely suffocated him" [Antiq., b. xv.). He mentions the same event in his Wars of the Jews (b. i. , c. xxii. , § 2) : " The young man was sent to Jericho, and there, according to his order, being immersed (haptizomenos) in a fish-pond, he came to Ids end." Px*of. Wilson, speaking of Joseph xis's account in the Antiquities as the fuller version, thus renders the w^ords : "Pressing him down always, as he was swimming, and baptizing him as in sport, they did not give over till they entirely drowned him." He then adds : " In this fuller version of the affair, the evidence in favour of dipping or plunging wonderfully evaporates." (!) " The Galatians never dipped Aristobulus at all." (!) "They always pressed him down and baptized him, as he Avas swimming, till they had pei-joetrated the murder." Aristobulus was in the water, and not put into it by the Galatians. Of course the Baptist administrator of baptism does not simply put the candidate overhead in water, but he puts him out of dry land into water, alias, reasons incoherently and unfairly ! " With our Baptist brethren, does not dip express the act of 2)ictting cm object into the water, or into some other haptizmg element? If this is not their meaning, let them honestly say * Let the reader, in perusing quotations from Hellenistic Greek, remember the foUowitig from Dr. Wilson : — "Were the Iliad to supply an occurreriCe of this verb, to wliich the Psedobaptist might confidently appeal as a proof-passage for sprinkling or affusion, we should consider it extremely hazardous, in the absence of corresponding evidence derived from Hellenistic Greek, to build upon such a testimony " (p. 85). 'h "Words that belong to a language that has for ages ceased to be used in ordinary intercourse, have a fixed meaning, their imj^ort being determined by the sense in which they were used when the language formed a medium of ordinary intercourse. This is an advantage, as it pi'events the change of meaning to which words are Hable through the changes that are taking place in active life ; bvit it imposes a tax on patient study." — Stovel's Disc, p. 480, 56 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. so." " That the assassins j':»'es.9e(7 theii- unfortunate victim down in the pool, is freely admitted ; but that action, let it be noted, has a represen- tative of its own in the original, and is not to be confounded with tlie baptism. By the pressure he was subinerged, and the baptism, in immediate sequence, overwhelmed liina with the rush and closing of the waters. This intei-pretation we suggest as strictly consonant to the known facts of the case, viewed in the order of time." According to this learned advocate of sprinkling as baptism, this siibmei'sion was not tlie baptism. The baptism was in immediate sequence of the submersion ! We might ask this brother, if we did not remember that he is " deeply averse to hyperciiticism," if, in sequence of the pressure which occasioned submersion and dro-\\Tiing, they sprinkled or poured him % Our faith, alas ! is veiy weak as to the enlightening of Prof W. His conclusion is, " that no ingenuity and no torture can identify the haptism of this testimony with dijjpin;/, \)roi>eY]y so called" (pp. 13-i-137). Let the reader endeavour to identify this baptism with sprinkling or pouring, or anything else than immersion. Describing the pin-ilication of the people at 8in, .Josephiis says: "When any persons were defiled by a dead l)ody, they jnit a little of these ashes into spring water with hyssoj), and (hapt.lsantes) immersbuj part of these ashes into it, tliey sprinkled (errainon) them with it " {A)itiq., b. iv., c. iv., § 6). Speaking, in his Life, of his own voyage to Home, and providential deliverance when shipvv-reeked, he says : " (Baptisfhenfos r/nr emon ton jiloion) for our liJii]) behif/ immersed in the midst of the Adriatic Gnlf, we being about tlie number of six hundred ])ersons, swam all night, and at daybreak about eighty were taken up by another ship." Speaking of the Jewish War, he has the exiM-essiou: "As I also account a pilot most cowai'dly who, through dread of a stonn, before the blast came, voluntariljr immer- sed {ebcqjtisen) the vessel" (b. iii., c. ix. 3). Again, describing the condition of certain vessels in the i)ort of Jopjja during a storm, he says : ' ' And many, straggling against the ojiposing swell towards the open sea, the Ijillow, rising high above, immersed {ebaptiseiiy (b. iii., c. ix. 3). In Prof Wilson's estimation thei-e is nothing liere favourable to the sentiments of the Baptists, because, " If we force to a greater depth an object already in the water, can we, with strict propriety of language, be said to have dipped that object 1" (p. L38). Let Baptists beware not to speak of having dipped a person that, without another's aid, has gone partially into the water ! Let them remember that such acts of baptism encourage sprinkling ! that the Greek baptizo used for the submersion of ships countenances spi'inkling as baptism! that in these cases "the action of haj)tlzo is correctly represented by ovei'whelm," which sufficiently opposes dipping, and sanctions sprinkling as Christian bajitism ! From Dr, W. we will accept the following: "A term expressive of a certain action does not include the consequences of that action, however close the link of connection " (p. 1 40). The drowning of Aristobulus was the consequence of his baptisms by the Galatians. The sinking of a vessel to the bottom of the ocean is the consequence of its baptism. We also recommend to Dr. W.'s reconsideration, and to the attention of others, Dr. W.'s closing remark : "If Baptists are prepared to make a transition from mode to the quantity of the baptizing element, we are not without liope that the qucfstlo vexatn between us and them will reach a speedy and felicitous adjustment" (p. 143). Our Pajdobaptist brethren raay immerse in a tub or in the ocean ; they may have any quantity of water, TESTIMONY FROM USE. 57 little or much, if they will but practise the immersion which they admit and deny that Christ has enjoined. Again, of the Jews, in describing their contest with the Roman sokliers on the sea of Galilee, Josepluis says : ' ' And Avheu they ventured to come near, they suffered harm before they could inflict any, and xcere hnraer'^ed [ehapthonto) along with their vessels ; . . . and those of the immersed (bapfisthenfon) who raised their heads, either a missile reached or a vessel overtook " (h. iii. , c. x. 0). Also, describing the death of Simon by his own hand, he says: "And stretching out the i-ight hand, so as to be unseen by none, Jie immersed [ehaptise) the whole sword into his own neck" (Do., b. ii., c. xviii. 4). Again, on Gedaliah, whom his own guests murdered at a banquet, he says: "Seeing him in this condition, and immersed (hehaj^tismenoii) by drunkenness into stupor and sleep" [Antiq., b. x., c. ix., § 4). In two places he uses hoptizo figuratively. In the Wars of the Jeics he says : " ISIany of the noble Jews, as though the city was on the point of [hapttzomenes) being overwhelmed, swam away, as it were, from the city." Speaking of the heads of the robbers getting into Jerusalem, he says: "These very men, besides the seditious they made (ebaptisan ten polin), overwhelmed the city." That he uses baptizo figuratively in perfect accordance with his literal use of the word, clearly ajipears by comparing the lattei- with the former of these extracts. He attributes to these seditious robbers the plunging of the city into ruin. He also uses epibaptizo figuratively for totcdly overwhelming. Speaking of the sons of Herod, he says: "This, as the last storm, utterly overwhelmed {epibaptisen) the young men, already weather-beaten." When the inhabitants of Jota])ata urged him to stay there, they pressed him not "to leave his friends, nor, as it were, to leap out of a ship enduring a storm, into which he had come in a calm. For the city must be (eiJibaptisein) utterly overwhelmed, no one daring to oppose its enemies, if he who kept theu- courage iip shoidd depart." Epictetus, born about a.d. .50, says : "As you would not wish, sailing in a large and polished, aud richly-gilded ship, to he immersed (baptizesthai), so neither choose, dwelling iu a house too large and costly, to endivre storms of care." — Mor, Disc., Frag. xi. Plutarch,* who died a.d. 140, in the following instances uses this word : "Then [haptizon) immersing himself into the lake Copais" (vol. x., p. 18). In his Life of Theseus he quotes the Sybdline verse concerning the city of Athens: " Askos baptize dunai de toi ou themis esfi." " Thou mayest be immersed, 0 bladder! but thou art not fated to sink. " To the rendering of dunai, to sink, which signifies (and probably 2»'imarilt/) to go into, but which is frequently used in application to the setting, that is, the going down or sinking of the sun and stars, Dr. Halley makes some objections, which in our judgment evince the influence which in this instance his prepossessions have had over his scholarship. He will have no rendering but the enigmatical, the unintelligible rendering: "Thou mayest be baptized, but thou canst not dip;" after which he immediately adds, in the way of explanation: " The city may be overwhelmed with the passing wave of calamity, but it cannot be immersed in its flood." AVe prefer to give a sensible rendering, when lexicons and use plaiuly authorize this. (See Dr. H., pp. 278-280.) Dr. H. says of the bladder: "It floats upon the surface and cannot dip, but the curling wave may fall upon it, and so for a moment it is covered." For what else than .such a covering do we contend 1 Again he exclaims, and to this also w^e give echo: " How beantifully truth will unexpectedly develop itself ! Overwhelmed with calamities is our bap- * TroUope, si^eaking of "the Greek diction of the New Testament," says that "the writings of those authors who wrote after the age of Alexander, and particularly Plutarch, Polyhius, Diodorus Siciilus, Ai-teraidorus, Appian, Herodian, and the Byzantine liistorians, may be consulted with great advant.age for the purpose of illustration." — Gram,, p. 6. 58 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. tism; the bladder overwhelmed with the Avave^', and emei'ging from them by its own buoyancy, is the very thing for which we contend." Well may Prof Wilson on this passage add: "It appears no easy nnder- takiug for Mr. Godwin to extract from this passage the idea of contiaued submersion as the generic sense oihajitizo which he advocates" (p. 121). Mr. G. has taught, in opposition to the dipping of the bladder: "It might be overwhelmed and not go in. . . .A bladder in a stormy sea might be covered with water for some considerable time," &c. (p. 31). And yet Professor Wilson can see in the "total immersion" of the bladder notliing bxit a symbol of " final destruction." Immei'sions of the bladder, it seems, there could not be. A total immersion is necessarily final and lasting ! But, "on the other hand, alternately covered by the breaking wave, and floating lightly on the siu-face, it becomes the significant representative of a city, to use Dr. Caisson's own language, ' occasionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet never' pei'ishing. The symbol is repeatedly baptized by the wave, but it is never immersed in the water" (p. 124). What a mixture of truth and error! What contradictions and absurdities ! Baptized, covered, overwhelmed, but never immei'sed ! We do not forget that our opponents are assailing the Baptists thx'ough Dr. Carson. Mr. Stacey, on this, imitating and commending Dr. H., says that a bladder is represented by Plutarch " as that which may be baptized by the wave passing over it, but which cannot be dipped" (p. 186). This declaration is his comment on Plutarch, rather than a rendering of Plutarch's words; but let any one judge how nnich encouragement is given to sprinkling or pouring in the bladder being hajAized hy the ivave passing over it. Speaking of the stratagem of a Romau general, Plutarch says, or is reputed to say: "He set up a trophy, ou which, having immersed (haptisas) liis hand into blood, he -SATote," &c. Also, he says elsewhere: " (Baptizon) Immerse yourself into the sea." In many instances, it will be seen that we might use plunge, instead of immerse, for bapf.izo; but in no instance are we at liberty to use 2Wt(r or sprinkle. Fui-ther, he s[)eaks of Otho as '^ [hebaptismenon) immersed in debt." This is equiva- lent in import to the English phrase, "over head and ears in debt." Also we may speak of persons being sunk down and overwhelmed hy debts. In his Treatise on Education, in dissuading parents from overtasking the mind, he says: "By too much toil (baptize(ai) it is overwhelmed.'" Again, describing the operations of engines on besieging vessels: "Some [of the vessels] thrusting down, under a weight firmly fixed above, they sunk into the deep ; and others, with iron hands, or 1)eaks, like those of cranes, hauling uj) by the prow till they were erect on the stern, the;/ immersed (ebapdzon)" (Life of Marcel his, c. xv. ). Again, referring to the punning of Aristophanes, he quotes: "For he is praised because he immersed {ebajHisen) the stewards ; being not stewards (Tamias), but sharlcs (Lamias) " (Comp. of Aris. ami Men.). Speaking of the Halcyon's skill in building her nest, he says: "That which is moulded by her, or rather constructed witli the shipwright's art, of many forms the only one not liable to be overturned, nor to be immersed {almptiston)" (On the Comp. Skill of Water and Land Animals, xxxv. ). Also he says: "Call the old Expiatrix, and immerse (baptison) thyself into the sea" (On Superstition, iii.). He also speaks of "commanding to immerse (bajdizein) Bacchus {pros ten thalatton )" (Phys. Ques., x. ). Again: '* .Such is the manner of the good Genius ; that we, overwhelmed (baptizvmenos upo) by worldly affairs, . . . shoidd ourselves struggle out, and should persevere, endeavouring by our own resolution to save ourselves and gain the haven" (On the Good Genius of Socrates, xxiii.). Also he says: " For of the slightly intoxicated only the intellect is disturbed; but the body is able to obey its impulses, being not yet ovenohelmed (bebaptismenon) '' TESTIMONY FROM USE. 59 (Banq., b. iii., ques. S). Again: "A great pro^nsioii for a, day of enjoyment is a happy temperament of the body, not overiolidmed {ahaplistou) and not encumbered " (Do., b. vi., Intro.). Also he speaks of the man who, himself sober, "purposely sets on us while still affected with yesterday's debauch, and overivlichned (Jithaptis- iiienols) " [On the Comp. Skill of Water and Land Animals). And, speaking of the defeat of Arehelaus's troops by Sylla, he says : "And dying, they fiUed the marshes with blood, and the lake with dead bodies ; so that, until now, many barbaric bows and helmets, and pieces of iron breast-plates and swords, are found immersed (emhaptimieaos) in the pools" [Life of SijUa, xxi.). Is rhantir.o ever compounded \dt\i en ? Also he uses haptizo in a sentence on -svliich a slight difference of opinion exists among the learned. Liddell and Scott give as its import in this place, to dra^w water, which they will admit was by dipping the vessel into the liquid, which, from the connexion, appears to lis to have been wine. Donnegan, in probable allusion to this passage, gives as one import of haptizo, to dip in a vessel and to draw. It has also been doubted whether this word was used by Plutarch; but all copies are in favour of the accepted word. Whether the harshness of dipping in this passage v/ill justify the rendering, dipping and drawing, or drawing by dipping, we will leave the learned to decide, being satisfied that the import of Christian baptism, as nothing else than belie vei-s' immersion, cannot be weakened by this occurrence of the word. The words of Plutarch are : — "Phlalais kai rntois kai therihkiois, para ten odon apasan, oi sfratiotai baptizontes eh pithon megaton kai krateron altelois proepinon," &c. (Alex, , C7). He is desciibing au army marching in Bacchanalian disorder ; it is probable that wine, or ^^^ne and water (not water), was drawn from the large vessels by the smaller and differently-shaped vessels that were dipped therein; and we beheve that dipjmuj is here, although somewliat iiucouth, yet the correct rendering. The passage may be very literally rendered, "With bowls, and goblets with small bottoms, and cups ^^^th broad bottoms, throughout the whole way the soldiers, dippinfi out of the casks and large vessels, were drinking to one another (or to one another's health)," &c. In a work of uncertain date, which has been attributed to Plutarch, the writer mentions emphasis as one of Homer's characteristics, and after one example, adds : ' ' Similar also is that : ' And the whole sword was warmed -sdth blood. ' For truly in this he exhibits very great emphasis ; as if the sword was so immersed {Ijaptisthentos) as to be heated." — On the L'ife and Poetry of Homer. Nicander, about a.d. 150, amongst various directions for preparing a turnip salad, says : " Sometimes just dip in boiling water, and immerse (embaptison) many iti sharp brine." — Frag, of a Work on Hush., b. ii, Alciphi'ou, about A. D. 150 : " If I am to see all the rivere, life to me xmll he ovenvhetmed [katahaptisthesetai), not beholding Glycera." — Epis., b. ii., Ep. 3. Polycenus, about a.d. 150, speaking of a dipping match, says that Philip "threw himself into the s\vimmiug bath ; and the Macedonians laughed. Philip did not give over tJioro^ighly immersing [diahapti'.omenos) with the paucratiast," &c. — Strata. , b. iv. , c. ii. 6. Justin Martj^r, who floiu-ished about a.d. 150, speaks of "us, ovei'whdmed (hebaptismenous) with most grievous sins which we have done " (Dial, ivith a Jew, Ixxxvi.). Hence Justin's statement of the baptism of his day, as translated by Dr. Waddington, is : "For they are immersed in the water in the name of the Father," kc.—Ch. His., vol. i., p. 27. Lucian, who died a.d. 180, represents the cmel and man-hating Timon as saying: " If any one, being carried away by the river, shoidd stretch forth his hands to me for aid, I would piish him do'wn (baptizonfa), when immersing, that he should never rise again" (vol. i., p. 139). Elsewhere: "He is hke one diz2y and (bebaptismeno) immersed ;" that is, into insensibility by drink (iii., p. 81). Again, speaking of a man drinking from the fabled fountain of Silenus, he saj^s that he ' ' seems like one heavy-headed and ovenohelmed (bebaptiamenoY' (Bacchus, vii.). Also he speaks of 60 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. cork-footed people, wlio, M'alking on the sea {oit haptizomenous), were not immersed, but keeping (over, or) above the waves," &c. — Vei: Hist., lib. ii. Dion Cassins, who was born a.d. 155, speaks of such a storm suddenly pervading all the country, that "the ships that were in the Tiber, and lying at anchor by the city, and at its mouth, were immersed [haptisthenai) " (Lib. xxxvii., § 57). Describing the defeat of Cario, he says: "And many of them who had fled, perished ; some thrown down by the jostling, in getting on board the vessels, and others immersed (haptigthentei<) in the vessels themselves by their own weight." — Bo. His. , b. xli. , c. xlii. Also, speaking of the foraging ships of Byzantium, overloaded, in a storm, and attacked by the Romans : "But attempting in one way or another to escape, some voere immersed [ehcqjtizonto) by the wind, using it too freely,* and others were overtaken by the enemy, and destroyed" {Do., b. Ixxiv., c. xiii). Again, relating Mark Antony's address to his soldiers: "And even if any one came near, how eoidd he escape heimj immersed {baptiMheie) by the very multitude of the oars?" (Do., b. 1., c. xviii.). [These vessels being impelled with oars, the larger and better equipped could run down and immerge the more feeljle by their greater speed and weight. ] Again, in his account of the sea-fight at Actium : ' ' And if they hit them, they came off superior ; biit if they missed, their own vessels being pierced, tlifij vx-re ■immersed [ehaptizonto)" (Do., h. 1., c. xxxii.). Also, of tlie two parties in this conflict, he says: "They gained advantages each over the other; the one dropping within the lines of the ships' oars, and crushing the oar-blades, and the other from above immersing {haptizontes) them with stones and engines" {Do.). Again, in describing efforts to escape from burning vessels, he says: "And others, leaping into the sea, were di-owned, or, struck by the enemy, were immersed [elnqHizonto) " {Do., b. 1., c. XXXV.). He further speaks of those "who are driven by storm at sea," "now this way, now that way ; and if they commit any, even the slightest mistake, ore totally immersed {baptizontai}." — Jio. His., b. xxxviii., c. xxvii. We might hei'e, and in maiiy other cases, say with equal propriety, submerged ; hut the impossibility of substituting poured, sprinkled, washed, or cleansed, is patent to eveiy observer. Symmachus, in the latter half of the second century, renders Ps. Ixviii. 2 (Ps. Ixix. 2) : " I am immersed {ebaptisthen) into bottomless depths." Thus an ancient iind unknown Mi-iter renders Ps. ix. IG (Ps. ix. 15) : "Are immersed {ebaptisthescui)." Eng. ver., " Are sunk down." Some Chi-istian writers have been omitted, and others will be, in order to avoid repetition, as some of them are intended to be inti'oduccd in another part of this work. Clemens Alexaudrinus, a Christian writer who flourished about the close of the second century, says: "And we who were once polluted ^Wth these things, are now washed and cleansed. Jiut those who wash themselves in intemperance, from .sobriety and a decent behaviour, immerse {baiHizousi) themselves into foi'nication," &c. {I'itrom. , Lib. iii. , p. 473). Also : ' ' For drowsy is every one who is not watchfid for wisdom, but is immersed [baptizomeno.^) by drunkenness into sleep" {The Edu., b. ii., c. ii. ). Again: "More senseless than stocks and stones is a man immersed {behaptismenos) in ignorance " {E;f]i. to Pafjans, i. 3). Elsewhere, speaking of the wi'itings of the Jews, he says that even "they are frequently baptized {baptizesthai) on a l)ed" {Strom., Lib. iv. , p. .531. In Godwin's//?/. Bap., p. 53). Also, heathen washings he styles "the image {tou baj^tismatos) o*^ ba^Hi.sm.'" On this. Dr. Wilson reasons, that the ablutions of the heathen "were generally performed by affusion;" {I) that for "the rites of purification observed by Penelope and Telemachus," " the learned father is indebted to Homer, who says of Penelope {Odys., iv. 759) : '//e cle hndrenamene k. t.l. * C'arrj'ing too much ^:rtiI. TESTIMONY FROIM USE. 61 And she having washed,' (tc." He then teaches that " the verb huclrcdno is confessedly not limited to mode;" not hei'e repeating what he else- where asserts, that no part being specified, a washing of the whole person is implied; bi;t assei'ting that " the ablution of Telemachus is tlnis described, — Having washed his hands in the hoary sea;" and that "the idea which it \iu2)to\ conveys is simply that of cleansing the hands, for* instance, by the use of water poured, sprinkled, or employed in any other mode which necessity or convenience may dictate" (p. 328). Washing of the hands is, among other things, cleansing them by sprinkling ! or cleansing them in any manner dictated by convenience or necessity ! And, therefore, these ablutions, in which this Father, — who in the employment of words "allows himself considerable latitude," — sees the image of baptism, are delightful evidence that baptism itself is pouring, sprinkling, or any convenient application of water ! Whether the Greek- speaking Clemens, or the Belfast professor exhibits the more exiiberant fancy, we will not determine. It is, however, "clear as noonday sun," that if the Fathers fancied they saw an image of baptism in sprinkling, Jewish or heathen, neither they nor their heathen contemporaries or predecessors fancied the Greek word to mean less than an immersion or a total covering. Our Pa3dobaptist bi'ethren, as we think, might as correctly, although not with the same consequences, fancy baptism to be regene- ration or illumination, as to be the action which they perform for baptism. Aristophou, iu tlie beginning of tlie third century, introduces y steeping me completely in it, he set me free." Atherteus, who floiuished about the beginning of the third centiuy, says : "You seem to me, O gaiests ! to be strangely flooded -with vehement words, and over- ichehned (bebcq^tisthai) with iindilnted wine." — PJul.''s Banq., b. \., c. 64. Alexander, of Aphrodisias, a Greek writer on jihilosophy and medicine, probably in the beginning of the thh'd century after Christ, comparing fevers in men and brutes, says: "Because they have their natiu-e and pei'ceptive faculty Immersed (bebaptismenen) in the depth of the body," &c. {Med. and Phys. Problems, ii. 38). Again: "They have the soul very much immersed ijbebaptismenen) in the body (to somati)" {Do., i. 28). Also: "Why is it that some die of fright? Becarise the physical force, fleeing too miich into the depth [of the body] along with the blood, at once ovei-ivlwlms {katabaptizei) and quenches the native and vital warmth of the heart, and brings on dissolution" {Do., i. 16). Again: "Why is it that many die of those who have drunk wine to excess ? Because, again, the abundance of wine overwhelms {katabaptizei) the physical and the vital power and warmth. " — -Do., i. 17. Hippolytus, the Roman presbyter (writing in the Greek language, we may here record his testimony) : "For thou hast heard how Jesus came to John, and icas immersed {ebaptisthe) by him in the Jordan. O wonderful transactions ! How was the boundless 'river, that makes glad the city of God,' bathed in a little water ; the incomprehensiljle fountain that sends forth life to all men, and has no end, covered Ijy scanty and transitory waters !" {Disc, on the Holy Theoph., ii. ). After quoting Isa. i. 16-19, he says: "Thou sawest, beloved, how the projAet foretold tlie cleansing of the holy immersion {baptismatos). For he who goes down with faith into the bath of regeneration, is arrayed against the evil one, and on the side of Christ ; he denies the enemy, and confesses Christ to be God ; he puts oft' bondage, and puts on sonship; he comes up from the immersion {tou bapitisnmtos) bright as the sun," &c. — Do., x. Origen, who died a.d. 254, speaks of "those who were altogetlier overwhelmed {hutahebapiismenon) by {npo) wickedness" {Com. on John xi. 45). Also, he thus 62 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. refers to the interrogation in John i. 25 : "What makes you think that Elias when he comes ^vill baptize, who in Aliab's time did not haptize the icood vjjon the cdtar — oude ta epi (a *ou thusia-^terlou xula . . . bapti^aiitos — which reqiiii-ed washing in order to be bnrnt up ?" — In Wilson's I»f. Bap., p. 331. The abuudant pouring of water on tlie altar, of which we have an account in 1 Kings xviii. 32-35, and wliich was done thrice, is spoken of by Origen as a baptism. This is exceedingly delightful to our Psedo- baptist friends who sprinkle a icw drops of water on the face, or jwur a small quantity on some part of the head, and call it a baptizing of the per.son. It is as delightful to them as the association of hapto with the dew of heaven in Dan. iv. 33. Dr. AVilson, on Origen, says : "Comment may succeed in diluting, but is incompetent to strengthen the force of a testimony so decided and unexceptionable " (p. 332). Also: "We have pronounced tliis testimony to be a remarkable one, and such it nnist appear to all who deliberately v.-eigh the entii'e circumstances of the case." It is indeed remarkable, — if we could forget the blinding influence of prepossessions, — that this occurrence of bciptizo shoiild be supposed to favour the practice of our Pa;dobaptLst brethren. But if our friends are enamoured with the pouring, which not only encompassed the wood, but filled the trenches ; or if they prefer an imitation of the descent of dew, " the very gentlest of possible affusions," let them pom- water on the pex'sons to be baptized, as, at Elijah's bidding, it was poured on the altar, and have a tlu'eefold soaking; or if dew falls not here so abundantly as in the East,* — and yet to dcAv they give a decided preference, — let them place the candidate in a vapour bath, or anything that w411 more neai'ly resemble the descent of dew, and let them, if they please, occupy a minute in the utterance of each word when saying, "I baptize thee," &c. ; or let them in some other more apjiroved, decent, ordei'ly, and convenient man- ner practise theii* baptism, but let them carry out their own acknow- ledgment of the import of the word, to cover, to encompass with the element. We are not aAvare that Scripture gives an express command resjDccting the mode of immersion; although in our judgment thei-e is "a more excellent way" than those w^e have just mentioned; and we do not forget that John baptized in the Jordan, and that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. But whatever may be the conduct of our esteemed bi'ethren whom we regard as prejudiced, blinded, and most inconsistent on the siibject of bai^tism, we shall not allow the Greek Fathers, whose practice and varied expressions so abundantly and explicitly testify that immersion alone they regarded as an act of baptism, to nullify their testimony l)ecansc the fancy of some of them saw in previous washings a resemblance of baptism, or saw what it designated a baptism, because it either found in some respects a likeness of baptism, or what answered in some way, according to its conception, the design of baptism. Aquila, a Jew, in the Hexapla of Origen, who suflerecl martyrdom a.b. 254, — the exact time of Aquila we do not know, — is recorded as having rendered Job ix. 31, *' Tliou v:ilt pluiKje me in the ditch" "{en diaphthora haptiseis me)." * "In the East," says Dr. E. Jamieson, "the dews of night are so copious, that travellers tell us their cloaks, when they slept in the open air, were, in the morning, as wet as if they had been dipi)cd iu a river."— .SVry). llhis., O. T., p. 246. TESTIMONY FROM USE. 63 Plotimis, a Greek philosopher, boru a. d. 205, coucerniug the soul of the vicious, says: "She dies, therefore, as the soul may die; and death to her, while yefc immersed {hebaptismene) in the body," &c. {Ennead 1, b. viii., § 13). Agaia, on the soul : ' ' Since a part of us is contained by the body, as if one has the feet in water but with the rest of the body stands out above, towering up by what is not immersed (bajJtistJienti) in the body," &c. {Do., 6, b. ix., § 8).* He also speaks of being "overwhelmed (baptistheis) either with diseases or with arts of Magians." — Do., l,h.iv. 0«if(-7x,§9. Gregory, surnaniecl Thaumaturgus, made bishop of Neoceesarea about A. d. 240, describing an experienced and skilfuJ guide through the mazes of philosophical speculation, says : "He himself woidd remain on high in safety, and stretching out a hand to others to save them, as if drawing up persons immersed (bapUzomenous)." — Pane'j. on Origen., xiv. Porphyrj^, who died A. D. 304, speaking of the Styx, the fabulous river of lieli, says: "The person that has been a sinner, having gone a Uttle way into it, is immersed (baptizetai) up to the head" (p. 282). Whilst in a free translation of the passages that have been quoted, the words suixk, and di'ow^ned, as M'ell as pluDged, might respectively on different occasions have beeu used, wdio does not see the absurdity of supposing that poui', or sprinkle, is in any instance the meaning of the word 1 Athanasius, made Bishop of AlexancLria in A.D. 328, says: "For it is proper to know, that in like manner with the immersion (baptismatos), the foimtaiu of tears cleanses man. ^Vherefore many, having defiled the holy immersion {baptisma) by offences, were cleansed by tears, and declared just " (Ques. Ixxii. To Prince Antiochus). The fountain of tears is distingiiished from the baptismal rite, although supposed to have the same cleansing etficacj'. The same writer saj^s: "Three immersions (bciptisviata), purgative of all sin whatever, God has l^estowed on the nature of men. I mean that of water; and again, that by the witness of one's own blood ; and thirdly, that by tears, in which also the harlot was cleansed " {Do. ). It is evident that the word, ha^^ng become a technical designation of the Christian rite, had not lost its literal significance. Cj'ril, made Bishop of Jerusalem in 350: "Simon also, the Magiau, once came to the bath. He vxis immersed {ehaptisthe), but he was not enlightened ; and the body indeed he dipped {ebapsen) in water, but the heart he did not enlighten by the Spkit. And the body went down indeed, and came up ; but the soiU was not buried with Christ, nor was raised with Him." — Pre/, to Instr. We do not deny that from the idea of cleansing, associated with immersion, Cyril and Chrysostom call Christ's expiatory death an immer- sion, not only as an expression of overwhelming suffering, but also because by it He cleansed from sin. Heimerius, a Greek rhetorician, boru about A.n. 315, speaking of a pictorial representation of the battle of Marathon, in which Cynasgirus was shown grasping a Persian vessel with his hands, says: "And I will show you also my soldiers; one fighting life-like even in the painting, . . . and another immersing (baptizonki) with his hands the Persian fleet" {Ora. x., § 2). He says of Themistocles, who broke the power of Asia by the destruction of its fleet : "He was great at Salamis ; for there fighting, he overwhelmed {ebaptise) all Asia." — Sel. xv., § 3. Basil (the Great), born aboxit a.d. 330, says of the intoxicated: "More pitiable than those who are tempest-tossed in the deep, whom waves receiving one from another, and overivhelming {e2'>ibapfizonfa), do not suffer to rise out of the surge; so also the soids of those who are driven about beneath the waves, being over- rvhelmed {bebaj'tlsmenai) with wine" {Dis. xiv. Against Drun., § 4). Again, on the martyr Julitta : " As a pilot, skUf ul and undisturbed through much experience * "J?n to soniati," or "to somati," th\is connected Avith haptizo, means "in the body" hi the classics ; but in Sci-ipture " en hudati" is supposed to mean loith water ! 64 IMPORT OF BAPTISJ[. iu sailing, preserving the soul erect and not ovenchelmed (ahapt'wto))), and high above every storm" {Diac. iv.). Also: "For wine overwhelms {k-atahcqHlzei) the reason and the understanding. . . . And what ship without a ])ilot, borne hy the waves as it may happen, is not more safe than the drunken man ?" {Disc, xiv., § 7). In this instance, and in a few others, it will be seen that we have quoted hnptizo compounded with a jjroposition. The following, to the theology of which we object as strongly as to that of all who advocate l)aptismal regeneration, is decisive that baptism, according to Basil, includes a being covered with the element. He says : " 'The Lord dwells in the flood.' A flood is an inimdation of water, concealing all that lies beneath, and cleansing all that was liefore polluted. The grace of the hnmers'ion (haptismatos), therefore, he calls a flood; so that the soul, washed from sins, and cleansed from the old man, is henceforth fitted for a habitation of God iu the Spirit." — Disc, on Ps. xxviii. 3 (xxix. 3). Gregory, of !Nazianzus, born about a.d. 330, says " that tve may not he immersed (haptlsthomen), vessel and men, and make shipwreck," &c. — Disc, xl., 11. Heliodorus, who flourished about a.d. 390, says: "When midnight {ehctptizon) had immersed the city in sleep" (vi. 4). He also speaks of certain warriors "slaying some on land, and immersinr/ [haptizonton) others, with their boats and huts, into the lake" (^Etluopics, b. i., c. xxx.). We might in this instance, atid iu many others, use plunge instead of immei'se ; but who does not see the impossibility of using pour or sprinkle? Again: "And Cneniou, perceiving that he was wholly absorbed in gi-ief, and overwhelmed {hehaptismenon) in the calamity" [uEthiopics, b. ii., c. iii. ). Also: "Let us not be overwhelmed {sinnhaptizovietha) with him in his grief" (Do., b. iv., c. xx.). Again: "The relation of which, having often deferred it, as you know, because the occurrences still overichelmed [ehaptizen) you" (Do., b. v., c. xvi.). Libanius, who flourished in the fourth century, says: "He who bears with difficTilty the Ijurden he already has (an haptistheie), woidd he overwhelmed by a small addition" (Epis. 310). Also: "This is he who found the Avretched Cimon overwhelmed (baptizomenon), and did not neglect him when abandoned " (Epis. 062, to Gessius). Again: "Grief for him overwhrhninj (liapti-:oiim) the soul" (Fn. Disc, on the Em p. Jidian, c. cxlviii.). Also, in the same Discourse, he mentions that a poi-tion of the people on a certain occasion ivas overwhelmed (ebaptizelo), and the service rendered to the people terminated in beggary " (c. Ixxi. ). Also he uses the word figiu'atively when speaking of the business of instructing the young, instead of being to sail with favourable gales, "heing overn'helmed {baptizomenon), and all the winds being set in motion against it" {On the Art. of Agree.). Again: "If one asks your judgment of any of the greater matters, you arc not at leisure, but are overwhelmed (Impt'ac), and the midtitude of other affjiirs holds you in subjection" {Memorial to the King). Again, commenting on -walking iu darkness (Ps. Ixxxii. 4), he says: "Thus, then, the congi'egation, immersed {hehaptismrnen) in ignorance,* and unwilling to emei-ge to the knowledge of the spiritual teaching" {Disc, on Zeal and Piety, § 1). Also: "I myself am one of tJiose immersed (bebop- tisnienon) hy (npo) that great wave" (Epis. xxv.). Again: "Whereby the city would immediately have been overwhelmed (ebaptizeto), as a ship when the seamen have abandoned it" (Life of himself ). Again, apostrophising Themistocles, he says : "The crowning achievement was Salamis; when thou didst overwhelm (ebajytisas) Asia." — Declam. xx. Themistius, who flourished in the foiirth century, says: "Nor the pilot, if he saves in his voyage one whom it would lie better for him {hap)tisai) to i^nmerse" {Ova. iv. 133; ll/id, p. 30). Also, on ])hiloso])hy forViidding the indulgence of sorrow, he says : " AVhenever she observed me overwhelmed (haptizomenon) by grief, and moved to tears, she is augiy." — Ora. xx. Cliaritan, of Aphrodisias, who flourished probably near the end of the fourth century, speaking of Dionysius, says: "Although overwhelmed (ba2^tizomeno.^) by desire, the generous man endeavoured to resist; and emei-ged, as from a wave, saying," &c. — Story of the Loves (f Chtizo is used literally, that it is the only meaning which does so, and that it is the alone true meaning. The following from Dr. Conant, after he has given the usage of Greek writers, is worthy of the serious regard of every doubting and anxiously-inquiring Peedobaptist. Let the preceding extracts testify whether or not it is correct. "1. From tlie preceding examples it appears tliat the ground-idea expressed by tliis word is, to jmt into or under water or other penetrable substance, so as entirely to immerse or submerge; that this act is always expressed in the literal aj^plication of the word, and is the basis of its metaphorical nses. This gronnd-idea is expres- sed in English, in the various connections where the word occurs, by the terms (synonymous in this ground-element) to immerse, immerge, submerge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to lohelm. 68 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. "2. These examples are drawn from writers iu almost every department of literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers, critics, historians, geographers ; from writers on husbandry, on medicine, on natural history, on gram- mar, on theology ; from almost every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations, fables, odes, epigi-ams, sermons, narratives ; from writers of various nations and religions. Pagan, Jew, and Christian, belonging to many different countries, and through a long succession of ages. "3. In all, tlie word has retained its gi-ou ad-meaning, without change. From tlie earliest age of Greek literature, do^^'n to its close (a period of about two thousand years), not an example has been found in which the word has any otlier meaning. There is no instance in which it signifies to make a partial application of water by affusiuii or spr'/n/ding, or to cleanse, to piiri/i/, apart from the literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying. [Note. When part of an object is said to be immersed, the word is applied to that part alone, and the rest of the object is expressly excepted from its application.] "4. The object immersed or submerged is represented as being plunged, or as sinking down, into the ingulphing fluid or other substance ; or the immersing element overflows and thus ingulfs the object. The former is the more common case." "In the metaphorical application of the word, both cases are recognised as the groimd of the usage. " 5. The immersing substance is usually tcater, that being the element in which the act most commonly takes place. Other substances mentioned are, wine, a dye (for colouring), blood, breast-milk and ointment, oil, fire, brine, mtid, and slime, at the bottom of standing-pools, the human breast, the neck, the human body.* "6. The word immerse, as well as its synonyms immerge, &c. , expresses the full import of the Greek word b.vptizeix. The idea of emersion is not included in the meaning of the Greek word. It means simply to put into or under M%itcr or other substance, withoiit determining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not bj" the word itself, but by the nature of the case, and l)y the design of the act in each particular case. A living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately withdrawn from it ; and this is to l)e understood whenever the word is used with reference to such a case. But the Greek word is also used when a living being is put under ^^•ater for the purpose of drowning, and of course is left to perish iu the immersing element. ' ' 7. Tlie word is used of the most familiar acts and occurrences of common life ; as immersing (baptizing) wool in a dye, to colour it ; steel in the fire, to heat it for tempering; heated iron (steel) in water, to temper it; an object in a liquid, in order to drink it ; a jierson iu the waves, in sport or revenge ; a sliip in the sea, Ijj' overloading it ; an animal iu the water, to drown it ; tow in oil, for burning ; salt in water, to dissolve it ; a pole into the Ijed of a river, to reach some- thing at the bottom; a bladder in water, by forcing it under; the hollow hand in water, tt) fill it ; the liaud in blood, to besmear it ; a branch in a licpiid, in order to sprinkle it about; a medical jn-eparation (a pessary of cantharides) in breast-millc and ointment, to alia}' the irritation; a sword into an enemy's breast; sliced turnips in brine, for a salad. " 8. The ground-idea is presei'ved in the several metaphorical uses of the word. This is evident from mauy examples. . . . The idea of a total submergence liea at the basis of these metaphorical uses. Anything .short of this, such as the mere sprinkling or po\iring of water on an object, viewed as the ground of these meta- phorical senses, wouM be simply alisurd. "9. In Christian Greek literature the word retained its distinctive meaning, and continued to 1 le freely used both in the literal and metaphorical sense. " 10. In the metaphorical sense it is often used absolutely, meaning to rcJu-lm in (or icith) ruin, trouhles, calamities, sufferings, sorrows, business, per2)le.vit>/, intoxication. (See Exs.) . . . That in this absolute use, the literal image on which the usage is founded was not lost from view, is evident. . . . "The word is constructed in connection with the immersing substance as follows : * Dr. Conant refers to tlie examples in each case, adduced and numbered in a previous part of his work. TESTIMONY FROM USE. 69 " 1. With the preiJ. Jnto before the uame of the element into which an object is phmgecl or immersed, expressing fully the act of jxtssing from one element into another. . . . "2. With the prep, in, denoting locality, or the element in or within which the act takes place. . . . "3. Also with the simple dative as a local case, denoting locality; viz., the element in which, or where, the act is performed. , . . This construction (confined mostly to poetry) is required in some examples, and is the jirobable one in others. One man immerses another in (not xvitli) waves of the sea ; a heated mass of iron (steel) is plunged or immersed in (not with) water-, to cool it ; what is enclosed in the human body is immersed in (not with) it ; a weapon is plunged in (not \vitJi) the neck. "4. In the metaphorical sense of whelming, overivhelming (submerging, as with an overflowing flood), the passive is construed with the usual expression of the efficient cause, and both the active and jMSdive with the dative of means or instru- ment {by or vifh). . . . "5. Earely with the prep. do7i:n (down into, i.e., below the external surface). . . ." • (pp. 87-96.) Whilst we believe that a Greek, ov a person using the Greek language, if commanded to baptize an article in water, would no moi-e think of sprinkling it with a few dro])s of water, than an English servant would if commanded to immerse it in water, we believe Prof Godwin to be as correct in his assertion that " haj)tizo is not a word of frequent occurrence in the classics" {Bap., p. 14), as he is in his assumptions by which he endeavours to prove that this common word has in the New Testament a totally different meaning from what it has in classic writings. Also, without fear of untruthfulness, we durst iise some of Dr. Wilson's words, and say, in i-eference to heathen as well as patristic testimony: "The utmost research and ingenuity have hitherto failed to extract from them a particle of evidence " against immersion or in favour of sprinkling. We may close this section with two or three inquiries : — Is not the word Divinely chosen, a Avord which for many hundreds of years before, and for hundreds of years after, the commencement of the Christian era, has evidently been used by Greek writers when they intended to designate immersion, and invariably to designate nothing less than immersion ? "If the Head of the church had designed to iise a term prescribing immersion as specifically as possible, does the Greek language afford another word as specific as hcq^tizoV Is it not grossly deceiving the readers of Predobaptist publications to teach that both in classic and sacred literature we find baptism " including almost every conceivable application of water" ? And is it honourable, in the presence of existing facts, to represent it as " probable, though not quite certain, that baptize in the Ncav Testament signifies to immerse" 1 * " And Avith the genitive alone." Thus Pindar : {"Abaptis^nos einii . . . halmas) I am unimmersed (or unimmersiUe) in the brine." Also in some editions of The Argonautic Expedition the genitive similarly occurs. 70 IMPOST OF BAPTISM. SECTION IV. ON EVIDENCE FROM ANCIENT VERSIONS THAT BAPTISM IS IMMERSION, Arclib. TjRENciT. — " In a matter of such high concernment as this, tlie least is much. To have cast in even a inite into tliis treasury of the Lord, to liave brouglit one smallest stone which it is permitted to build into the walls of this house, to have detected one smallest blemisli that would not otlierwise have been removed, to have made, in any way whatever, a single suggestion of lasting value towards the end here in view, is something for which to be ever thanlsful." — On the Auth. Ver., pp. 1-C. Dr. T. J. CoNANT. — "To obscure the word which describes this form is, therefore, to obscure to the mind of the recipient the nature of the rite, tlie sjjecific ideas symbolized in it, and the obliga- tions to wliich it binds him." — Oh Bap., p. 158. T. H. HoRNE. — "Direct testimony is to be obtained, in the first place, from those writers to whom the language whicli is to be investigated by us was vernacular ; . . . next from ancient versions made by persons to whom the language was not vernacular, but who lived wliile it was a spolten language, and by individuals who were acquainted with it." — Intro., vol. ii., p. 375. Dr. J. Bennett. — "Next to tlie writers on theology are the translators of the Scriptures, as witnesses to what the ancient church thought to be tlie mind of God in His revelation to man." — Cong. Lee, p. 3. Dr. Halley. — "I know no better evidence than translations made without reference to the question." — Co7i(j. Lee, p. 357. If tliose who have translated the Greek Testament into other languages, have used a word for haptizo which means to immerse, and not to pour, or to sprinkle, it proves their convictions respecting the import of the word chosen by the inspired writers whereby to designate the ordinance which Christ has enjoined. Indeed, if to baptize is to immerse, " it must (to say the very least) be doubtful whether it can also mean to sprinkle or pour. Immerse, sprinkle, and pour, are three distinct ideas, expressed by different words in all languages. No man in his right mind would think of immersing an object, and saying he sprinkled it; or of si^rinkling an object, and saying he immersed it. This remark is as applicable to the Greek as to the English. Indeed, it is well known that the Greek excels in the precision and fidelity with which it expresses different ideas, and even different shades of the same idea, by different words." — I. T. Hinton's His. o/ Bap., p. 31. Also, if these versions give for bajitism words in different languages which signify to immerse, and not to poui', or to si^rinkle, it shows that the convictions of the translators were decidedly opposed to what has been, as we think, very erroneously maintained, that the inspired writers used the verb haptizo, and the nouns derived from it, in a sense which previously they had never possessed, and which at that very time these words, when used by other persons, did not possess; yea, in a sense not only different from the signification they possessed when i)roceeding from the mouths of others, but decidedly distinct from, and opposed to, such a signification ; yes, and equally distinct from, and opposed to, the signification whicli they sometimes possessed when used by themselves, as is taught by our opponents almost without an exception. The old Syi'iac, or Peshito, is acknowledged to be the most ancient version extant. It was translated as early as the beginning of the second century, where Syriac and Greek were both joerfectly understood, and where many of the apostles, it is believed, spent most of their lives. This version uniformly renders haptizo by amad, which all authorities agree to be in its ordinary meaning identical with immerse. Dr. Henderson, a Psedobaptist, has given it as his opinion, that "when the Lord gave commandment to the apostles to baptize all TESTIMONY FKOM ANCIENT VERSIONS. 71 nations, there is every reason to believe that He employed the identical word found in the Peshito-Syriac version." And he maintains that etymologically it signifies to stand up, to stand erect. He says ; " It obviously suggests the idea of a person's taking his station at or in the water, in order to have the act of baptism performed upon him." This is the same Dr. who also gives his assent to Dr. Beecher's hypothesis, that haptizo means to purify, and to Mr. Ewing's classification of the meanings of hajotizo. Also, Dr. Bennett, having similai-ly sjDoken of the Syriac amad, with equal eflrontery says : "The sianc^m^/ ceremony, then, which is the direct opposite of tlie dipping ceremony, is the phrase employed by the mother of all churches " {Cong. Lee, p. 201). He also says : " The moral idea of a man taking his standing, or station, in the Christian church, may be the meaning." This idea of the Rev. Dr. is as much opposed to the baptizing of infants as to the rendering of the Syriac word by Syriac lexicographers. We do not say that the Syriac amad resembled the Greek haptizo in tlie explicitness and oneness of its import, or that the Syi-iac was a perfect synonyme of the Greek word Divinely chosen : we say that it certainly means to immerse, and not to pour, or to sprinkle. But what say the lexicons % Castel, and his editor Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, are unanimous. Tlie first gives the foUowiug meanings: — " Ablutiis est, baptizatus est (was washed clean, was baptized). Aphel, immersit, hcqjtizavit (has immersed, has baptized)." Buxtorf gives: ^' Baptiza7-l, intingi, abliti, abluere se (to be baptized, to be dipped in, to be washed clean, to wash one's self clean). Ethpeel, Idem. Aphel, baptizare (to baptize)." Schaaf: ''Ablui se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est (to be washed clean as to one's self; was washed clean, dipped in, immersed into water, baptized. Ethpeel, Idem rpiod Peal (the same as Peal). Aphel, Immer- sit, bajDtizavit." Giitbier, in the small lexicon affixed to his edition of the Syriac Testament, gives the meaning, " Baptizavit, baiMzatus est (he baptized, he was baptized). It. sustentavlt (he upheld)." The above extracts from the Syriac lexicons, excepting the translation of the Latin words, are from the Critical Exami- nation, &c. , by Dr. F. W. Gotch, who immediately adds, in reference to the last meaning given by Gutbier, ' ' but without any reference to support the last meaning ; and it is apparently introduced simply for the purpose of deducing from the verb the noun columna. With this exception, the authority of the lexicons referi-ed to is altogether against any such meaning as to stand." Michaelis, in his edition of Castell's Syriac Lexicon, says : "In this signification of baptizing not a few compare with the Hebrew amad, stetit [he stood], so that stare is sta7-e in Jlumine, illoque mergi [to stand in the river, and in it to be immersed]. To me it seems more probable that it is altogether different from amad, and has arisen through some permutation of the letters from [Arabic] amath, submergere [to submerge]. The signi- fication of standing common to the other Oriental tongues I do not find among the Syrians, save in the derivative omud which follows, and which is cited by Castell from one place (Ex. xiii. 22), lint which you will find almost evei-ywhere where iu Hebrew is read pillar of cloud, and pillar of fire." How far the other authorities accord with the meaning given to baptizo in Greek lexicons, any reader, by com- paring them, may ascertain. Whether onr Saviour used the word amad in the solemn commission which He gave to His disciples, and when in other interviews with them He spoke of the ordinance of baptism, we do not pretend to say. It is suflficient for us to know that the inspired writers have invariably used haptizo, the meaning of which we conceive to have been fully proved to be, to immerse. Nor is it doubtful to our minds that the Syriac amad signifies to immerse, and not to pour or sprinkle. We do 72 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. not say that the word to wash, when immersion is implied as the mode of washing, might not sometimes be given as the rendering either of the Greek or the Syriac word. The word wash, especially followed by liimself, has not uncommonly been used in the sense of hathe. Dr. F. W. Gotch, having given in few words more particular and comprehensive informa- tion on Versions than any writer with whom we are acquainted, we shall give the result of his investigations, and then conclude this part of the subject with a few explanatory and applicatory observations. He says : — ' ' The conchisions to wliicli the investigation leads lis are — With regard to the ancient versions, in all of them, with tlu'ee exceptions (namely, the Latin from the third century, and the Sahidic and Basmiiric), the word haptizo is translated by words purely native; and the three excepted versions adopted the Greek word, not by way of transference, but in consequence of the term having become cm-rent in the languages. "Of native words employed, the Sja-iac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Cojjtic, Armenian, Gothic, and earliest Latin, all signify to immerse; the Anglo-Saxon, both to immerse and to cleanse; the Persic, to wash; and the Slavonic, to cross. The meaning of the word adopted from the Greeli, in Sahidic, Basmuric, and Latin, being also to immerse. "2. With regard to the modern versions examined, the Eastern generally adhere to the ancient Eastern versions, and translate by words signifying to immerse. Most of the Gothic dialects, namely, the German, Swedish, Dutch, Danish, &c., employ altered forms of the Gothic word signifying to dip. The Icelandic use a word meaning cleanse. The Slavic dialects follow the ancient Slavonic; and the languages formed from the Latin, including the Englisli, adopt the word haptizo; though with respect to the English, the words luash and christen were formerly used as well as baptize. "It may perhaps be acceptable to place these results together in a tabular form, as follows : — VKRSION. PATE. WORD EMPLOYED. MEANING. SYEIAC : Peshito. 2nd cent. amad immense Philoxeuiau . , . 6th cent. amad immerse ARABIC : Polyglot 7th cent. (?) amada, tsahaghn immerse P)-opaganda . . . 1671 ,, immerse Sabat .... 1816 ), immerse PEESIO: . . . . 8th cent. (?) shustan and shui/idan vx(sh Modern (Martyn) . 1815 ghascda ablution ethiopic: . . . . 4th cent. tamaka immerse Amharic 1822 )! immerse EOYPTIAN: Coptic . . . . 3rd cent. OMS immerse, 2Jhinge Sahidic 2ud cent. 1 baptize Basmuric . . . . 3rd cent. ARMENIAN 5th cent. mocjredil itnmerse SLAVONIC: . 9th cent. krestiti cross lUissian 1519 •\ Polish . 1585 Bohemian 1593 - the same root Lithuanian . . . 1G60 C7-0SS Livonian, or Lettish 1685 Dorpat Esthonian, &c. . 1727 TESTIMONY FROM ANCIENT VERSIONS. The preceding Table continued. VERSION. DATE. WORD EJIPLOYED. MEANING. GOTHIC: .... 4th cent. daux)jan dip German . . . . 1522 taufen ' dip Danish .... 1524 • dobe. dip Swedish . . . . 1534 dopa dip Dutch .... 1460 doopen dip &c., &c. Icelandic . , . . 1584 shira cleanse ANGLO-SAXON- . 8th cent. dyppan,fulUaii- dip, cleanse LATIN : Of the Early Fathers . 8th cent. tinrjo immerse Ante-Hierouymian 3rd cent. baptizo ^ Vulgate . . . . 4th cent. baptizo French .... 1535 bajitiser Spanish . . . . 1556 bautizar Italiati .... 1562 battezzare &c., &c. English: Wicklifife . . 1380 ) icasJt, christen, * ) baptize Tindal 1526 baptize Welsh 1567 bedyddio bathe." Irish .... 1602 baisdim Gaelic 1650 baisdeam ' Dr. Conant, rcferi-ing to leading vernacular versions for the Teutonic races, says : " In the first lower-Saxon Bible (1470-1480) it is translated by the word doepen (to dip). John i. 33: 'But he who sent me to dip in water' (not 'with water'); Matt. iii. 11 : 'And I indeed dip you in water' (not 'with water'). In the Augsburg Gex-man Bible (1473-75) it is rendered by the word tauffen (to dip). John i. 33 : ' But he who sent me to dip in water' (not ' with water') ; Matt. iii. 11 : ' And I indeed dip you in water' (not 'with water'). In Luther's German version (New Tes.,l'y22; entire Bible, 1.'534) the Greek word is rendered by taufen (to dip). So Luther himself explains the word. (Sermon on Bap. ) : ' Then also without doubt, in German tongues, the word Taiif comes from the word tief (deep), becavise what one baptizes he sinks deep into the water ' " (pp. 145, 146). - The word used in this version, says Dr. Cutting, "was usually fullian. In one instance baptism was denoted by a word denoting imahinr] ; and in one instance baptis- tani occurs in translating the name and title of John the Baptist. As this version was translated from the Latin, it is by no means singular that such a Latin form should have been brought into it. That no more was brought in, shows how much such forms were strangers to the people for whom the version was designed." The occurrence of di/ppan and depan, to translate haptizare, though in but two or three instances, in the Anglo- Saxon Gospels of the Bodleian Library, and of the Public Library at Cambridge, "indi- cate beyond question the act by which the Christian rite was in those days performed." It may also be admitted that the word /u ?/!(«« commonly used by the Anglo-Saxons, " denoted not only drenckinr/, but the process of cleansing accomplished by it, and we may siippose, therefore, was chosen as expressing their notion not only of the visible act of baptism, but also of the spiritual effects accomplished by it." — His. Vin., pp. 62, 63. 3 " Tertullian, the earliest of the Latin Fathers, who cites from a vernacular version, and not from the original Greek, quotes the commission in Matt, xxviii. 19, in the following nianner [On, Bap., c. xiii. ): Tor a law of immersing (tingucndi) was imposed, and the formula prescribed. "Go (says he) teach the nations, immersing (tinguentes) them into the name," &c. John iv. 2 is quoted as follows [On Bap., c. xi. ): For we read, " And yet he did not immerse (tinguebat), but his disciples." ' In the same work (c. xiv.) he quotes the apostle Paul as having said : ' For Christ sent me not to immerse (ad tinguendum) ;' and in c. xx. he quotes the evangelist as saying : ' "Were immersed (tinguebantur), confessing their sins.' In c. xvi. he quotes the Saviour's language in Luke xii. 50, in the following manner : ' There is indeed for us also a second bath, one and the same, namely, of blood; of which the Lord says: "I have to be inmiersed (tingui) \vith a bai^tism," when He had already been immersed.' " Cyprian, about half a century later, thus quotes Matt, xxviii, 19 : 'The Lord, after 74 IMPOllT OF BAPTISM. Let any candid reader judge "wliether these versions do or do not confirm the conclusion that the import of baptizo is to immerse. Of all versions for the use of the learned, Dr. Conant says that " so far as is known to the writer, the Greek word is uniformly rendered in this sense." He then gives examples and proof from D. A. Schott, Dr. G. Campbell, Fritzsche, and Kuinoel. It appears that in the Slavonic, or old Russian, krestltl (to cross) was given to the word because of the crossing that then had begun to take place at baptism. The crossing was not, and is not, in lieu of immersing, as is sprinkling in our country, but in addition to the same : and the ordinance received the name of crossing in a manner resembling that in which it has since, with some, received the name of christening. The expression, " were crossed by him in Jordan," may appear to many absurd in the extreme. But the Russian means that John both crossed and immersed; whilst the English and other Psedobaptists mean that John sprinkled. In the Latin language the Greek words were continually becoming naturalized ; and we have reason to believe that this was the case with haptizo, when translated into that language to describe the Christian ordinance. The Icelandic word, meaning scouring, cleansing, though not so accurate as some other words, yet favours immersion, because the cleansing, ' which is by washing, includes immersion. So in regaixl to the Saxon fullian. We have, in the table adduced, fifteen ancient versions, five of them in the second and third centuries, and ten of them completed before the close of the ninth, all clearly indicative of immersion, or plainly consistent with it. From the ninth century we have twenty more, all clearly encouraging the same action, or all accordant with immersion as the import of baptizo. In all these it is not once rendered by a word meaning to sprinkle or to pour ; whilst in many the word for the Greek undeniably means to immerse. Also in all the instances in which the transference of the Greek word was equivalent to its translation, the import is immerse, as is confirmed by the practice of that time. Let the reader who doubts the correctness of Dr. G., read his ample and Christian defence and illustration, now published by J. Heaton ife Son in the Appendix to Hinton's History of Baptism. The fact that almost every version of the Bible, previous to 1820, has invariably either not translated, but transferred the Greek word, or has rendered it by a term His resurrection, when sending forth the apostles, gives a command, and said: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, immersing (tinr/cntcs) them,"' &c. {Epis. xxv. ; also Eiiis. Ixiii. ). He thus quotes G;il. iii. 27: "For if the apostle lies not, when he says, 'as many of you as were immersed (tincti estis) in Clirist, have put on Christ,' then verily he, who was then baptized (baptizatus est) in Christ, has put on Christ (Epis. Ixxv.)" (Abbre. from Dr. Conant, pp. 142, 143). Dr. C. argues forcibly that the earliest usage in translations into the Latin language, was an expression of the literal meaning of the Greek term, and that subse- quently tlie Greek words were retained to express sacred things by what were supersti- tiously regarded as sacred appellations (pp. 142-144). With similar clearness and force this is shown by Dr. Gotch. The transference of the Greek Avord was in some instances equivalent to a translation. ■• Dr. Cutting. — " Wickliffe, the date of whose version is 1380, used baptize, some- times, however, substituting as its synonym, wash." "The period of what is termed Middle English, is the period of transition from fuUinge to baptism" [His. Vin., p. 71). These notes we have appended to the extract from Dr. Gotch. TESTIMONY FROM THE GREEKS AND GREEK CHURCn. 75 equivalent to immerse, is worthy of attention. Psedobaptists have recently "rendered the word in the Seneca language, to sjjr inkle (the first time the word was ever so used); in the Chinese, 'to use the wetting ceremony;' and by way of producing a literary equilibiium with the Seneca translation, they have rendered it in the Cherokee, immerse! Leaving modern missionary versions out of the question, there is not a solitary version, in either the Eastern or Western languages, which in the slightest degree favours any other meaning of the term baptizo than that of immerse. Better collateral evidence could not be desired." — I. T. Hinton's Ills, of Bap., p. 34. We may here, in opposition to what we have read in a Baptist publication, express a wish that the Anglicised Greek for baptizo were now abandoned in the English version of the New Testament, because ba2)tize as an English word does not now convey the sense of the original. Our opposing bi'ethren advocate with us the faithful and explicit transla- tion of the original as a whole, making this an exception. We have read, in a note on the word Baca, in Matt. v. 22, after the author had given " vain fellow," instead of the untranslated Syriac word : " What idea can an unlearned English reader attach to a Syriac word mitrans- lated?" (H. B. Hall's Comjmnion, &g., p. 5). Why should any word capable of translation be untranslated, or incorrectly or obscurely translated 1 SECTION V. ON E\aDENCE PEOM THE GREEKS AND THE GEEEK CHDECH, Prof. WiLSOM. — "We take leave to state definitively that in our brief notice of this department of Christian antiquity, we owe no submission, and shall pay none, to patristic authority. The baptism referred to or administered during the early ages, we regard as a valuable auxiliary in ascertaining the character of ai^ostolic baptism ; beyond this point it has no valid claim on our acceptance " (p. 525). H. Craik. — " Supposing a rich relation were to die in a distant country, and leave his last will and testament in some foreign tongue, would not most of those to whom this property had been left, and who valued the possession of earthly riches, deeply regret their inability to Tinderstand the language which their wealthy relative had chosen to employ in the composition of so important a document ? And shall the men of the world be more interested in the last vnW and testament of a wealthy relative, than Cliristians are found to be in reference to the meaning of that Book which describes their heavenly inheritance, and contains the record of the ' exceeding great and precious promises'? " — On the He. Lang., p. 4. Dr. Halley. — "I am not appealing to church authority, but to the language of ecclesiastical writers." . . . "We respect" ecclesiastical antiquity "as a witness of the meaning of the word; . . . as a teacher of grammar we listen to her testimony ; . . . as an old and respectable philolo- gist she has a right to be heard with attention by both parties. The inquiry is, . . . what use she made of the word baptize. Christians could speak Cireek as well as pagans ; bishops and divines as well, or at least as much, as philosophers and poets. When they found in the records of their faith the word baptism, did they or did they not understand it to be perfectly synonymous with immersion?" (pp. 335, 327). It has been considered as neither an unnatural nor an unimportant inquiry in connexion with this subject, What has been the practice of the Greeks, and of the Greek church, in regard to the oi-dinance of Christian baptism 1 Perhaps some may need to be informed that at a comparatively early period of the church's history, Rome and Constanti- nople contended for supremacy of power and honour in the professing church of Christ ; and that Roman and Greek became the designation of the church as a whole; the Roman embracing especially the Western, 76 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. and the Greek more particularly the Eastern portion of pi'ofessing Christendom. Thus the Roman church embraced far more than the professing Christians at Rome, and the Greek had a much wider compass than the territory of Greece. A distinction, therefore, exists between the Greeks and the Greek church : the former term designating the natives of Greece, and the latter embracing persons in certain parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. In regard to the Greek church, we are not aware of any difference in sentiment or practice affecting the present matter of dispute, whether its members lived in Gi-eece proper, and knew no other language than their native Greek, or whether they lived in any other place. Having consulted lexicons, and read numerous extracts from Greek authors in proof of the meaning of haptizo; having also noticed the meaning attached to this word by those who have translated the New Testament into other languages, we now inquire of the Greeks themselves what they understand to be the import of this word. That they should understand their own language better than foreigners, it is reasonable to conclude. The correctness of lexicographers may be further tested by the practice of Greeks professing Christianity. If we are satisfied respecting the meaning of the word as used by profane authors, it may be inquix-ed. Does the practice of the Greek church sustain the idea that the inspired penmen used the word in an altered and opposite sense, or that they used the word according to its native, explicit, and well-under- stood import? Our inquiry is not res])ecting any speculative opinions that might or might not be entertained by the Greek church, but simply respecting the meaning they attach to one of their own words. The conviction to wdiich we believe every candid mind is necessitated to come is, that they have invariably attributed to hajitizo the exclusive sense of to immerse. The fact of three immersions being their custom — • a practice which early obtained — has nothing to do with the present dispute. We need only say that it does not appear to us that trine immersion was enjoined by the Saviour, or practised in apostolic times. In corroborating our position from the practice of the Greek clmi-ch, we shall first adduce a few extracts from the writings of persons sometimes called Greek Fathers, and then give several testimonies from the writings of Psedobaptists (theologians, and others), respecting the practice of the Greeks and of the Greek church at large. Basil. — "Tlie great mystery of baptism is accomplislied )iy three immersions (en irifii taw katadu.setsi), and the same munljer of invocations ; and thus the eml)leiu of death is shadowed forth," &c. {M. de, Sinrit Sanct. T. H., c. xv.). Also, com- menting on Paul's words (Rom. vi. 3), ho says : "We were immersed [chaptlsthemen), says he, in order that from ifc we might learn this: that as wool immersed (hap- Utithen) in a dye is changed as to its colour ; or rather (using John the Baptist as a gxiidc, when he prophesied of the Lord, He will immerse {hripli.9f) you in the Holy Spirit and tire) ; . . .let us say this: that as steel {bcqUizovioio.'^), immersed in the fire kindled up by wind, liecomes more easy to test whether it has in itself any fault, and more ready for being refined ; . . . so it follows and is necessary, that he who is immersed {haptisthrntn) in the fire, that is, in the word of instruction, which convicts of the evil of sin, and shows the grace of justification, should hate and abhor unrighteousness," &c. — On Bap., b. i., c. ii., 10. Grecoky (Naziau). — ^'tSimtaphoinen Chr'usto dia tou bapti.smato.'i, hina I:ai sitnan- ufitomen; siKjkatelthomcn, hina hai suntipxothomen ; sunanclthomen, hina kai snndoxa- thomen (we are huried with Christ )>y l)ai)tisni, that also we may rise with Him ; we TESTIMONY FROM THE GREEKS AND GREEK CHURCH. 77 descend with Him tliat we may be lifted up with Him ; we ascend with Him that we may be also glorilied with Him)." — Ora. xl., p. 642. Chrysostom, on John, chap, iii., writes: ^^ Hemon, kathaiyer en tini taplio, to hudati kataduonton tas kephalas ho palaios anthropos thaptetai kai katadus kato knqytetai holos kathapax (Wlien we immerse the head in water, as in any sepulchre, the old man is buried, and the lower parts being immersed, the whole person is entirely concealed)." Germanus, of Constantinople. — "Dia tes en to hudati katuduseos te kai anadu- seos, triples te epikhtseos, ten triemeron taphen kai ten anastasin autoic ton, Christoit exeikonizomen (By immersion in water, and emersion, even a triple inundation, we represent the three days' burial, and the resurrection of Christ himself)" {His. Eccles., p. 146). Resjiecting the Greek words katadvsis, kataduo, anadusis, and anaduo, we only observe that the first is rendered by Mr. Ewing himself, as well as by other lexicographers, "agoing down;" the second, "/ go down, hide myself, make to go down ; " the third, "unenierr/ing, rising up ;^' and the last, "I emerge." John, of D.^jviasccjs. — "Baptism is an emblem of the death of Christ; for by thi-ee immersions (dia gar ton trion kataduseon) baptism represents the three days of the Lord's burial" {Orthod. Fid., lib. 4, c. 10). Referring to our Saviour's baptism, he says: "He is immersed (haptizetai), not as himself needing cleansing, but appropriating my cleansing, that He may overwhelm sin, and bury all the old Adam in the water." — Do., b. iv., c. ix. Photius. — ^'Hai treis kataduseia kai anaduseis tou haptismatos, thanaion kai anastasin semainousi (The three immersions and emersions of baptism signify death and resurrection)."- — Apud (Ecumenimn, in c. vi. ad Bomanos. Theophylact. — '^Ho haptistlieis sunfhaptetai to Christo, dia ion trion kataduseon ten triemeron taphen ton kuriou skemaiizon, kai apothneskon hoson gekafa ton jxikiion kai hamartetikon anthropon (Whoever is baptized, is buried with Christ by three immersions, representing the Lord's burial for tliree days, and dying, as to the old and sinful man)." — Ad Coloss., c. ii., v. 12. '^ To baptisma hosper dia tes katadiiseos thanaton, houto dia tes anaduseos, ten anas- tasin ti'poi (Baptism typifies ; as by immersion death, so by emersiou resurrection)." — Ad Coloss., c. iii., v. 1. " Baptizometha kai autoi mimonwpnoi ton thanaton dia tes kataduseos, kai ten anastasin dia tes anaduseos (We ourselves also are baptized, imitating the death [of Christ] by immersion, and the resurrection by emersion)" {Epi. i. ad Corin., c. x., V. 2). Also : "To baptisma en trisi katadusesi teleitai (Baptism is performed by three immersions)." — In c. "s^ii. Marci. Additional quotations from the Greek Fathers ^vill be given under concessions on Rom. vi. 2-4. These quotatious are not to justify the theology of these Fathers, but to prove the meaning attached to the action in the Christian ordinance by tliose to whom Greek was their mother-tongue, as we believe to have been the case with the majority, if not with the whole, of tliose who have now been quoted. Instead of adducing more, we shall now give on this subject the explicit acknow- ledgments of several eminent Pjedobaptists. Dr. Whitby. — "The observation of the Greek clnu-ch is this, that He who ascended out of the xcater, mu.st first descend down into it." Dr. J. G. King. — "The Greek church uniformly practises the trine immersion, undoubtedly the most primitive manner." — Rit^s and Cere, of the Gr. Ch. in Russia, p. 192. Dr. Wall. — "The Greek chiu'ch in all the branches of it does still use immer- sion." "All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, are of the last sort, in which third part of Europe are comprehended the Christians of Grrecia, Thi-acia, Servia, Bulgaria, Eascia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia Nigra, and so on ; and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation with the most reason of any." — His. of Inf. Bcqj., part ii., c. ix. Hasselquist. — "The Greeks christen their children immediately after their birth, or within a few days at least, dipping them in warm water; and in this 78 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. respect they are much wiser than their brethi-en tlie Eiissians, who dip them into rivers in the coldest winter." — Travels, p. 394. Venema. — "In pronouncing the baptismal form of words, the Greeks use the third person, saying: 'Let the servant of Christ be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; ' and immerse the whole man in water." — His. Eccle., torn, vi., p. (5G0. Deylinc4IU.s. — !'The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this day: as Jeremiah, the Patriarch of Constantinople, declares." — £>e Prudent. Pastoral, pars iii. , c. iii. , § 26. BuDDEUS. — "That the Greeks defend immersion is manifest, and has been frequently observed by learned men ; which Ludolphiis informs us is the practice of the Ethiopians." — Theol. Dogmat., b. v., c. i., § 5. WiTsius. — "That immersion may be practised in cold countries, without any great danger of health and life, the Muscovites prove by their own example, who entirely immerse their infants three times in water, not believing that baptism can be otherwise rightly administered. Nor do they ever use warm water, except for those that are weak or sickl3^"• — JEcon. Feed., b. iv., c. xvi., § 13. Schubert. — "It is the opinion of the Greeks that the true baptism of Christ is administered, not by the application of water in any way, but by immersion, or by hiding the person to be baptized under water. " — Instit. Theol. Polem. , pars ii. , c. iii., § 12. Russian Catechism. — "This they [tlie Greek church in Russia] hold to be a point necessary, that no part of the child be undipi)ed in the water. " * — In Booth, on Bap., vol. ii., p. 414. Sir Paul Ricaut. — "The modern Greek church defines baiitism to be, *a cleansing, or taking away of original sin, l)y thrice dipping or plunging into the water;' the priest saying at every dipping, ' In the name of the Father, amen ; and of the Son, amen ; and of the Holy Ghost, amen. ' This thrice dipping, or plunging into the water, this church holds to be as necessary to the form of baptism, as water to the matter." — Pres. State of the Gr. Ch., p. 163, Ekcy. Britt. — "Baptism is performed among them by plunging the whole body of the child thrice into water. " — Art. Greece. Millar. — " In baptism they [the Muscovites] dip their childi-en in cold water." — Pro}), of Chri. , vol. ii. , c. vi. Alexander de Stourdza, Russian State - Councillor, in a work published at Stutgart in 1816, says: "The church of the West has, then, departed from the example of Jesus Christ ; she has obliterated the whole sviblimity of the exterior sign; — in short, she commits an abuse of words and of ideas in practising haj>tism by aspersion, this very term being in itself a derisive contradiction. Tlie verb BAPTizo, immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and always, to jilunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical ; and to say, baptism hy aspersion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspn-sion, or any other absurdity of the same nature. "^ — In Dr. Conant, on Bajy., pp. 150, 151. The Bishop of the Cyclades, in 1837 published at Athens a book entitled, The Orthodox Doctrine. Speaking of sprinkling, he says : "Where has the Pope taken the practice from? Where has the Western church seen it adoirted, that she declares it to be right ? Has she learned it from the baptism of the Lord ? Let Jordan bear witness, and fii-st proclaim the immersions and the emersions. From the words of our Lord? Hear them aright. Disciple the nations; then baptize * It is asseiied by a recent writer that affusion is sometimes practised. But if a Maronite, a German, or one of another nation, says what means / dip, whilst practising pouring, it proves simply his departure from the rxile and the previous practice ; as rc])airing to a river in order to pouring or sprinkling woidd be confirmatory of .another and more ancient pr.actice having been superseded by this pouriug or sprinkling ; just as the formula in the Prayer Book of the Anglican church is corroborative both of believers' baptism and of inmicrsion as baptism, as more ancient than infant sprinkling. Nor is sprinkling or pouring, whilst saying / immcr.-ie thee, more absuixl, as we think, than the answering and promising by deputy as enjoined and practised in the Anglican church. The a.ssertiou of Dr. "Wall that some writers "say that the Muscovites themselves do in ca^sc of the weakness of the child baptize by affusion" (v. ii., p. 378), docs not assuredly destroy the corroborative evidence from the Greek church that baptism is immersion. TESTIMONY FROM THE GREEKS AND GREEK CHURCH. 79 them. He says not, then canoiut them, or sprinkle them ; but He plainly commis- sions His apostles to baptize. The word hajptlzo explained, means a veritable dipping, and, in fact, a perfect dipping. An object is baptized when it is completely concealed. This is the proper exjilanation of the word haptizo. Did the Pope, then, learn it from the apostles, or from the word and the expression, or from the church in the splendour of her antiquity ? Xowhere did such a practice prevail ; nowhere can a Scriptural passage be found to afford shelter to the opinions of the Western church."— In Bap. Mag., 1849. Prof. Stuaet. — "The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time." How differeut are tlie preceding records from the impressions wliicli the statements of many Ppedobaptists are adapted to produce ! How contrary are they to the idea that immersion is a recent innovation, adopted by a small niimber ; and that sprinkling is of the highest antiquity, although a few dissent from the practice ! How painful that ecclesiastical testimony through the blinding influence of prepossessions should by many distinguished for piety and learning be so untruthfully represented ! Dr. Farrar, with the appearance of candour, says : " I readily admit baptizing by immersion has been practised as far back as the fourth and third centuries, and perhaps earlier " (Dr. Pye Smith's OidUnes, p. 668). Been practised ! — perhaps earlier ! "We are quite aware that numbers do not prove truthfulness, so that if the full seventy millions who practise immersion ^vere doubled and trebled we could not depend on such a fact as proof that our practice is Scriptural : but we approve only of words and phrases which are adajited to make impressions in accordance with facts, and not with ignorance and error. Respecting the practice of the Greeks, it has been said by a Baptist : "Greatly as the Greeks were divided in sjDeculative opinions, and numerous as the congregations were which dissented from the established church, it is remarkable, and may seiwe to confirm the meaning of the word baptism, that there is not the shadow of a dispute in all their history in favour of sprinkling. Because they were Gi-eeks they all thought that to baptize was to baptize, that is, that to dip was to dip." "Whether John the Baptist and the apostles of our Lord baptized by pouring on Avater, or by bathing in water, is to be determined chiefly by ascertaining the precise meaning of the word haptizo. A linguist can examine the Greek lexicons and some of the instances in which the word occurs in Greek writers ; but an illiterate man is more dependent on the testimony of othei's. To the latter it cannot be deemed irrelevant or unimportant, and by some it will assuredly be deemed sufiicient, to observe that the word is confessedly Greek, that native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners, that they have always understood the word bajDtism to signify immersion, and that from their first embracing of Christianity to this day they have practised immersion. This is an authority for the meaning of the word baptize more than equal to that of European lexicographers ; so that a man who is obliged to trust human testimony, and who immerses because the Greeks immerse, understands the Greek word exactly as the Greeks themselves understand it. — See Eobinson's His. of Bap).,]^^. 5, etc. 80 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. SECTION VI. ON EVIDENCE FROM JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. Dr T. H. Skinner. — "All creeds, systems, theories, ... are to be tried by the Bible." — In Dr. Burns's Cy., vol. i., p. 318. H. Craik. — " The questions between the several bodies of Protestants relate to the meaning of the word of God. The question among true Protestants is not — Shall Scripture be allowed to decide our diflfcrences? but rather, "What deliverance do these Scriptures give? what is the decision they announce ? The day is come when ancient traditions, time-honoured observances, venerated creeds, accredited doctrines, must all be upheld or rejected, just in so far as they are found to be in accordance, or otherwise, with the one standard from which there is no appeal." — On the He. Lang., p. 60. It is reasoned by advocates of infant sprinkling that the Jews were in the habit of receiving proselytes, both adults and infants, by baptism as well as circumcision. It is maintained that Christ and His apostles were acquainted with this practice, and that when Christ commanded the apostles to disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c., He must have intended, and been understood to intend, that baptism to which they had been accustomed — the baptism of infants as well as adults. This argument, to be of the least force, must necessarily be sustained by evidence that the Jews in the time of Christ, or also in a preceding age, were accustomed to admit proselytes by baptism. It does not seem unimportant, also, that the evidence of this, — if a correct understanding of the Saviour's commission, and of aj^ostolic practice, is at all dependent on this, — should be in the Bible itself. AVe learn, however, from the Scriptures, of no baptism to which the disciples of Jesus or the Jews had been accustomed but that of John the Baptist, and that of Jesus, administered by His disciples. And, did it accord with our present aim, we might immediately endeavour to substantiate the idea that the com- mission of our Lord, like every part of the New Testament, gives its sanction only to the baptism of professing believers. We admit the existence of proselyte baptism in the early part of the Christian era, and we maintain that as this baptism was immersion, it is a confirmation of our position that baptism is immersion. Prof Wilson sees a "strong presumption" in favour of the existence of baptism before the time of John the Baptist "to be strikingly corroborated " in the fact that "no one appears to have sought information respecting the meaning of the rite; no one proposed the question, What is baptism V Suppose that some one, knowing the English language, should seriously inquire. What is sprinkling ? what is immersion 1 Do we read of any inquiry in apostolic times, What is the Lord's Supper ? Shall we deem the lack of svich a query very "embarrassing to those who deny" the previous existence of the Lord's Supper 1 (pp. 200, 201.) Dr. W. aa'gues at length in favour of the existence of proselyte baptism before the time of John. Proselyte baptism had an existence — whether from heaven or from hell it originated — hundreds of years before we have a smgle record respecting it ! It is first noticed, as Dr. W. admits, in a Jewi.sh Talmud of the third century ! There is "full and indisputable testimony to proselyte baptism " in the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud, " a compilation of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries;" and there is one passage which is believed to have a "direct bearing" on this in the Mishna of the Jerusalem Talmud, composed " about the }oar of our Lord 220 " (pp. 189,11)0). (!) TESTIMONY FKOM JEWISH PEOSELYTE BAPTISISI. 81 Mr. Stacey says : "There were 'divers baptisms' among the Jews, and one of these was an ablution with water, by which proselytes from heathenism were admitted to the profession and privileges of Judaism. The direct evidence for this is, it is true, derived chiefly from Jewish ecclesiastical literature" (p. 143). In the next page he maintains that "the rite, it may fairly be presumed, was not unknown at tlie commence- ment of the Christian era. But if otherwise, the simple fact alone that the observance is recognised as already established at the beginning of the third centiiry," &c. He believes in its existence in the time of our Saviour, but admits that we do not read of it as an established pi-actico till the third century. He imagines evidence in favour of the existence of this rabbinical and traditional observance " in the obvious familiai'ity of the Jews with baptism as an initiatoiy ceremony, at the commence- ment of John's ministry," as if, without the existence of proselyte baj:)- tism, it would be a difficult or impossible thing for John at the commencement of his ministry to make the people understand that his baptism was an initiatory rite. He sees "corroborative evidence" that the Jews were acquainted with the admission of heathen proselytes to Judaism by baptism "in the question proposed by the priests and Levites to John the Baptist: ' Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet]'" (John i. 25.) And "the proof," says he, "is still further strengthened by the appeal of our Lord to Nicodemus, when he professed himself unable to • understand His discourse. He had said to him : ' Except a man be born of water and of the Spiiit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ' " ! On this passage it is reasoned as if Nicodemus could have known nothing of "baptism, the birth by water," from the hajHisni of John, but only fi'om Jewish 2-»roselyte baptism ! And as if it was not perfectly natural, and consistent with the idea of John's practising as the Redeemer's foi-erunner a fiew and Divine institution, that the Jews should present the in- quiiy, "Wliy baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet "? " In our estimation, this inquiry is so consonant with our views as to be confirmatory of our sentiments. The question implies that nothing exactly like John's baptism was previously in existence, and that the Divinely-appointed administrator of this rite, peculiar in its character and attendant circumstances, must be a special and extraordinary character. If not, where are your credentials for introducing and practising your ceremony 1 And might it not have been positively asserted to Christ that John's baptism Avas not from heaven, but of men, if it was simply the continuance of a human and rabbinical invention ? And might not the rabbis now charge us with having copied from them our initiatory Christian rite 1 (See Olshausen, p. 2.) Further, if John's baptism could not be understood without the Jewish proselyte baptism, how came the Jewish baptism to be understood ] Did God. grant a special revelation to those who instituted it, and supernatural illumination to those on whom was enforced this rabbinical observance ? Dr. Halley is more modest than Mr. S., although he does not over- look the conversation of our Lord with Nieodemus. He admits that learned Pa^dobaptists "either deny or doubt that the baptism of proselytes was prevalent in the time of our Lord." He says: " It would be uncandid G 82 IMPORT OF BAPTISM, not to state that several scliolai's of great name, as Dr. Owen, Carpzoviiis, Lardner, Doddridge, Yan Dale, in liis history of Jewish and Cliristiaii baptisms; Ernesti, Paulus, De Wette, Stuart, and others, either deny or doubt that the baptism of proselytes was prevalent in the time of our Lord." Then he mentions other learned men who " maintain that such baptisms were observed and sanctioned at an earlier period, and this," says he, "we believe is the prevalent opinion of theologians" (p. 105). He also says : " It is only dishonest evasion to identify the baptism of proselytes with the divers baptisms, the legal ablutions of the Jews. That this baptism was the emblem of purification we allow; but then, as is most manifest, it was purification from the uncleanncss of heathenism, not from the defilements of the law" (pp. 109, 110). Elsewhere he says: "I feci bound in candour to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt whatever; for that proselytes were baptized in a confluence of waters sufiicient to cover the whole body, we learn from the Talmuds and from Maimonides" (p. 309). We might expz-ess our regret that the Jordan and -^non of Holy Writ exert not a greater influence over some who yield to the force of evidence in a Talmud and a Jewish writer. We do not refer to these writings, or to traditions emphatically condemned by our Saviour, in support of a theological sentiment, l3ut simply in confirmation of the meaning of a Greek word. Dr. Jahn says : " Their immersion was not only a symbol of their having been purified from the corruption of idolatry, but it also signified that as they had been buried in the water, they now arose new men, regenerated — the new-born sons of Abi-aham" \lieh. Com., c. i., § 324). Archb. Sumner says : " He was baptized, immersed in water ; . . . his immersion in water was an emblem of the purification which he required " {Ex2:). Lee, on John iii. 1-5). Mr. Thorn, in his volume on Infant Baptism, untruly teaches that the "leading opponents" of Pjedobaptism "fully agi'ee" in rcgai'ding proselyte baptism as the pi-ecursor of Christian baptism, and " yet no direct mention is made of it for at least a hundred years after the death of the last apostle" (pp. 183, 456). Sjieaking of " Mr. Noel and his brethren," he says : " The simple reader will jn-obably be surprised to learn that this chief, if not sole argument for dipping proselytes in baptism, is not based on any part of God's Word; and that Robinson, Noel, nor any one else, ever cites a plain and positive command or example of Scriptui-e to in-ove their point, the whole being based chiefly on the dogmas, if not the inventions, of the Hebrew rabbis, or on inferences the premises of which are most uncertain" (p. 4G9). We think the above to be glaringly false in regard to the Baptists, even in i-espect to Mr. Noel, who wrote on coming out from the Predobaptists without having read what any Baptist liad Avritten on this ordinance. Baptists may refer to jjroselyte baptism as con6rmatorv of immersion, whetlier it originated before or after aiiostolic times ; but they distinctly maintain that, as the word chosen l)y the Divine Spirit means to immerse, eveiy command to baptize is a command to immerse, and every ■examjile in God's Word is an example of immei-sion. This same brother who thus misrepresents his " ojiponents " on the exaltation of rabbinical trumjiery, yet says : " The practice and prevalence of Jewish and TESTIMONY FROM JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 83 proselyte baptism, up to the time of John the Baptist, and during the ministry of our Lord, fiu-nishes a key fitted to unlock the mystery of the subject of Infant Baptisni better than any other with which we are acquainted " (p. 409). This is the brother who, speaking of the Baptists and i)roselyte baptism, says: "They will have it; we must go back to that institution for our guidance" (p. 529). How inconsistent with himself ! What a libeller of his opponents ! How much more nearly connect is the sentiment of Mr. I. T. Hinton: "I regard the baptism of John as Christian baptism in an incompletely-developed state, yet with all its elements of character strongly marked " (His. of Bap., p. 53). Another says that John's baptism " looked forwards in hopes that Christ was about to appear. This looks backwards and recognises Christ's death and resurrection." Olshausen speaks of a " prominent distinction in baptism, in which it difiers from mere lustrations," namely, " that one party appears as the baptizer, the other as the baptized" (Com., Matt. iii. 13). Elsewhere he teaches that "the baptizing party performed the immersion on the baptized (which was the specific difference between baptism and all other lustrations)," and " that a formxda was used at the immersion." — On Matt. iii. 1. The remarks of our opponents are so frequent and so confident on the questions put to John the Baptist, and on the conversation of our Lord with Nicodeiiius, that further notice of them may by some be deemed appropriate. The rite of baptism " prescribed and submitted to, apparently witliout explanation on one side or surprise on the other," is deemed evidence that the Jews were familiar with it, and a powerful argument, or a "strong presumption," in favour of the pre-existence of proselyte baptism. If directions were now given by a parent to his child, or by a physician to his patient, to dip the hand or to immerse the body in water, who would think of the necessity of exj^laining a word in common use and of definite import 1 If the fact of having bathed a foot or the person in the sea or in a pool were related, where is the man that would feel astonished if the import of this action had no explanation % The lack of exclamation or of explanation proves nothing in regard to the newness or oldness of the action. It is, on the other hand, main- tained by one of our Pfedobaptist brethren, that the question of Nicode- mus, which clearly indicates his ignorance and surprise, "at once suggests that Jesus Avas setting forth no new doctrine" (R. A. Lancaster, on Chris. Bap., p. 33). The designation of John as " The Baptist " implies, as we think, something peculiar to John, distinguishing him from his contemporai'ies and predecessors, and that this distinction had reference to his baptizing. This distinction, so far as we can judge from Scripture, is in his immersing those who confessed theii' sins, professing their repentance, and belief in the Saviour about to appear. Thiis his baptism is designated "the baptism of repentance;" and he said, "I baptize you with water unto repentance;" and taught "that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Previous bathings had usually before been performed by the individuals them- selves. John is not by way of distinction called the preacher, or the publisher of a Divine message, but The Baptist. And yet, as if there was nothing unique in connexion with this, Dr. Gumming says: " It was 84 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. the baptism by wliicli and through which every priest entered on liis priestly olHce" [Sab. Eve. Lee. on Luke, pp. 51, 52). That it bore the greatest resembhxnce to tliis, we admit; but how much better to liave said that liis designation in Holy Writ, like the question of our Saviour to the chief priests and elders respecting the authority of his baptism, proves his baptism to have been in some respects novel, and to hare been from heaven ! "Baptism," says Poole, on Matt. iii. 15, "is a uew law of the gospel-church." Richd. Watson says: "We find no account of baptism as a distinct religious rite before the mission of John, the forerunner of Christ, who was called the 'Baptist' on account of his being commanded by CJod to bajjtize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to repent." "AVashing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites." " Soon after the time of o\ir Saviour, wc lind it to have been the custom of the Jews solenuily to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their proselytes." — Bib. Die. Avi. Bap. Sir Norton Knatchbull says: "If baptism in the modern sense were in iise among the Jews in ancient times, why did tlie Pharisees ask John Baptist, Why dost thou baptize, if thou art not Chrint, nor Elias, nor that j^rophet? (.John i. 25). Do they not plainly intimate that bajitism was not in use before?" — In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38. "Tostatus," as quoted in The Messiah, "gives twelve reasons to show that baptism was not practised before the coming of John; some of which are, that he would not have been called The Bajitist had there 'jeen others who baptized before him. Josephus s])eaks of him as The Baptist, and of none others who exercised such an office: none of tlie prophets baptized: it was not ordained by the Mosaic law : it is not mentioned in any of the ancient Scriptures : it was called the baptism of John by our Lord : if it had been commanded before John, all tlie laud of Judea and they of Jerusalem [many of the Pharisees and Sadducees] woiild not have gone out unto him, to be baptized in the river Jordan, as St. Mark relates: the disciples of John were jealous because John baptized, which they would not liave been had the ceremony prevailed Ijefore : from the fact of John's baptizing, the Jews were led to think that he was some great prophet, and asked if he Avere the (Jhrist, or Elias, which they could not have done had it been a well-known ordinance. — Tostatus, in Matt., c. iii. , qu»s. 38." Vcncma says: "Part of John's office consisted in baj)tizing: an external rite, then in a particular manner appointed of God, and not used before. " — Jlis. Ecd. , tom. iii., g 35. Witsius says : "There can be foimd no Divine institution of it before .John, the forerunner of Ohrist, was sent of God to baptize, for to him it was expressly com- manded: 'The word of God came unto John' (Luke iii. 2; John i. 23)." — Qlcou. Foe.(l.,\. iv.,c. 16, S. J. E. Pitman says: "Tlie use of water in baptism, as an emblem of purity, ought not to have been new to Nicodemus : it was a rite which the Baptist John had previously inculcated." — Prac. Lee, on John iii. 0, 10. Dr. W. Smith's Biblical Dictionary : "It is an old controversy whether the baijtism of John was a new institution, or an imitation of the baptism of proselytes as practised by the Jews. But at all events, there is no record of such a rite, conducted in the name of, and with reference to a particular person (Acts xix. 4), before the ministry of John." — Art. Jcsun Christ. AV. T. {i.e., Dr. Wm. Tliomson.) Dr. H. H. Milnian : '"J'lie practice of tlie external wasliing of the body, as emble- matic of the outward purilication of the suul, is almost universal. " " The i>erpetual similitude and connection lietvveen the uncleanncss of the boeure, still it is a useful assistance, in cases of difhculty, to know what sentiments have been entertained, and expositions given, by persons whose opportunities of knowledge, and whose character for learning and judgment, constitute a reasona'ile presumption TESTIMONY FKOM P^DOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS. 87 that they have not taken up their opinions from supine ignorance, unexamined custom, or other prejudice. ITpon this ground, therefore, and not because we attribute to the sentiments of unin- spired men any commanding authority, I bring some instances to shew to our opponents that it is not a novelty in tlie cliui'ch of Clirist." — Cong. Lcc, p. 16. Chamiee. — "What can be a more convincing in'oof than that wliich arises from the confession of an adversary?" — In I'cs. of Em. P(c., p. 9. J. Stennett. — "Does Mr. R. think it impossible for authors to write inconsistently, that nothing may be inferred from what they grant to lessen the force of what they assert ? and that it is impertinent to cite their testimony to a matter of fact, if this fact is not altogether agreeable to the principles and practices they embrace?" — Ans. io Russen, pp. 201, 202. T. Clarke.—" It is some relief to timidity that the opinions supported in these pages . . . are countenanced also by many of the greatest men and first writers, both of our own and other countries ; and (if I mistake not) the Divine oracles give them the weight of their high decisions." — His. oflnfol., vol. i., pp. vii., viii. Prof. J. H. Godwin. — "Every author must be under great obligations to those who have preceded him, — not le.5s, perhaps, to those who have maintained different views, than to those with whom in general he agrees." — Chr. Bap., p. vii. Dr. J. Gumming. — " Such extracts from able divines as are likely to throw light on the inspii-ed word will be introduced." — Sab. Eve. Rea., on Cor., p. ii. Dr. W. n. Hetherington. — "I have preferred to quote the testimony of opponents rather than that of friends, in many instances, as less likely to be disputed." — His. oftheCh. of Scot., vol. i., p. vi. Dr. Ward LAW. — "Let not the introduction of such quotations be intei-preted by any of my hearers as implying my approbation of every incidental sentiment, or mode of expression, which they may contain." — Conrj. Lcc, p. 148. Most Prote.staut and Papal critics of eminence concede that immer- sion is the primary and proper meaning of baptism. It has not been maintained by the great majority of them that in every instance wliere the word occurs, the idea of pouring or sprinkling is excluded; although even this is admitted by some, who maintain that the church has power to decree rites, or who deplore that the church has departed from primitive jiractice, and that the inveterate custom it is now difficult to uproot. The concessions which we are about to adduce we conceive to have resulted from truth and candour. The practice of poui'ing or sprinkling by the authors of these acknowledgments, affords the highest reason to conclude that nothing but the force of evidence and a conscien- tious regard to truth could have induced them to use language which is so strongly in support of a contrary practice. After we have accepted their testimony relative to the primary (or only) meaning of the word, we may properly require jDroof from them that in any instance this 2"»rimary meaning has been abandoned for an altogether different meaning, — a meaning to express which the Greek language is rich in other, and definite, and well-known words. That Psedobaptists intended to promote the cause of the Baptists by their concessions we do not insinuate ; but we maintain that their concessions are inimical to sprinkling and pouring, and that if we can condemn their practice from their own lips, our conduct will be sanctioned l^y the highest authority. To argue from the admissions of opponents is undoubtedly legitimate, not simply because this has been extensively adopted by Christians arguing with the Jews, by Protestants arguing with the Papists, by Protestant Dissenters in their arguments with English Conformists, and by one denomination of Dissenters engaged in controver.sy with another, but because it has been adopted by the Spii-it of infallibility. (See Acts xvii. 28; Titus i. 12.) "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" (Luke xix. 22). This method, called argumentum ad hominem, was adopted by Eliphaz and by David (Job xv. 5, C; 2 Sam. i. IG). The prophet Nathan, under Divine guidance, pronounced condemnation on David from the confession of his own lips (2 Sam. xii. 1-9). Our Saviour reasoned with the Pharisees from the Old Testament, which they admitted as Divine, and 88 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. with the Sadducees from the hooks of Moses (Matt. xxii. 15-46). Also to the crafty and malicious chief ])riests and elders, who, to entangle the Son of God, said, " By what authority doest Thou these things 1 and who gave Thee this authority?" the reply of Jesus was: "I will also ask you one thing, which, if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" The sacred historian proceeds to say: "And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, He will say unto us, ^Yhy did ye not then believe him?" &c. (Matt. xxi. 23-27.) In accoi'dance with this sanction from Holy Writ of the argumentum ad hominem, Predobaptists themselves assure us : " Of all methods of reasoning with an opponent, none is moi'e clo.se and conclu.sive than that which is taken from his own principles " (Saurin). " All will allow that the testimony of an adversarj^ is good against himself" (Owen's Def. of Scrip. Ordi, p. 158). Hence Bishop Newton, speaking of the Waldenses, says: "I will only produce the testimonies of three witnesses concerning them, whom both sides must allow to be unexceptionable^Reinerius, Thuaniis, and Mezeray. It cannot be objected that this is Protestant evidence, for they were all three members of the Church of Rome " (Dis. on the Froph.). Thus Claude, when confuting the Roman Catholics, says : " I will make their authors that are not suspected by them, to speak" (Def. of lief., part ii., p, 127). And another, speaking of a particular fact, says : " It is proved by the best testimony possible, the acknowledgment of an adversary." — Archd. Travis. The persons whose concessions we adduce from their own writing.?, are not "ignorant and unlearned men, or excommunicate persons in their own church;" but persons generally of the greatest eminence for learning and piety, many of whom have illustriously filled Professor's' chairs. In conclusion, some quotations will be given from those who ai"e called " Friends," who in this conti'oversy may be regarded as occupying a neutral position, because they reject both baptism and the Lord's Supper, believing, as we think very erroneously, that both ordmances were intended to be but of temporary continuance in the church of Christ. We only further observe, that these quotations are much more lengthened than they might have been had not some of our oj^ponents spoken so reproachfully as well as erroneously concerning immersion. Let the following unexceptionable testimony to the primary import of inspired words designating the Divine ordinance be duly considered. We begin with the testimony of distinguished critics of a former age, but not in chronological order, and end with testimony borne by those of the present generation. One or two quotations from those called Fathex's, not elsewhere given, may appropriately jirecede the writers of a more recent date, the heresy of ba})tisnial regeneration having brought about a change in the subjects of bajitism long before the Divinely- a^jpointed action was superseded by pouring or sprinkling. Jerome, born a.d. 3.31.—" Ami thrice we are iainiersecl (iner(junur), that there may appear oue sacrament of the Trinity. ' — Com. on Eph. ; on iv. 5. Alcuin, born a.d. 7.35, says to the brethren at Ijyons: " The onter man should be washed witli a trine immersion (riierxion<) ; that what the Sjurit invisibly works in the soul, that the priest may visibly imitate in water" (Epis. xc). " He is baptized with a trine immersion" (mhmersione.) (Do.). TESTIMONY FROM PiEDOBArTIST CONCESSIONS. 89 ZuiNGLE.- — "Into His death. When ye were immersed ( intinr/ereviini ) into the water of baptism, ye were iugrafted into the death of Christ ; that is, the immer- sion (intinctio) of your body into water was a sign that yo ought to be ingrafted into Christ and His death, that as Clirist died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the tlesh and the old man, that is, to youi'selves." — Anno., on Eo. vi. 3. Luther. — "Baptism is a Greek Avord, and may be ti'anslated immersion, as when we immerse something in water that it may be wholly covered. And, although it is almost wholly abolished (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them), they ought nevertheless to be MdioUy immersed, and then immediately drawn out ; for that the etymology of the word seems to demand." "The Germans call baptism tauff, from a depfli, which in their language they call tkff, because it is proper that those who are baptized be deeply im- mersed." In the Smalcald Articles (drawn up by Luther), he says: " Baptism ia nothing else than the Word of God with immei-sion in water." And again he says : "Washing from sins is atti'ibuted to baptism ; it is truly indeed attributed, but the signification is too soft and slow to express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized to ]je altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify." The explicit declarations of Lutlier are very lanpalatable to our Pffidobaptist brethren. Prof. Wilson speaks of " his predilections in favour of dipping," and says: "The illustrious reformer, we admit, was prejudiced in favour of that mode of baptism, and expressed a desire for its adoption in the church which he had been the instrument of organiz- ing" (p. 255). Those who know the character and conduct of Luther, unless themselves the subjects of prejudice, will not believe that his pre- dilections lay in tliis direction. D'Aubigne, comparing him Vv'ith Zwing- lius, says : " The German Reformer wished to remain united to the clu;rch of former ages, and was satisfied with purging it of everything that was opjiosed to the Word of God. The Zurich Keformer passed by all these ages, returned to apoatolic times, and sul^jecting the church to a complete transformation, laboured to re-establish it in its primitive form" (His. of Itef., vol. iii., pp. 198, 199). We could wish that Prof. W. may live to apply to the retained sprinkling of infants the regrets of Dr. W. Anderson that the " Reformers brought away with them from Rome, and irapoi-ted into the Reformation" so much, and the regrets of Dr. W. Lindsay that the Reformation did not proceed further: which regrets were expressed at length at the recent tricentenary meeting. WiTSius. — " It cannot be denied, that the native signification of the words hap- tfiin, and haptizein, is to plunge, to dip" (CEcon. Feed., 1. iv., c. xvi., § 13).* He also speaks of the immersion in Christ's baptism as representing His humility, and of the emersion as representing His subsequent exaltation. GoMARUS. — ■" Bajitismos and haptis7)ia, signify the act of baptizing: that is, either plunging alone ; or immersion and the consequent washing." — Opera, Disjm. Theol. , Dispu. xxxii. , g 5. Beckman. — "Baptism, according to the force of its etymologj^, is immersion, and washing, or dipping." — Krercit. Theol.; Exercit. xvii. BucANTJS. — "Baptism, that is, immersion, dipping, and, by consequence, wash- ing.— Baptistery, a vat, or large vessel of wood, or stone, in which we are im- mersed, for the sake of washing. — Baptist, one that immerses, or dijis." — Instit. Theol., loc. xlvii., qures. i. * This quotation is extracted from Booth's Pa'dobaptism Examined. So are several others. Some are from a Tract on Baptism by D. Wallace ; and some have been taken immediately from the original works. From what the writer has seen of the originals, his conviction is that immerse would often have been, as a rendering, preferable to the word plunge. 90 IMPOBT OF BAPTISM. Zanchy. — "Baptism is a Greek v/ord, and signifies two things; first, and pro- perly, it signifies immersion in water : for the proper signification of haptizo is to immerse, to plunge imder, to overwhelm in water." — Opero., torn. vi. Beza. — "But hapt'izo signifies to dip, since it comes from hapto, and since things to be dyed are immersed" (On Matt. iii. 13). He admits that some have disputed respecting immersing the whole body in the ceremony of baptism ; but he maintains that " there is no other signification of the verb hamad, which the Syrians xise for baptize." "It answers," says he, "to the Hebrew tubal, rather than rachatz" (Do.). Elsewhere he says: "Christ commanded us to be baptized; by which word it is certain immersion is signified." — Let. 2nd to T. T. Stapferus. — "Bybaptismwe understand that riteof the New Testament church, commanded by Christ, in which believers, by being immersed in water, testify their communion with the church." — Instl. Theol. Polem., tom. i., cap. iii., § 1G35. Marloratus. — " From these words (John iii. 23), it may be gathered, that bap- tism was perfoi-med by John and Christ, by plunging of the whole body." — Com., ad Joan. iii. 23. BxjRMANN. — " Baptkmo.'i and haptlsma, if you will consider their etymology, properly signify immersion." — Synops. Tlieol., loc. xliii., cap. vi., § 2. Maldonatus (a Eo. Cath.), on Matt. xx. 22. — " Mark says that Christ added, And he haptized u-ith tJie baptism vAth which I am baptized; which, by another metaj)hor, signifies the same thing, the baptism is also put for sufiering and death, as L\i. xii. 50. ^^'lience it is, that also martyrdom is called a baptism ; a metaphor, as I think, taken from those who are submerged in the sea, to put them to death. For in Greek, to be baptized, is the same as to be submerged." On Lu. xii. 50 : "To be baptized, therefore, v.'hich ])ropei'ly is to be submerged in water, is put for to suffer and to die, and baptism for affliction, for suffering, for death." — Com. on the Gospels. HooRNBEEK. — "We do not deny that the word baptism bears the sense of im- mersion ; or that, in the first examples of persons baptized, they went into the water and were immersed ; or that this rite should be observed where it may be done conveniently and without endangering health." — Socin. Confut., 1. iii., c. ii., § i., tom. iii. H. Alting. — " The word baptism properly signifies immersion ; improperly, by a metonymy of the end, washing." — Loci. Commun., pars i., loc. xii. ViTRiNGA. — "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word." — Aj^thor. Sane. Theol., Apho. 884. HosPiNiAN. — "Christ commanded us to be baptized ; by which word it is cer- tain immersion is signified." — Hist. Sacr., b. ii., c. i., p. 30. CA.SAUBON. — "This Avas the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into the water ; which the very word baptizdn, to baptize, sufliciently declares : which as it does not sigmiY dunein, to sink to the bottom and perish, so doubtless it is not epipolazein, to swim on the surface. For these three words, epipolazein, baptizein, and dunein, are of different significations. Wlience we understand it Avas not with- out reason, that some long ago insisted on the immersion of the whole body in the ceremony of baptism; for they urge the word beqHizein, to baptize." — Annot., in Matt. iii. 6. TuRRETiNE. — "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb bapto ; which signifies to dip, and to dye ; baptizein, to baptize, to dip into, to immerse." — /«•«., loc. xix., quass. xi., § 4. Vossius. — " Baptizein, to bajrtizc, signifies to plunge. It certainly signifies more than epip)olazcin," &c. — Dif^piu. de Bap., Disp. i., thes. i. Also, baptism "is done by a trine immersion." Magueburo Centuriatoks. — "The word beipfizo, to baptize, which signifies immersion into water, proves that the administrator of baptism immersed, or washed, the persons ba})tized in water." — Cent, i., b. ii., c. iv. Venema.- — "The word baptizein, to baptize, is no where used in the Scripture for sprinkling." — In.'it. JliM. Eccl. Vet. and Nov. Test., tom. iii., sec. i., § 138. IloELL. — "Baptism, from bapto, signifies immersion." — Expl. Epis. ad Eph., ad cap. , iv. 5. LiMBORon. — " Baptism is that rite, or ceremony, of the new covenant, whereby the faithful, by immersion into water, as by a sacred i>ledge, are assured of the favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal life : and by which thej- engage TESTIMONY FROM P.EDOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS. 91 themselves to an amendment of life, and an obedience to tlie Divine commands." — Coinp. Hys. of Div., b. v.,ch. xxii., § 1. Ikenius. — " The Greek word haptismos denotes the immersion of a thing, or a person, into something; either with a view to expiation, or for washing and cleansing."— -DiS6(?)'. Philol. Theol., Disser. xix. Bas. Faber, — "Baptism is immersion, washing." — Thesau. Eriidit. Schol. Deylingius. — "The word ha])tiztisthai, ti,s used by Greek aiithors, signiiies im- mersion and overwhelming. Thus we read in Plutarch (hapt'tson seauton eis tJuilassan), Dip yom'self in the sea : like as Naaman (in 2 Kings v. 14) who baptized himself seven times in Jordan, which was an immersion of the whole body. So Strabo," &c. — Obs. Sac, pars iii., obs. xxvi., § 2. Danzius. — " Baptismos, haptisma, and bapUsis, denote plunging, or dipping; also washing, or a bath." — De Bap. Pros. Jud., § 1. Le Cleec. — "At that time came John the baptizer — a man that pkiuged in ■water those who testified an acknowledgment of his divine mission, and were desirous of leading a new life." — On Matt. iii. 1. GuRTLEEUS. — " To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip; and baptism is immei'siou, dipping. . . . The thing commanded by our Lord is baptism — immersion in water." — Inst. Thco., cap. xxxiii., § lOS-115. Reiskius. — "To be baptized signifies, in its primary sense, to be immersed. Hence naus abapfistos, a ship unbaptized, is a vessel not immersed in the waves ; and in Gregory Thaumaturgiis, a person immersed in error is called bebaptismenos ; and he who rescues such persons from their dangerous mistakes, is said tons bap- tizomenous animastJiai, to lift up, or draw out the parties that were so baptized." — Disser. de Bap. Judaorum, cap. i., § i. Lampe. — " ' Because there was much water there.' That plenty of water was necessary to the administration of baptism by immersion, to a very great multitude of people, is readily acknowledged." — Com. in Evan. Secun. Joan., ad cap. iii. 23. De Courcy. — " I grant that the word [baptize] signifies to dip, and that the ordinance might have been administered by immersion in the ancient church." — I'ejoinder, pp. 265, 26G. Heidegger. — "The words baptisma and baptismos, baptism (from baptein to plimge, to immerse), properly signify immersion.", — Corpus. Theol. Christ., loc. XXV., §21. Bish. BossuET. — "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by aU the world." "It is certa.in that St. John the Baptist baptized no other way than by dipping — and his example shews that to baptize a great number of people those places were chosen where there was a great deal of water." — See Stennett's Answer to Eussen, p. 174. Abbe HouTTEViLLE. — "John plunged into the Jordan those who came to his baptism." — La. Eel. Chret., &c., tom. 2, p. 12. Wetstein. — "To baptize, is to plunge, to dip. The body, or jmrt of the body, being imder water, is said to l)e baptized." — Com., ad Matt. iii. 6. Wal.eus. — "The external form of baptism is immersion into water, in th& name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spii-it. " — Enchiridium, p. 425. Gerhard. — ^^ Baptismos and. baptisma, from baptizein, to baptize, to immerse, to dip, and that properly, into water : it has a likeness to the words buthizo and hathuno, each of which signifies to ]:)lunge down into the deep. ... In this acceptation of immersing it is used 2 Kings v. 14" — Loc. Theol., tom. iv, De Bap., p. 224. Dr. TowERSON. — "The words of Christ are, that they should baptize, or dip those whom they made disciples to Him (for so, no doiibt, the word baptizei7i pro- perly signifies); and, which is more, and not without its weight, that they shoidd Ijaptize i7ito the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : thereby intimating such a washing as should receive the party baptized within the very body of the water which they were to baptize with" (Of the Sac. of Bap., part iii., pp. 53, 54, 55). He also speaks of the "native significance of the word bap- tism, which signifies an immersion or di^iping into some liquid thing." — Pt. iii., p. IS. DiODATl. — "Baptized, namely, plunged into water." — Anno., on Matt. iii. 6. Teommius. — "Baptizo, to baptize; to immerse, to dip." — Concor. Grcecce, sub voce. 92 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Claude. — "In His bajrtism He (Jesus) is plunged into tlic water." — Etssai/ on the Compo. o/Serm., vol. i., p. 272. Saurin. — "The ceremony of wholly immersing in water when we were bap- tized, signified that we died to sin ; and that of raising us again from our immer- sion, signified that we would no more return to those disorderly practices in which we lived before our conversion to Christianity." DiONVSius Pktavius, speaking of the church's pretended power to alter or to impose, says, "And indeed immersion is proi^eily styled baplismos, though at jire- sent we content ourselves with pouring water on the head, which in Greek is called pericJtusis." — Dogm. Theol., 1. iii., dc peni., cap. i., § 11. Cattenburgh. — "In baptism the whole body is ordered to be immersed." — Spicil. Theol. , 1. iv., c. Ixiv., sec. ii., § 22. Calvin. — "The word baptize signifies to immerse." — Inst, 1. 4., c. 15. We assuredly deem it right to quote what these learned meu acknow- ledge respecting the import of baptism, as we deem it right to quote the ]3rayer book of the Anglican church in favour of dipping, or as teaching that the baptized should have rej^entance and faith, without quoting assumj)tions on the silence of the Scriptures respecting mode, or absurdi- ties on the substitution of sponsors, or the various fallacies by which they endeavour to justify sjirinkling. BuDDEiTS. — "The words hcqythein and hapt'ismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of immersion." — Theol. Dogm., 1. v., c. i. , § 5. P. Martyr. — "As Christ, by baptism, hath drawn us with Him into His death and burial, so He hath drawn us out into life. This doth the dipping into the water, and the issuing forth again signify, when we are baptized." — In Westlake, on Bap., p. 28. C. BuLKLEY. — "As to the formal and exact nature of the action or outward solemnity itself, it plainly appears to consist in immersing or plunging the whole body under water. This, as it stands opposed both to spi'inkliug and pouring, according to all the observations that I have had an ojiportnnity of making, ajipears to be the proper and distinct, the coyistant and inrarkihle, meaning of the word in its original Greek." — JEcon. of the Gos., p. 481. BiSH. Taylor teaches that Scriptural baptism is "not sprinkling, but immer- sion, in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment and the examjile of our blessed Saviour." Archb. Cranmer. — "What greater shame can ther be, tlian a man to professe himselfe a Christen man because he is baptised, and yet he knoweth not what bap- tisme is, nor what the dyppyng in the water doth betoken?" (fol. cexv. ) "Ba])- tisme and dyppyng into the water, doth betoken that the olde Adam with al his synue and evel lustes, ought to be drowned and kylled by daily contrition and repentance" (fol. ccxxii. ). — In-a Sermon on Baptisme, dedicated to King Edward VI. Tyndale. — "The plunging into the wate)- signifieth tliat we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the olde life of sinne, which is Adam: and the pulling out againe signifieth that Ave rise againe with Christ iu a newe life." — Ohe. of a Chris. Man, p. 143, edi. 1571. John Fryth. — " The signe in bajjtisme is the ploungyng downe in the material water and lift3nig up agayne, by the whiche as by an outward badge, we are knowen to be of the numlier of them which professe Christ to be tlieyr Redemer and Saviour." — Worh'i, p. 91. Arclili. Newcome. — "Our Loi'd instituted baptism as a perpetual rite of initia- tion into His ciuurli. Immersion in water betokens burial witli Christ into death." — Ohs. on our Lord's Conduct, &.C., \). 162. Seldex. — "In England of late years I ever thought the parson baptized his own fingers, rather tlian the child." — Works, vol. vi., col. 2008. Poole. — "To be bajitized is to bo di])ped in water." — Com., on Matt. xx. 22. (Jalmet. — "Generally people [speaking of the Jews] dipped themselves entirely under the water; and this is the most simjilc and natural notion of tlie word bap- tism" {Die, Art. Baptism). Immediately after this, Calmct speaks of the sprink- ling of blood, &c., as a baptism ! TESTIMONY FROM P^DOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS. 93 Dr. Owen. — "The original and natural signification of the word (haplizo) im- ports to dip, to plunge, to dye." — In Dr. Kidgeley's Bod. Div., qnes. clxvi. Dr. Bentley. — " Baptlsmoiis, baptisms, dippings." — Remarks on Disc, on Free Thinlcing, part ii., i>p. 56, 57. T. Wilson. — "To baptize, to dij) into water, or to j^lunge one into the water. . . , More fully thus: It is the solemn dipping into, or washing with water at the commandment of Christ, in the name of the blessed Trinity." — Die, Art. Bap. W. Young. — ^^ Baptize : to dip all over, to wash, to baptize." — Lat. Eng. Die. Dr. Watts. — The Greek word haptizo signities to wash anj^thing, properly by water coming over it" (Berry Street Lee.). He endeavours to prove that the Greek word signifies "washing a thing'in general by water coming over it, and not a livays dipping. ' ' Dr. Ash, — ^^ Baptism (in divinity); an immersion in water, a washing by im- mersion.— Baptize; to dip, to plunge, to overwhelm" [Diet.). To English and other lexicographers we desire no more regard than is deserved. A. PiRiE, after speaking of Christian baptism as "intended to express our put- ting on the Lord .Jesus Christ," says: "Besides, as baptism in Greek signities also immersion or dipping, which is the most full and perfect application of water or any liquid to the body or thing dipped." — On Bap., p. 16. Who will not deplore, in reading these extracts, that Dr. Miller, of Princeton, should say respecting John's immersion, " There is not the smallest probability that he ever baptized an individual in this manner" ? Yea, " The sacred ■writers have not stated a single fact, or employed a single terra, which evinces that they either preferred or practised immer- sion in a single case." " Immersion is not even the common meaning of the word." "All impartial judges, by which I mean all the most profound and mature Greek scholars who are neither theologians nor sectarians, agree in pronouncing that the tei-m in question imports the api^lication of water by sprinkling." Could any assertions be more unfounded '] Dr. Whitby. — "Baptism, therefore, is to be performed not by sprinkling, but by washing the body." — (Join., on Matt. iii. 16. Dr. DwiGHT. — ^" Washing with water is the most natural and universal mode of cleansing from external impurities ; and is, therefore, the most obvious and proper symbol of internal, or spiritual purification. Baptism denotes, generally, this purification" (In Ser. 146; on Matt, xxviii. 19). Is sprinkling "vxishiiig with water " ? Dr. G. Campbell. — "The word haptizein, both in sacred authors and in clas- sical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse ; and was rendered liy Tertullian, the oldest of the La. Fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning" (Note on Matt. iii. II). "I should think the word ^ immersion^ (which though of Latin origin is an English noim) a better Enghsh name than baptism were we now at liberty to make choice. "^ — On the Gospels, vol. ii., p. 23. "I have heard a disputant, ... in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word, rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he woiild defend ; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally siicceed as well as argiunents, sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a falsehood even in support of the truth."- — Leet. on Pid. Elo(p,\\ 480. Dr. PoRSON. — "The Baptists have the advantage of us. BcqHizo signifies a total immersion." (The substance of a conversation with Dr, Newman.) See Dr. N. on Baptism, p. 20. Dr. Rees. — "Gr. bapto et baptizo, mergo et mergito. Voss. Etym. To dip or merge frequently, to sink, to plunge, to immerge." " The word baptism is derived from the Greek baptizo, and means literally clijiping or immersion." — Ency., Art. Bap. 94s IMPORT OF BAPTISM. S. BuRDER, speaking of tlie baptism of John and of Jesus, says : " lu the lattei' also, as the Greek name itself indicates, the person to be baptized was wholly dipped in the water." — Oriental Customs, vol. ii., p. 296. Elsley. — Baptizestho.i "jiroperly imports immersion." — Anno., on Mark vii. 4. E. BiCKEESTETH. — "I would fully admit with the Baptists the original meaning of hapto being to dip, and acquiring by use a farther meaning of dyeing, or tinging, and thence gather a lilie conclusion as to bnjAizo" {On Bap., p. 28). "Into this name [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] we are to be baptized, wholly immersed" (p. 43). " Baptism, then, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, is the first step. . . . The first step is . . . our immersion into His name " (p. 44). "Witli these coucessions respecting the import of haptizo, what are we to think of the Rev. J. Burnet's assertions — " Where is it said that any were immersed ? Nowhere. Where is it said that any were commanded to immerse? NoAvhei'e" {On Po. Errors, Lee. lltli, p. 86). What are we to think of Dr. Gumming, who has not the least doubt that the Greek verb baptizo, or hapto, in its origin, means to dip; but w'ho "has not any doubt it means as often to sprinkle"? {Sah. Eve. liea., on Matt, p, 461). What may not be believed by the man who, in opposition to ail evidence, can thus believe ? EsTius (Eo. Catli. ; Chancellor of the Univ. of Douay). — "The immersion and emersion performed in baptism are a kind of representation of death and resurrec- tion."— Com. OH the Epis, ; on 1 Cor. xv. 29. Arnoldi (Ro. Cath.). — "Baptizein, to immerse, to suhmenje. It was, as being an entire submersion under the water, — since washings were aheady a confession of impurity and a symbol of piiriiication, — the confession of entire impurity and a symbol of entire purification." — Cojn. on Matt, on iii. 6. G. Bird. — "It can scarcely be disputed that immersion of adidts is the only form of baptism of which we find any traces in the Scriptures." — On the Angl. Church, p. G9. Sholz. — "Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in water." — On ISIatt. iii. 6. Coleman. — "The primary signification of the original is to dip, plunge, immerse. The ob\aous import of the noxin is immersion." — Antiq., p. 115. Ward & Co. Penny Cyclo. — "The words baptism, and to baptize, are Greek terms, Avhich imply in their ordinary acceptation, washing or dipping." — Art. Bap. Edin. Ency. — "Baptism is derived from the Greek word haptizo, to dip or tinge. Many writers of respectability maintain that the Greek verb baptizo, as well as its Hebrew synonyme, sometimes denotes sprinkling; but the various passages to which they appeal will lead every canditi mind to come to a diflferent conclusion." — Art. Bap. (Edited by Sir David Brewster.) Monthly Review. — "The word baptize doth certainly signify immersion, — absolute and total immersion, in Josephus and other Greek writers. . . . The examples produced, however, do not exactly serve the purpose of those who think that a few drops of w^ater sprinkled on the forehead of a child constitutes the essence of baptism." "Hitherto, the anti-Paedobaptists seem to have had the best of the argument on the mode of administering the ordinance. The most explicit authorities are on their side. Their opjionents have chielly availed themselves of inference, analogy, and doubtful construction." — No. Ixx., j). 39G. Fritscjie. — "That baj>tism Avas performed, not by sprinkling, but by immer- sion, is evident not only from the nature of the word, but from Rom. vi. 4. " — Com. , on Matt. iii. 6. , Au(JUSTi. — " The word 'baptism,' according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, suljmerge," &c. Brenner. — "The word corresponds in signification with the German tavfcn, to ■sink into the deep." Thus Professor RosT, in his Genuan-Greek Lexicon, revised with the assistance of a native Greek, puts down, as the i)rimary signification of aU such words as plunge, immerse, and submerge, tauchen, cintanclien, untertanchen {haj^to); but under the words wash, wet, pour, and the like, VMSchen, beneizen, giessen, hegiessen; though TESTIMONY FROM P^DOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS. 95 he gives copious defiuitions in Greek, lie never employs the word hapto, or any of its derivatives. — See Chr. Bevietu, vol. iii., p. 97. Paullus. — "The word baptize signifies, iu Greek, sometimes to immerse, some- times to submerge." — Com., vol. i., p. 278. Rheinhaed. — " In siDrinkling, the symbolical meaning of the ordinance is wholly lost." — Ethics, vol. v., p. 79. Dr. Beecher. — "I fully admit that in numeroiis cases it clearly denotes to immerse ; in which case, an agent submerges, partially or totally, some person or thing. Indeed, tliis is so notoriously true, that I need attempt no proof. Inniimer- able examples are at hand." Do not President Beecher and others use the word immerse as it is used by ourselves, that is, whether the object is put into the element, or the element encompasses the object by being brought upon and around it? Dr. M. Stuart. — ^' Bupto, haptizo, mean to dip, to plunge, or immerse into a liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. " — Bib. Rep. , 1833. Dr. Chalmers.— "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion" (Lect. on Romans; vi. 4). "Baptism signifies generally an immersion, of Avhatever kind, and done on whatever occasion. But when this name was employed to designate the great initiatory rite of the C'hristian religion, and more especially when the habit was firmly established of speaking of this rite as lie haptisma (the baptism), this term, however wide and various the application of it may have previously been, never suggested the idea of any other dipping than that which took place at the ministration of this sacrament." — Inst, of Theol. F, W. Robertson. — "It was impossible to see this significant act, in which the convert went down into the v/ater, travel-worn and soiled with dust, disappear for one moment, and then emerge pure and fresh, without feeling that the sym]>ol answered to, and interpreted a strong craving of, the human heart. It is the desire to wash away that which is past and evil." — Sermons, p. 137, 1st Series. Meyer. — "Immersion, which the word iu classic Greek, and in the New Testament, everywhere means." — Com. on If. T. ; on Mark vii. 4. D. A. ScHOTT. — "Wliy, then, dost thou immerse?" "I indeed immerse iu water." "Where John was immersing." " Therefore came I immersing in water." "And there abode with them, and immersed." — Trans, of John i. 25, 2G, 28, 31, and iii. 22. Olshausen. — "The elements of repentance and regeneration, united in the sacrament of baptism, and jjrefigured by immersion and emersion (see Com., at Rom. vi. 3, &c.), were separated from one another in the later practice of the church, when infant baptism came into use." — Com., on Acts xvi. 14, 15. L. S. D. Rees. — " Baptizo is a lengthened form of bapto, which doubtless signifies properly to dip, to immerse: and such, therefore, would seem to be tlie most natural translation of ba2'>tizo." — Anno., on John iii. 23. J. Glyde. — "The word baptize, in many places in the New Testament, and in most passages iu which it is found in the Septuagint, Josephus, and other Greelc writers, signifies to immerse or dip. This was doubtless its original and common meaning." — On Bap., p. 9. Dr. M'Crie. — "We do not hold that tlie word baptize signifies to pour or sprinkle. This was never our opinion." — On Bap., p. 32. Prof. J. H. Godwin. — "To dip is to put into water, &c., for a short time; but baptizo denotes to put or keep under water for a considerable time in any way."— - Chr. Bap., p. 25. Dr. Stier. — "The perfect immersion is not accidental in the form, but manifestly intended in the baptizein eis" {Woixls, &c., vol. viii., p. 306). He italicizes the inmiersion, and teaches that poiiring or sprinkling is direct disobedience to Christ's explicit commission, which enjoins immersion ; yet he is so favoiirable to a for- bidden siibstitute, that he does "not hold with those who lament with too much earnestness the disuse of immersion." Conybeare and Howson. — "It is needless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteous- ness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this 96 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. original form of Ijaptism (though perliapa necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apiirelicnsion some very important passages of .Scripture" {Lift and Epis. of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 518). We do not agree with these learned writers that our climate necessitates or encourages a deviation from Christ's command and apostolic practice. Tiios. Lewin. — "In bai)tism we use immersion, to signify our death and rising again." — Lrfc and Epls. of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 432. Dr. Hook. — "Immersion. The proper mode of administering the sacrament of baptism." "Immersion is the mode of baptizing lirst prescribed in our office of Puljlic Baptism." — Ch. Die. Art. Innnersion. Mr. 8tacey tells us that it represents "the putting, in sliort, by any mean.?, the object into the element which liaptizcs, or the l)ringing, by any means, the clement upon or aroimd tlie object to be baptized" (p. 187). Prof. Wilson '.s sentiments arc very similarly expressed. "Let the baptizing clement encom2)afis if-s object; and in the case of liquids, whether this relative state has been produced by immersion, affusion, overwhelming, or in any other mode, Greek iisage recognises it as a valid baptism " (p. 96). Dr. H ALLEY. — "We believe that baptizo is to make one thing to be in another by dip2)ing, by immersing, Ijy burying, by covering, l)y superfusion, or by whatever mode effected, provided it be in immediate contact. A Ijody placed in a tomb, or a man slmt in a house, is not strictly baptized ; Ijut a body put iu the surrounding earth of a grave, or a man covered with the ruins of a house, is baptized" (p. 275). "It may be said tiiat men were baptized into Moses, baptized into Christ, bajitized into His death, baptized into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which expressions, if literally translated, would bo immersed into Moses, immersed into Christ, and so ou " (p. 288). Who, on reviewing these concessions, or others that will be given, can deny that Dr. Carson had gronnds for asserting that "it is too notorions to need proof, that the most learned men iii Europe, while they practised sprinkling or pouring, have confessed immersion to be the jirimitive model" (p. 75.) Many more quotations from learned Pajdobaptists, equally explicit and strong in favour of immersion, might be adduced. It is conceived, however, that these are sufficient for our present pur})ose. If these will not suffice in corroboration of immersion as the meaning of baptism, it is believed that more would be unavailing. The sentiments of these learned and eminent Poedobaptists, — adopting some of the words of one, — have not been "brought forward to establish a doubtful point, but to call the attention of Christians to the force of truth on the " minds of men "endowed with abilities for judging of it, and who must have received a contrary bias both from education and habit." We may again mention that some of the authors adduced believed that to pour or to sprinkle was, along with to immerse, a meaning, although not the primary meaning of the word; antl that others of them believed pouring or si)rink]ing, tliough neither accordant Avith the original import of the word, nor with oiiginal pi'acticc, to be nevertheless valid baptism. We hare adduced their concessions relative to the primary import of the word. That it had a secondary meaning, distinct from the import to immerse, unless the meaning of "submerge" be maintained to be a secondary meaning, wc have as yet seen no evi- dence. We have referred to lexicons and Greek authoi's, to ancient versions and the concessions of Pa^dobaptists, not to ascertain whether we had a right to make a change from immersion to sprinkling in a Divine ordinance, but to .ascertain the meaning of tScripture, when a command to be baptized, or wlien the flict of a baptism, is recorded. Our conviction is, that the great majority of learned writers among TESTIMONY F1103I r.EDOBAPTIST CO^X'ESSIONS. 97 Ppgdobapfcists themselves believe that the true meaning of baptizo is to immerse. Almost all German philologists, commentators, and ecclesias- tical historians, have expressed themselves most decidedh^ on this subject. And however we niay demur to the claims of some as philosophers and theologians, their high standing as to language and history cannot be denied.* So far as proof of the im]:)orfc of the word has yet appeared to us, we might adopt the words of a German, that " baptism is perfectly identical with our word (tauclien oder nntertauchen) immersion or submersion " {Free Inquirij rcsp. Bap., p. 7). Tlius we conceive that language similar to that of Milton, when speaking of the baptism of Christ, ought ever to have been appropriate to the action in Christian baptism : — ■ " I saw The p'oi>het do Him reverence : ou Him rising Out of the loater, heaven above the clouds Unfold her crystal doors." The following is from the same immortal bard, whoni we quote not as professedly Baptist or Ptedobaptist, unless he might be called Baptist iu sentiment: — "But as I rose out oftlie lavhuj stream Heaven opened her eternal doors." Our opponents, as a whole — and some of them go further than this — admit that immersion is baptism, and that evidence of all kinds proves this; but they "cannot assert the absolute and indispensable necessity of it in all cases ; " and not being satisfied that immersion is absolutely and universally necessary, they almost invariably practise sprinkling. Few of the learned Pfedobaptists say exjiressly that baptizo signifies to sprinkle. Instead of telling what is the meaning of the word, many, like Lightfoot, give their opinion of what will sufiice. He says ; " The application of water is of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks biit a circumstance." This is the doctor who carried his views in favour of sprinkling among the Presbyterians against half of the Westminster Assembly save one, and who admits that John's baptism was immei'sion, as was Jewish proselyte baptism. Some readers may possibly be inquiring or wondeiing why it is that Psadobaptists, some of whom acknowledge, like Dr. Halley, that there is no authority from the classics for attaching to bcqytizo the meaning of to sprinkle, or to pour, and others of whom acknowledge, like Luther and Calvin, that in Ploly Writ this is its import, should nevertheless practise for baptism jiouring or sprinkling. The reasons for this are not uniform. Dr. Halley and some others, without evidence, believe that when the word was used by the inspii-ed writers, it M'as sometimes used in a sense not before possessed. They maintain that the difficulties connected with attaching the classic idea to its use in certain connexions, encourages * I. T. HiNTON. — "On this point it is sufficient to state, that, with resi^ect to the Greek language, both classic and sacred, three-fourths of the lexicography and critical notes used in England and America are of German origin; and that their researches in ecclesiastical history are so highly esteemed as to be translated into English, and used as text-books in our colleges." — His. of Bap., p. .38. H 98 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. this, and, as some of them say, proves this. They ignore the difference between Western and Eastern customs and climate, or they do gross injvistice to this. Because they know not the provision and facilities that in certain cases existed for immersion, they jump to the conclusion, after inventing or magnifying difficulties, that baptism in some instances was, or might be, and now is, sprinklijig. Others, under the warping influence of prepossession, appear to be deluded by the Scriptures not mentioning the oiiode of immersion. Attaching to baptism, Avithout authority, the idea of immersion, i:)Ovxring, and sprinkling, they conclude without foundation that they may immerse, pour, or sprinkle, or, as they confusedly and confoundingly say, may baptize by immex'sion, pouring, or sprinkling. If to baptize signifies to immerse, what can be more unreasonable than to expect that Divine truth wo\ild absurdly speak of immersing by immersion 1 And does it not involve a manifest contra- diction of terms to talk of immersing by pouring or sprinkling ] But so immersed in prepossession are many, as almost to demand some such absurdity before they will believe sprinkling to be unlaAvful. Many maintain with Lightfoot that the essence of the ordinance is not affected by the use of little instead of much water. We doubt not the conscien- tiousness of these or of the others, but we think tliat their statements ai'e variously and altogether delusive. In regard to the last, we should say that the Scriptures give no directions respecting the amount of water in which the ordinance is to be performed, but that they enjoin immer- sion. Let the immersion take place in the sea, in a river, or in a baptistery, tlie command of the Saviour in regard to the action of baptism is obeyed. But if pouring a little water on the head, or sprinkling a little on the face, is the action perfoiliied, we maintain that the command of Christ is not obeyed. If our views arc correct, and if the admissions of many of those who in practice are our opjionents are truthful, there is nothing wrong, there is nothing uncharitable in Dr. Carson's assertion : — "Without immersion it is not the ordinance at all: it may be a very solemn ceremony, but it is a ceremony of human invention. It may he believed by the Lord's people to be an ordiuauce of Christ ; but this does not make it an ordinance of Christ." " HoM'ever sincere we may lielieve our opponents to be, still we cannot believe that a ])erson is immersed when he is sprinkled." "He may be truly washed in the blood of Christ, when, out of ignorance of the wiU of his Master, he is sprinkled instead of being immersed." "I have no objection to admit that persons mistaken about the mode and subjects of baptism, may be among the most eminent aud most useful of tlic servants of God ; but to admit that any one is baptized who is not immersed, is self-contradiction. Immersion is tlie very thing enjoined in the ordinance. The design of both the administrator and the receiver of any rite can have no effect whatever on the meaning of this word, and cannot at all cli.ange into an ordinance of Christ what is not an ordinance of Christ ; neither can the use of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, cou\'crt spriulding into baptism " (pp. 242-244). Others who practise sprinkling or pouring, believe in the church's authority to say what is valid and what is not valid in regard to an ordinance of Christ. Our p7-csent aim is less to conA'ince the last class of their error, than to convince the others, who, as we tliink, delude them- selves with the idea that haptizo means secondly, thirdly, or sometimes, .somewhere, what we believe that it means nowhere; and who, as is natural to all, are i-eluctant to abandon a cherished custom, and to adopt TESTIMONY OF THE FRIENDS. ^9 in place of it that which on more accounts than one is less agreeable to flesh and blood. Thiis the acknowledged primary import is practicallv laid aside. Some vrho have become Baptists ha"\e candidly acknowledged how pi'epossessions blinded them when Paedobaptists, and what difliculties fi'om within and from without they experienced, before they rendered practical obedience to Christ's command on baptism. To a supposed secondary import of the word there is a natiiral clinging, from custom and from a disinclination to take a self-denying and humbling course. We do not mean that our opponents, if the veil were removed from their minds, would not in this deny self, or that they do not for Christ's sake deny themselves imspeakably more than what is involved in simple immersion. Nevertheless, this self-denial, through the blinding influence of prepossessions not seen to be necessary, is stubbornly resisted. If bapfizo coxild be proved to have somewhere what we maintain that it has nowhere, — the secondary meaning of to pour or to sprinkle, it would not follow, as a matter of course, that the sacred writers had used the word in its secondary, and not in its primary sense. Those who adopted the secondary sense would be l)ound to 2)rove that the sacred writers had used the vv-ord in that sense. It is a rule admitted by the ablest writers, that every word should be taken in its primary, obvioiis, and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in the connexion, or in the nature of things, which reqiiu'es it to be taken otherwise. We shall, however, shortly endeavour to show that in the sacred writings, as in the classics already adduced, bajAizo jjossesses the alone sense of to immerse. This part we shall conclude v/ith the testimony of the Friends, frequently called Quakers. As they entirely reject water baptism, they may be considered as impartial spectators of our controversy respecting the action included in baptism, E. Barclay. — ^^ Baptizo signifies immergo; that is, to phinge and dip in; and that was the proper nse of water baptism among the Jews, and also by John and the primitive Christians who used it. Whereas our advei'saries, for the most part, only s2JrinIde a little water on the forehead, which doth not at all answer to the word baptism." — ApoL, prop, xii., § 10. (See these and others in Booth's Pcedo. Ex.) J. Gkatton. — "John did baptize into water; and it was a baptism, a real dipping, or plimging into water, and so a real baptism was John's." — Life of John Gratton, p. 231. W. Dell, speaking of baptism, calls it "the plimging of a man in cold water."' — Select Worhs, p. 389. T. Ellwood. — "They (that is, the apostles at the feast of Pentecost) were now baptized with the Holy Ghost indeed ; and that in tlie strict and j^roper sense of the word baptize; which signifies to dip, i)lunge, or put under." — *S'ff. His. of the. Xr.,partii.,p. 307. J. Phipps. — The baptism of the Holy Spirit is " effected by spiritual immersion. . . . The practice of sprinlding infants under the name of baptism, hath neither precept nor precedent in the Kew Testament." — Diss, on Bap. and Com., pp. 2.5, 30. W. Pexn. — "I cannot see why the bishop should assiuue the power of unchris- tianing us for not practising of that which he himself practises so imscriirturally, and that according to the sentiments of a considerable part of Christendom ; having not one text of Scripture to prove that sprinUinij in the face was the water baptism, in the first times. "—Z)e/. of Gos. Truths, pp, 82', 83. G. Whitehead. — "■ BajMzo is to baptize, to plunge imder water, to overwhelm. Wherefore I would not have these men offended at the word rhantism, it being as much English as the word baptism. And also baptismous is translated icashing ; that is, of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables (]\Iark vii. 4). Now, if washing 100 IMPORT 0¥ BAPTISJI. here should be taken in tlie common seuso, clearly people use not to do it only by sprinkling some drops of water \ipon them, but by washing them clean ; so that rhantism can be neither haptism, nor wa-tlthig, in a true and proper sense." — Truth Pre , c. ix., p. IIG. A. PuRVER. — "■ B'lpt'ized is but a Greek word iiscd in English, and signif\'ing plunged." — Note on 1 Cor. xv. 20. T. Lawsox. — " The ceremony of John's ministration, according to Divine institution, was Ijy dipping, plunging, or overwhelming their bodies in water; as •Scajjula and .Stephens, two great masters in the Greek tongue, testify ; as also (li'otiuR, Pasor, Vossius, Minceus, Leigh, Casaidjon, Bucer, BuUinger, Zancliy, Spanhemius, Rogers, Taylor, Hammond, Calvin, Piscator, Aquinas, Scotus. ... It is as proper to call sprinlding rliantisiu, as to call dipping baptism. This linguists cannot be ignorant of, that dijipiug and sprinkling are expressed by several words, lioth in Latin, Greek, and Hcljrew. It is very evident, if sprinkling had Ijeen of Divine institution, the Greeks had their rhcoitismos; but as dijiping was the institution, they used haptlsmos; so maintained the purity antl propriety of the langiiage. . . . To sprinkle younger old, and call it Iniptism, is very incougi'uous ; yea, as improper as to call a horse a cow; for baptism siguitles dipping." — Bopt., pp. 117-119. SECTION VIII. ox EV1D1;>'CK FKOM THE FIGURATIVE USE OF BAPTIZS AXD BAPTISM. l>r. EEiD.^"An figurative ways of using words, or phrases, suj'pose a natural and literal meaning." — In Tes. of Km. rcc.,i>. 5. l>r. Caeson. — "It is strange if the words of the Spirit are like an oracle of Delphi, that can be interpreted in two opposite senses." "A scientific philologist will first settle the literal meaning of a word, and then understand the figure in conformity to this." — Do., p. 5. If the im})ort of baptizo, when used literally, is to immerse, its fiiCurative vise will be found in accordance with this sisniGcation. "We do not maintain that the figurative use of a term is to determine its literal import. Tliere may occasionally be a figurative use of most words in a manner which does not elucidate theii' literal import; but if all the instances in ^^dlich a word is used figuratively accord with a certain meaning which all attach to the word when used literally, and are utterly incongruous with another and difterent meaning, the figuratiA'o use of the word is as stiongly con-oborativo of the one import as it is condemnatory of the other. For instance, in the English language the word plunging is used for the prancing of a horse, and the word dipping for taking a slight and cursory view of a subject; l.)ut were any one, from so exceptional a use of the words, to maintain that the words to jjluiigc and to dip do not mean to immerse, every one acquainted with the English language would know the fallacy of the inference. It would be similar if, because a person weeping excessively through grief is said to be "drowned in tears," and a person violently perspiring is said to be " bathed in perspiration," any one should say that drowning and bathing mean less than immersion. We know not, however, a single instance of the figurative use of hapllzo Avhich is not in accordance with its acknowledged, literal, obvious, and ordinary meaning, and, as we think, with its only meaning. If our evidence that baj^tism is immersion rested entirely on the figiu-ative use of the word, the conclusion might b(^ viewed with feelings of susj)icion, because from the very nature of TESTIMONY FROM THE FIGURATIVE USE. 101 baptiffin as an institution of tlie Christian church, a positive, phiiu, authoritative precept or an indubitable example would seem to be requisite to enforce its observance. Such a precept and example being proved, however, to exist, a figui'ative allusion may be taken as corrobo- rative of our interpretation of its import. " It nnist be considei'ed that as every metaphor or siaiile has some trutlt upon which it is constructed, tliat primary idea or fact nmst be invariably regarded. There is in every case s\ich an original idea, and it is in that idea the two subjects of compai'ison meet, and from some acknowledged correspondence with them both, the {iropriety of the figure is evinced. Hence, in reasoning upon a metaphor, we may in reality be reasoning upon a simple truth, which is its basis, and is consequently capable of sustaining our statements." — Dr. Cox, Oa Bap., pp. o-l, oo. Instead of repeating adduced instances of the occurrence of this word when used metaphorically, we shall refer our readei's to previous quota- tions from Orpheus, Pindar, and Plato ; from the Septuagint on Isaiah xxi. 4 ; from Diodorus Siculus on subjects being overwhelmed with taxes; from Philo in its application to drunkenness; from Josephus and Plutarch in its application to the plunging of a city into ruin; and to quotations from otliers. We shall now notice the ligurative use or application of the words haptizo and haptisma only in Holy Writ; nor shall we say all that might be said on these ])ortions of Scripture, as they must again be considered in replying to objections. 1. These words occur in relation to the sutferings of Christ. Our Saviour said: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished"' (Luke xii. 50). See also Matt. xx. 22, 2.3; Mark x. 38, 39. The supposition that Christ's sufferings are denominated a sprinkling, is as much opposed to the character of His sufferings as the words sprinkle and spriidvling are to the real import of the Greek verb and noun used by the inspired writei-. The remark applies with the same appropriateness, only in an inferior degree, to the sufferings through which the apostles passed in their way to heavenly glory. 2. We read of the baptism of the Spirit. John the Ba})tist ja-edicted respecting Christ : " He shall baptize yon with the Holy Ghost," or rathei', " m the Holy Ghost." To this our Saviour alluded after His resurrection, when He said : " For John truly baptized with (in) watei", but ye shall be baptized with (in) the Holy Ghost not many days hence." The fulfilment of this is thus recorded : " And when the day of Pentecost Avas fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance " (Acts ii. 1-4). That they were literally sprinkled with the Spirit, or immersed in the Spirit, or that the Spirit was literally poui-ed on them, is not maintained by our- selves, or by our opponents generally. Such expressions are all literally inapplicable to the Divine nature. But we believe that something sensible and visible transpired, by which was represented the presence of the 102 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Divine Spirit, and by wliicli the declaration of John is justified and may be understood: "He shall baptize you (with) in the Holy Ghost and fire." The record will be best understood by considering along with verses 1-4, that part of the apostle Peter's speech which testifies to a fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel in the events of that da}^ He says : "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel : And it shall come to pass in the last days, saitli God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and j'our young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will jiour out in those days of my Si)irit," &c. (vers. 16-18.) Again, at A'er. 33, he says of Jesus: " Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having receiA'ed of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth (poured out) this which ye now see and hear." It is maintained by ourselves that the pouring oiit of the Spirit is clearly taught in the latter verses, and that the " obvious " import of the former part of the chapter is that the house where the apostles were sitting was filled -sA-ith the Spirit, and that, the house being filled with the Spirit, there must necessarily have been an immersion in the Spirit, and that the designa- tion of this as baptism (with) in the Holy Ghost, is a corroboration of immersion as the meaning of baptism. We are aware that olijections are made by our opponents to this view of the passage. These objections we may afterwards notice, and endeavour further to confirm our position. We do not forget that the apostles received the Spirit, and that their souls were, as it were, permeated l)y His gracioiis influences. Cornelius and they that were with him had also a baptism in the Holy Ghost. 3. The apostle Paul figuratively applies the word baptism in his Epistles to the Eonian and Colossian l^elicvers. We speak thus, because it may be maintained that the word " buried," rather than the word baptism, is used figuratively. In Col. ii. 13, we read: "Bui'ied with Him in baj^tism, wherein also ye arc risen with Him through the foith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." In Rom. vi. 4, we read: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead l)y the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." And in the preceding verse we read : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were bai)tized into His death f From the fact of an inspired apostle having declared that Christians were "buried" " by baptism " and " in baptism," we maintain that there is some likeness in the Christian being baptized, to a 2ierson that is buried; otherwise the expression " buried " is irrelevant and unwarrantable. That this is a just and necessary inference from the apostle's words, we maintain. Then, supposing baptism to be immersion, we have the fact of resemblance and a justification of the apostolic metaphor: but, supposing baptism to be spi'inkling, there Ls, as we think, neither one nor the other. On this we shall not amplify, as it will be necessary again to refer to this. 4. The word baptize is used in application to the children of Israel when passing through the Red Sea. The apostle says : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should he ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloiul, and all ])assod through the sea; and were TESTIMONY FROM ASSOCIATED WORDS. 103 all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. x. 1, 2). This use of hcq^tizo is maintained by ourselves to be confirmatory of its import to immerse. The children of Israel, who were all baptized unto or into Moses, as imder God their leader, are said by the apostle to have been under the cloud, and to have passed through the sea, and to have been baj)tized in the cloud and in the sea. Such a position of the childi'en of Israel might most appropriately have Ijeen designated an immersion; but to have called it a pouring or a sprinkling, would have been as incongruous with the facts recorded as the words iwur and sprinkle are opposed to the meaning of haptizo. We now forbear enlargement, as the passage will demand subsequent attention. 5. The apostle Peter says: "When once the loug-sufiering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark of God was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto eA^en baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Chi-Lst" (1 Peter iii. 20, 21). This passage, as we conceive, teaches that the eight sotiIs who entered into the ark were saved by water, and that in like manner baptism now saves us, or that the antitype, Ijaptism, now saves us, — not as an outward washing, but as the answer of a good conscience toward God. As there is nothing in this passage or connexion that militates against the idea that baptism is immersion, as we admit equally with our opponents — and as we think more consistently — that Noah and they that were with him had the type of baptism as apostolically explained, and as the instruction which is conveyed in the simple use of the word haptisma has already been considered when speaking of the import of this word, further enlarge- ment appears unnecessary. We have now noticed Scriptural instances of the figurative use or application of the words haptizo and haptisma, on which we maintain not merely that the use of the words is consistent with the meaning "to immei"se" and "imraei'sion," but that the use of them is confirmatory of such an import. SECTION IX. ox EVTDEKCE PROM WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH BAPTISM. Dr. Watts. — '• How can a minister answer it to God, or liis own conscience, if he sees errors in matters of importance growing amongst men, perhaps in liis own church too, and does not attempt to prevent or refute them by his best iuteriJretation of the Word of God ? Is he not set for the defence and confirmation of the Gospel? PhU. i. 17.) Is he not bound to maintain sound doctrine, and to teach no other? (1 Tim. i. 3. Must not he contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints? (Jude ver. 3. 1'"— irorts, vol. Iii., p. 2S9. J. A. James.— "Yield nothing when the truth of God is concerned. If we take but one step backward, we give a first impulse to go a hundred, a thousand, and we know not what wUl be the end."— C'/i. in Ear., pp. 254, 255. Some words are found in sacred and in profane writings in association with baptize and baptism that are never found in connexion with words signifying to pour or to sprinkle. A construction in other respects usually distinguishes sentences in which words signifying to immerse 104' IMPORT OF BAPTISM. occ\ir, from sentences in M'hifh words signifying to sprinkle or to pour occur. Thus, 1. The selection of a r'n:er for the administration of baptism, or of any place " because there was much water there," is strongly corro- borative of the same idea being attached to the word by inspired penmen, as we have seen was jn-eviously attached to it. Profane authors tell us of ships and men that were baptized; and where tliei-e was not the power of rising or being raised, these ships Avere sunk, and these men wei-e drowned. Baptism was immersion, whether by any means there was or was not an emer.sion. God's Word contains the records, " And were baptized of liim in Jordan" (Matt. iii. G). "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him " (ver. 13). Again, respecting the Jews, in Mark i. 5: "And were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan." Also, in John iii. 23: "And John also was baptizing in -^non near to Salim, because there was much water there ; and they came and were baptized." Do not these records testify against sprinkling as the proper import of baptism, and in favour of immersion ? 2. The fact of baptism being administered in the river and in water, not by the side of water, or near to a river, but in the same, is corrobo- rative of immersion as the import of baptism. The Greek preposition en is the representative of the English in. And we read "i)t Jordan," "/ft the river," &c. The same "en" is in the original in those instances Avhere our translators, instead of giving the literal and correct rendering, " in water," have given " loith water." Had the literal and correct meaning of en been given, we shoiild thus have read : "I indeed baptize you (en) in water unto repentance : but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not wortliy to bear : He shall baptize you {en) in the Holy Ghost and fire" (Matt. iii. 11). Also we should have read in in Mark i. 8; Luke iii. IG; John i. 2G, 33; Acts i. 5, and xi. IG. In Acts i. 5; xi. IG; and Luke iii. IG, there is no preposition before hudati in the original. We do not deny that en is ever used in the sense of instrumentality, and is then properly rendered by or with. But we deny that this is its ])rimary import, or that it is its proper rendering when in is clearly admissible. We admit that the Greek dative, without a prei)osition, is not the same as this dative preceded by en. But where en is exjn'csscd before pneumati hagio, as in Luke iii. 16, and is omitted before j)uri, joined to the former noun by kai, we should object to any preposition being TUiderstood before ^!)k;-/ but the preposition en, and to any rendering but m, which before 2)nrl might, as in the original, be understood and not expressed. In Acts i. 5, xi. 16, and the former part of Luke iii. 16, where the first dative is without the j)reposition, and en precedes the subsequent one, something might be said in favour of the rendering, " John indeed baptized witli water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit." But the Pa'dobaptist finds nothing in this corrol)orative of sprinkling or pouring as baptism, whatever legitimate rendering may be adopted, because immersion Avith water is also immersion in water, and because the Divine Spirit has elsewhere explicitl}^ taught that the baptism of Jolin was en hudati. (See Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 8; John i. 26, 31, 33.) If the con-oboration of innnersion is only in the passages TESTniONY FROM ASSOCIATP]D WORDS. 105 Avhere the preposition is expressed, in no other passage Is there the least that is opposed to immersion; whilst every expressed preposition — as •well as every other attendant word — is confirmatory of immersion. The fact of the bajstisms taking place in the river, or hi water, accords with the inspired record of going down into the ivater on the part of Philip and the eunuch, which is assex'ted after the mention (ver. 3G) of their having come ^^mdo a certain water." "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And Avhen they were come up out of the water," &c. (Acts viii. 38, 39.) We are aware of the possibility of performing either sprinkling or poui'ing in M'ater, having gone into it; but we believe that our Panlo- baptist bi-ethren are not in the habit of going to the height of their ancles, knees, or the middle of their bodies, in icater. in order to sprinkle or be spi'lnkled; no, nor even to touch the v.^ater with their feet. That no individual has ever gone to a river to be sprinkled or poured on the face or head, we by no means affirm. Did history prove that some isolated class of persons had thus acted, it would simply pi-ove a result of immei-sion having been originally pei'formed, according to the records of inspiration, in the river. The original baptizing in Jordan has led some to call the water of baptism Jordan, however distant from Jordan it might be. It is not more absurd to go to a river for the sake of sprinkling or pouring, or to call the element the Jordan at the distance of hundi'eds or thousands of miles from Jordan, than to say in substance, 1 immerse thee, when only sprinkling, or pouring on the face is practised. Nor is any of these practices more absurd than the sponsorial repentance, faith, and promises sanctioned by the Anglican chin'ch. Going into the water, and baptizing in water, are natural, if the sacred writers have used the word haptizo according to its evidenced and acknowledged import. * 3. The Greek words rhaino, to sprinkle, cheo, to pour, and their compounds, are never translated with the same pi*epositions as haptizo and words signifying to immerse. Also, usually, in other respects, the sentences in Greek are differently constructed when immersion is sj)oken of, from what they are when sprinkling or pouring is the thing men- tioned. There is in English a use of certain pi-epositions in connexion with certain words. We do not speak of one person dipping another with water, but in water, or into water. W^e do not speak of a person being sprinkled in water, biit with water. We do not speak of a person being poured either in or with water, but of water being poured on a person. So in Greek certain prepositions are found associated witlr certain verbs, and certain prepositions are never found in connexion * Dr. C'onant says : — "The grammatical construction accords also with the constant usage of Greek writers, and with the only recognized meaning of the word. Namely : 1. With the pi'eijosition into, expressing the act of passing from one element (the air) into another (water). 2. AVith the preposition in, denoting locality, or the element iu or within whicli the act is performed. 3. With the datire alone, either as a local case, 'in water,' or as the instrumental dative, to distinguish the element used for immersing in one case from that employed in another" (On B.\p., p. 100). Dr. Hackett, on Acts i. 5, says : " Hudati, irith water as the element by which, en i^neumati hagio, in the Holy Sjnrit, as the element in which the baptism is performed." This rendering of hudati is opposed by Dr. G. Campbell, and by Mr. Noel, M'liom we shall quote on tlie prepositions. lOG IMPORT OF BAPTISM. with certain verbs. A certain coustructioii of the sentence ever charac- tei'izes the expression of certain ideas. Another construction ever characterizes the expression of certain other ideas. This might be ilhxstrated at length, both in regard to the Greek and the English language, but it is not necessary. The Greek rhalno, rhantizo, to sprinkle, and their compounds; also cheo, to pour, and its compounds, are translated in conjunction Avith epi, upon, not "with en, in; whilst haptizo is translated in connexion with en, in, and eis, into, but never with epi, upon. Thus Ave read: "And (perirrcmei ejn, &c.) he shall sprinkle ii.pon him that is to be cleansed," &c. (Lev. xiv. 7.) "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and (rhanei to claktulo epi to hilasterio^i) sprinkle it with his finger iipon the mercy -seat" (Lev. xvi. 14). Again: "And a clean person shall take hyssop, and (bapsei) dip it (els, into) in the water, and {pierirranei epi) sprinkle it icpon the tent, and upo}i all the vessels, and ujjon the persons that were there, and i(2Jon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: and the clean pei-son (periy-ntnei epi) shall sprinkle upon the unclean," itc. (Num. xix. 18, 19.) Also we read in Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 : " And {I'hano eph humas) I will sprinkle clean water iipon you." In these sentences not only is a different preposition from en used, but a different construction from that which, so far as we know, is ever found when the word baptizo occurs. Where bajytizo occurs, we believe that the object baptized is ever governed by the verb, not by the preposition; the preposition governing the element in which the baptism takes place. In all the cases above adduced, the object sprinkled is governed by the preposition, and the element with which the sprinkling is performed is governed by the verb sprinkle. Thus it is written : " I will sprinkle clean water upon you;" not I will sprinkle you either with or in clean water. Again : " A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and shall sprinJcle it upon the tent;" not shall sjirinkle the tent Avith it. So in regai'd to the others. We do not say that invariably the object sprinkled is governed by a preposition, because the Greek, as well as the English, allows such expressions as "sprinkling the unclean," "sprinkled both the book and all the people;" but we do say that we never find in Greek the preposition en or eis, or in English the prejiosition in or into, prefixed to the element, whether water, oil, blood, or anything else with which sjmnkling is performed ; yet with few exceptions, when a preposition is used in Greek to designate the element of baptism, it is en or eis, and in English it is in or into, which is used to designate the element of immersion. In all Greek literature, sacred and profane, we read not of any one or of anything being sprinkled or poured in water, oil, blood, or anything else. In Greek literatui'e, the person or object is almost invariably baptized en, in, or eis, into the element; and in the New Testament no other Greek prepositions occur. Is there nothing in this corroborative of immerse as the meaning of baptizo? Again, in all Greek literature, sacred and profane, we find that when a preposition is in connexion with the element that is si^rinkled or 2:)oui*ed out, and governs the object si:)rinkled or poured out, it is ejn, uijon : or if the object is in the accusative, governed by the verb, the preposition preceding the element is ever rendered bi/ or icith, and is never en, in the original. TESTIMONY FR051 ASSOCIATED WORDS. 107 Thus, whilst we never read of a person having water or anything else baptized upon him, we read invariably of persons having water, &c., sprinkled or poured upon them, and never of their being sprinkled or poured in water. Does this afford no confirmation of immersion as the meaning of baptism 1 We admit that haptlzo may be followed by the dative of instrumentality, with or without a preposition, as when we read of a ship being baptized through the excess of its freight; but here we speak not of the element of baptism. We similai-ly use the English word immerse. Nor do v/e forget, whilst upo is of occasional occurrence, that pros is to be met with in Plutarch, and kata in Achilles Tatius, and that apo follows the verb baptize in Sirach xxxi. 25, where we read of immersion from a dead body : an elliptical expression, meaning immersion in order to purification from the touch, or from defilement occasioned by the touch of a dead body. Ellipses in regard to these common things were usual, and could be understood and supplied by all. Also, in English and in Greek, we may say immersed toitli or hi water, grief, &c,, the import of the verb in neither case being altered by such use. We cannot thus use rhcdno or sprinkle, cheo or pour. We may also say, he immersed with water, or ehaptisen hudati; or we may speak of a baptism to be baptized with [bcfptisma baptisthenai), biit this is rare in English or Greek, although the Greek, before the dative and other cases, admits of a preposition being undei'stood, as the English does not. Nor will we deny that there is sometimes a lax use of a Greek as well as of an English preposition or other word. In the New Testament, haptlzo occurs about eighty times, but is never consti'ued with epi, upon ; nor is rhantho ever construed with en, in, or eis, into. Baptlzo, wdth the exception of the instances adduced in which the preposition is under- stood, is construed Avith en or eis, whilst rhaino or rhantizo, in all the Greek writings, is so associated with epi, that it has been said, after adducing occurrences in the Septuagint : " A shadow does not moi'e naturally accompany an object standing in the sunshine, in this latitude, than does epi accompany jytrtino " in the cases described (Dr. A. Camp., on Bap., p. lo4. If we understand baptizo as meaning to sprinkle, this construction is unaccountable ; but if it means to immerse, the reason is plain ; for if sprinkling were the true import of ba23tizo, it would, as its rendering, make good sense, and be congmous with all the words in construction with baptizo. Our conviction is, that no reader of the Greek Testament, to whom Greek was his mother tongaie, could possibly be at a loss to know what was the action when baptism is said to have taken place, or that immersion was required when baptism, as in Matt, xxviii. 19, Acts ii. 38, (tc, was commanded. 108 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. SECTION X. 0\ EVIDEXC'E FROM THE SPECIFIC AND DISTINCT IMPORT OF I.MMERSE, FOUR, AND SPRINKLE. D. Fraser, — '• It must remain an impossibility to reconcile such opposite modes of application as clipping and sprinkling."— i'ap., p. 70. Prof. Wilson. — " Tlie absurdity of attaching opposite meanings to the same term." "The false principle that the verb denotes the two distinct acts of sprinkling and bathing. Such a double sense would be utterly incompatible with the universally-admitted laws of language." "Never, even in a solitary instance, have we encountered it l1>ajjt!zo] in the sense of purification. That meaning, a.i it appears to us, cannot be extracted from the verb, without recourse to question- able analogies and reasonings, which betray a larger measure of theological ingenuity than of philological acumen." "The usage of the Greek language appears to be strictly harmonious" :pp. 1S4, 18;). That immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, are distinct actions, to describe which we have iu English, distinct and definite terms, is undeniable. That this was equally the case with regard to the Greek language, — a language, so far as we know, the most copious and definite ever spoken; the language chosen bj the Founder of Christianity iu which to reveal the way of life to all nations, — will be admitted by every Greek scholar. If it be a matter of perfect indifference, if it can accord equally with the import of the original word describing the Christian ordinance, whether water be sprinkled on the face, poured into the mouth, or applied to the hands, the feet, or some other part of the body, or whether the whole body be immersed in water, it is not because the Institutor of baptism could not, but because He would not, determinately fix the use of water. We also maintain that the selected word, signifying to immerse, does not and cannot also signify to pour and to sprinkle. We deny not that a copious sprinkling may approximate to })ouring; yea, that a sjn-inkling might be so abundant that one 2Jerson would call it jiouring, and another would call it sprinkling. Nor do we deny that in any language there is a word which may not sometimes be used in the sense of pouring, and sometimes in the sense of sprinkling. Our belief is that in no cultivated language under heaven does one word mean definitely to immerse, and also to pour and to sprinkle. Tlie distinction betwixt immersion and pouring oi' sprinkling, is greater than that betwixt pouring and sprinkling. Between immersion and either of the other two there is an impassable gulf. We do not deny that water might, in certain circumstances, be poured on a person until he was immersed. Yea, we can suppose, for instance, a person in a large tub or vat, and we can see the possibility of pouring water into this vessel, even without its being poured upon the individual, until he is immersed. As soon as the water has reached such a height as entirely to cover him, he is immersed. But immersion and jjouring in this supposed case are two perfectly distinct things; whilst the immersion in this instance is efiected by means of the pouting. Immersion, sprinkling, and poui'ing, are words of im[)ort as distinct as walking, running, and flying. In the instance supposed there is immersion otherwise elfected than by a putting into the water; nor, as we maintain, is it a use of the English word in a loose, improjier, or unauthorized manner, although submersion iu such a case may by some be deemed a jn-eferable word. The explicit testimony of lexicons that bap/ ho signifies to immei'se, we TESTIMONY FROM DISTINCT AND SPECIFIC IMPORT. 109 regard as eAddence that it does not signify to poiir or to sprinkle; the uuequivocal and unvarying testimony from use that its import is to immerse, we maintain to be evidence that it does not mean to sprinkle or to pour. So in regard to e"\idence from ancient versions, from the practice of the Greeks and the Greek church, from the proselyte baptism of the Jews, from the concessions of the most eminent Ptedobaptists, from the figurative use of the word, and from the words with which baptism is construed ; in regard to evidence from all these, and from all other sources, that baptism is immersion, we niaintain that there is evidence that it is not pouring or sprinkling. We admit that if the Greeks had been an uncultivated people, they would have had both fewer ideas and fewer woixls. " But the Greeks were the most philo- sophical, the most shrewd, captious, inquisitive, religious, and eloquent nation that ever existed. Forty thousand gods were acknowledged at one time in Greece." How many ideas would the acknowledgment of so many divinities introduce ! To how many disputes, sects, and opinions AYould they give rise ! Concerning the Greek language, our jn-esent object requires that we speak more particularly, although we hesitate not to appeal to any man to find a word which definitely signifies to immerse in the English or Latin, Greek or Hebrew language, and which also signifies to pour and to sprinkle. We might now leave this subject, as to demand proof from ourselves in vindication of this ajopeal would be to require us to prove a negative. It may, however, be prudent to illustrate and enlarge a little more, and to avail ourselves of some of the investigations of others on the occurrences of words in the Bible signifying to dip, to pour, and to sprinkle. Dr. A. Campbell, in his Drhate with Mr. M;iccalla, says : "lu the Old (English) and New Testament the word sprinkle occurs sixty-two times. The word poin\ and its derivatives, one hundred and fifty-two times. To irash, and its derivatives, one hundred and thirty-nine times. To (Hp, with its derivations, twenty -two times. To plunge, once. Now, tlie question that determines the point is, Did the translators, in one instance, translate the same word to sprinkle and to dip? We positively say Ho. Another Cjuestion may he asked as conclusive as tlie former, namely, Did they ever, in one instance, translate the snme word as signifying to dip and to pour? We positively answer No. Bapto and haptizo are never translated either to sprinkle or to pour. Again, rha'uio and r/iantizo arc never once translated to dij), immerse, or plunge. This shows that in the judgment of the translators these woi'ds were so definitely expressive of certain actions, that they never could he translated into our language by one and the same word. To sprlnlde is one action, to dip is another action. Sprinkling and poming are actions so nigh to each other, and in effect so much the same, that rhaino, and the compounds of cheo, are both translated sprinMe. But so impassable the gulf between either pouring or sprinliing and dipping, that never once is either rhaino or clteo, louo or nipto, ov pliuio, translated dip, immerse, or plunge " (pp. 141, 142). In further illusti-ation of the clear distinction made in English and Greek betwixt dipping, jjouring, and sprinkling, let us examine the Septuagint and the English translation of the Hebrew in one or two places. In Lev. xiv. G-8, we read: "As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and {hapsei) shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running Avater: and {jyerirranei) he sliall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall 110 IMPORT OF BAPTISM, prououiice liiin clean, and sliall let the living bird loose into tlie open tiekl. And he that is to be cleansed (jjlunei) shall vjash his clothes, and shave oflf all his hair, and (lousetai) wash himself in water," &c. Four actions are here denoted by four different words. In the next vei'se we have the command that the leper, after seven days [phmei), shall wash his clothes, and {louse(ai) shall icash [or bathe] his flesh in water. In vers. 15, 16, we read of each of the three distinct actions of jjouring, dipping, and sprinkling. " And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and (epicheei) pour it into the palm of his own left hand. And the priest (bapsel) shall dip his light finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and (rhanei) shall sprinkle," &c. (See also vers. 26, 27, 41, 51.) Thus also, in Lev. iv. 6, 7, we read : " And the priest (hapsei) shall dip his finger in the blood, and (2}ros7-hanei) sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. And the piiest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabei'nacle of the congregation; and (encheei) shall j^our," &c. The three distinct actions in these A-erses are represented by three distinct words in the English and Greek, as well as in the Hebrew. We might similarly examine Num. xix. 18, 19, and other places, all of which testify to the representing of distinct and specific actions by distinct and si^ecific words. Whilst we maintain that if the Saviour had used cheo instead of ba])tizo, He would have enjoined pouring, and that if He had used rhaino or rhantizo He would have commanded sprinkling, and that His choice of bajJtizo teaches His approval and command of immersion, we do not maintain that He could not have expressed himself so as to leave it -rtdth His people to apply water in any manner according to their choice. We maintain that He has not thus left it. He might have used agnizo, to purify, or kathairo, to cleanse, in connexion with hudor, water, leaving the manner of its application or iise to the choice of His disciples; but in using hapiizo, which signifies undoubtedly to immerse. He has, as we maintain, prohibited pouring and sprinkling. Our Saviour might have chosen louo, to wash, which, though used generally in refer- ence to the whole body, and frequently in the sense of bathing, is less definite than haptizo. Tlie original of God's Word, both in the Hebrew and the Greek, is much more definite than the English translation. Thus it is said, by Dr. A. Campbell, that the term vxish, and its derivatives, occure one hundred and thirty-nine times in the English authorized translation. It is found in connexion with the hands, feet, face, body, clothes, tfec. Not so, however, is the Greek of the New Testament and of the Septuagint. Instead of one word in Greek for these one hundred and thirty-nine occurrences of vmsh in the English Bible, it is nip)to thu'ty-eight times, louo forty-nine times, and pluno forty-four time.=!. Nipto is generally applied to the hands, feet, or face ; pluno to polluted clothes, or garments, or other polluted substances; louo to the whole body; and of the five times in which haptizo, or a derivative from it, is translated wash or washing, it is as the effect of dipping. Were it necessary to illustrate the greater precision of the Greek Sciiptures than of the English transla- tion, we might refer to many passages. Wo shall only now refer to two. TESTIMONY FROM DISTINCT AND SPECIFIC IMPOKT. Ill In John xiii. 10, we read: " (Ho leloumenos) He tliat is ivashed, needed not save (poffos nipsasthai) to loash his feet" &c. The same word VMsh is given for the Greek words louo and nipto. Again, in Mark vii. 3, 4, we read: "For the Pharisees and all tlie Jews (eau me piu/me nipsontal tas keiras, roschusls (all of which are found in the apostolic ^\-ritings), is never found in the Nev/ Testament, respecting the administration of baptism ? Or, if sprinkling I>e a proper mode of proceeding, how comes it that rhantlzo, rhantlsmos, or some other term of the same signification, does not appear in any command or precedent relating to the subject of this controversy? Why should those Greek words I have just mentioned, and all others of a similar meaning (whether used Ijy jiagan classics or the Septuagint translators), be excluded from all precepts and examples of the institution before us, while haptizo, haptlsma, and haptismos, are appropriated to that service, if pouring or sprinkling had been at aU intended by our Lord, or jjractised by His apostles ? It must not be supposed, as Jos. Placasus has justly observed in another case, that tliis was done by inspired writers without design (Opera, torn, ii., p. 267); and, on our principles, the reason is plain. The great Legislator intended that His followers should be isijieesed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 1]2 iMi'uirr OF eaptjsm. of tfie Holy Spirit. lu pursuauc?, therefore, of this design, such words are used concerning the ordinance as }mturalli/ and ])roperI>/ signify that idea. We have, I think, as much reason to conckule that baptize and rhantizo are terms of opposite signiiications, as that hap>tistfrion and perirrantcrion denote things for opposite uses. The former of these names, it is well known, was applied by ancient Christians to the baptismal font ; because candidates for communion were immersed in it : the latter, it is ecpially clear, was appropriated Ijy pagan Greeks to the vessel which contained their holy water; Viecaiise thence the idohvtrous jiriests sprinkled the consecrated element upon each worshipper (Suicei-i Thesau. Ecclv., tom. i. , p. 059. Potter's Antiq. of Greece, vol. i., c. iv.). What, then, would the learned say, were any one, pretending to an acquaintance with Chi'istian and Greek antiquities, designedly to confound the two latter expressions, as if they were convertible terms? Be the just censure what it might, I cannot help thinking it is due to those who confound the two former, by labouring to prove them equivalent with regard to the ordinance before us. Though our brethren maintain the lawfidness of jvmrimj and ftprinkling, thej"- cannot produce one instance fi'om the Divine rubric of this institution, of any word being used which primaiily and plainly expresses either of those actions ' (vol. iii., pp. 125-127). The result of this investigation is, that as tlie Divine Spirit lias selected a word of the most definite character by w'hich to express the Divine will, as the meaning of that word is to immerse, it is the Divine will that Christians be immei'sed, and not sprinkled, or poured upon. Indeed, so explicit and definite is the import of haptizo, and so clear and vast the distinction between immersing and pouring or sprinkling, that "oHe baptism with three modes" has been denominated "a grand ecclesiastical hoax " which needs only a translation in order to an exposure of the sophistry. To these words the writer does not object on condition that they be not understood to imply a icUful })erversion of truth. We are taught in Scripture that thei-e is " one baptism." The absux-dity of saying one immersion by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, is seen by any one. Kor would it be less absurd to speak of one pom-ing, or of one sprinkling, by potiring, sprinkling, or immersion. Thus we maintain that haptizo is a word of mode, as meaning to iinmerse, in distinction from to pour, to sprinkle, &c. ; but, that the mode of immer- sing is contained in the word, we do not maintain. In other words, we maintain that haptizo is a specific term, not one that is A"ague, indefinite, generic. It indicates a definite, a sjjecific action. The diflerence between A'erbs indicating a definite and an indefinite action will be understood by considering the following. In the w^ords cleanse, wash, purify, sanctify, go, come, ifec, there is nothing specific, nor in tlie word travel; but there is in the words ride, walk, swim, sail. There is nothing specific in tlie Avord move; but there is in creep, run, hop, leap, fly, etc. Also, the specific as well as the explicit character of the term is, as w^c think, what might have been expected to distinguish a positive instittition. But, to conclude on this head, since haptizo denotes a specific action, whether applied to water, wine, oil, blood, sand, debt, grief, o», io] to Jordan jiros, io>rar(ls,t untn' imto .John to be baptized {upo, lii/ of him. But John forbade Him, saying, I have need to be bafitized [upo, by of Thee" (vers. 13, hV UtSIERSE AND AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED IMMERSION, FOR VERSION, VERSION, VERSION, VERSION, B.VPTIZE AND ■\VITH WITH POUR WITH WITH WA,-:H BAPTISM, WITH A SPRINKLE AND CLEANSE AND MORE CORRECT AND • POURING AND WASHING TRANSLATION SPRINKLING FOR CLEANSING INSERTED OF THE FOR BAPTIZE BAPTIZE FOB B.VPTIZE FOR BAPTIZ -C PREPOSITIONS.* AND AND AND AND BAPTISM, t BAPTISM. BAPTISM. BAPTISM. And were And were And were And were And were immersed by sprinkled of poured of cleansed of washed of him in him in him in him in him in the Jordan. Jordan. Jordan. Jordan. J ordan. come to his come to liis come to his come to his come to his immer.sion. sprinkling. pouring. cleansing. washing. Iindcedimnior.se I indeed I indeed I indeed I indeed you in water. . . . sprinkle you pour you cleanse you wash you He shall immerse with water witli water with water with water you in the Holy . . . He shall . . . He shall . . . He shall . . . He shall Ghost and fire. sprinkle you pour you cleanse you wash you with the with the with the with the Holy Ghost Holy Ghost Holy Ghost Holy Ghost and with fire. and with fire. and with fire. and with fire. to be inmiersed to be to'be to be to be by him. ... I sprinkled of poured of cleansed of washed of have need to be him. ... I him. ... I him. ... 1 him. ... I immersed by liave need have need have need have need Thee. to be to be to be to be sprinkled of poured of cleansed of washed of Thee. Thee. Thee. Thee. * By this exhibition and classification every reader is at libei-ty to try immerse in every pas.sage by the prepositions used in our "authorized version, or to read si)rinkle, pour, cleanse, f)r wasli, along witli a more litend, and, as we maintain, a more correct, translation of the prepositions. No alteration of the prepositions as rendered in the authorized English version is necessary to prove that New Testament baptism is immer- sion. t We admit that sprinkle, pour, cleanse, and wash, would appear still more absurd as the meaning of haptizo, were the prepositions with whicli these words are connected correctly rendered. The reader may e.xamine this. t That epi is used in the sense of to, here and elsewhere, and pros in the sense of unto, is undeniably evident. TESTIMONY FROM INVARIABLE ADAPTATION. 117 ENGLISH VERSION, ETC. "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straight- way ,rtpo, from) out of the water" (ver. 16\ "Are ye able ... to be baptized with (according to) tlie baptism that I am bap- tized with according to whicli I am baptized ? . . . Ye shall ... be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized witlx" according to the baptism according to wliicli I am baptized' fxx. 22, 2S.' " Tlie baptism of John, whence was it 1 " (xxi. 25. i "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them [eis, into) in the name" (xxviii. 19V "John did baptize [en) in the wilderness, and preach tlie baptism of repentance " (Mark i. 4'. "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized { upo, by) of him (en) in tlie river of Jordan" (ver. o\ "I indeed have baptized you (eji, in] with water : but He shall baptize you (en, in) with the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came («i;o) from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized {v2)0, by) of John 'eis, into) in Jordan t And straight- IMMF.K'SE, ETC. . . . when He was immersed, went up straight- way from the water. Are ye able . . . to be immersed according to the immersion according to which I am immersed ? . . . Ye shall . . . be immersed acconliug to the immersion according to wliich I am immersed. The immersion of J ohn, . . . immersing them into the name. John did immerse in the wilderness, and preach the immersion, tism, and to immerse for to baptize, would tui'ii some sentences in almost every page into mere nonsense" (p. 37). "What can be more untrue and deceptive ? In Mark vii. 4, 8, and in Heb. vi. 2, and ix. 10, the Greek noun is haptismos ; in other places it is baptisnia. In justification of the rendering, in water, we will quote from the candid, learned, and justly celebrated Presbyterian profe.ssoi'. Dr. G. Campbell. Let his testimony have due weight, and, above all, let the Scriptui'es collated be compared, and candidly and thoroughly examined, in order to test whether any otlier meaning than immerse is not a pretended or mistaken meaning of baptizo. Dr. (r. C.VMPBKLL, — of M'hoiii Pi'of. Wilsoii says, "The fame of the Scottish di\nue ami ])hilologist lias nothing to fear from the jieu of detraction: it is too firmly established on the liasis of ackno\\]edged ability and extensive erudition " (p. 150); and of -nhom Dr. J. Morison says, that he "was the lirst Biblical philologist and critic of his day" {Fathers and Founders, &c., j). 223), — asserts, on Matt. iii. 11 : — "In water, iu the Holy Spirit, en hiidaii — en hagio jmciimati. E.T., with water, with the Holy Ghost. Vul., in rn/ua — in spirito sancto. Thus also the Syriac and other ancient versions. All the modern translations from the Greek which I have seen render the words as onr common version does, except L. CI., who says, TESTIMONY FROM INVARIABLE ADAPTATION, 123 dans Veau — dans U Saint Espi'it. I am sorry to observe tliat the Popish translators from the Vulgate have shewn greater venei-ation for the style of that version than the generality of the Protestant translators have shown for that of the original. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render en to lordane, in the sixth verse, in Jordan, though nothing can be plainer than that, if there be any incongruity in the expression in ivater, this in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition in could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution, and saying, with the unter of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring. The word haptizein, both in sacred aiithors and in classical, signifies to dip, to p)lun(ie, to ■immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is en hudati, en to lordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which, answering to the Hebrew Beth, may denote with, as well as in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, conciu" in evincing the same thing. Accordingly, the baptized are said, anahainein, to arise, or emerge, ascend (ver. IG), ap)o ton hudatos, and Acts viii. 39, eh ton hndatos, from, or out of the water. When, therefore, the Greek word is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be in*eserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect wdiich they j)refer. The true partizan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." What a contrast betwixt the philology and candour of Dr. C, and tlie bigotry and blundering of Mr. E,. Watson, who, on Matt. iii. 11, speaks of '' the absurdity of translating the preposition en ' in ' " ! Instead of immersing in the Holy Spirit and fire being depai-ted from in translations, it is the rendering both of latest and ear-liest translators and scholars. (See Dr. Conant, pp. 145-148.) The assertion of Dr. Hodge, "that bajJtizesthai en 2meumati cannot mean to be immersed in the Spirit, any more than haptizesthai hudati, Luke iii. 16, Acts i. 5, can by possibility mean to be immersed in "vvater" (On 1 Cor. xii. 13), does not require in reply that we may say, with Dr. W. L. Alexander, tliat a passage not " decidedly appai'ent by itself, may be confirmed aud settled by others that can be shewn to be parallel " {Cong. Lee, p. 143). The reader of the English Hexapla will perceive that Wicliff translates en in, before water and before the Holy Ghost, with undeviating consistency. Tyndale and Cranmer give in vxiter, and loith the Holy Ghost. The Rheims translation has, in Matt. iii. 11, in water, and in the Holy Ghost, but is not ever afterwards consistent with this. The Geneva, like the authorized, has loith. Dr. Conquest follows the authorized version, saying with water, and in the river. S. Sharpe's translation of Griesbach's text invariably gives in as the translation of en, before water or before the Holy Spirit. Also, as does Dr. G. Campbell, he translates Luke iii. 16, where hudati is withoxit a preposition, "in water." He gives the same rendering in the parallel passages. Acts i. 5, xi. 16. "Lr water" is also given by Wakefield in these three passages; although we strongly dissent from some of his renderings. We have no hesitation in saying that if the English in and ant of are not synonymous with the Greek e7i and ek, no words in the English language are; and that no man of learning would insk his reputation by denying that into is the primary meaning of eis. We admit that these 124 IMPORT OF BAPTISHr. Greek words (especially en and eis) are sometimes properly rendei'ed by other words than those just given ; but we maintain that an unnecessary departure from the meanings Ave have gi-sen is as unjust to the Greek as it would be to the English if a foreigner should say, because we speak of going into a mountain, the English word info does not include the idea of entering within, but merely of touching the surface, of coming upon it, and that, consequently, the English phi'ases, going into water, into a river, into the sea, into trouble, mean coming to or upon water, upon a river, iipon the sea, upon trouble, but not entering within these. Our translators say, in Matt. ii. C, " were baptized of him iJi Jordan," and at the 11th verse, " I indeed baptize loith water." In Mark i. 4, 5, 9, they say, "did baptize i7i the wilderness;" . . . "were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan;" ..." was baptized of John in Jordan;" and yet in the Stli verse they say, "I indeed liavc baptized you tvitli water, but ho shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Nothing but freedom from prejudice is needed to see the injustice of the translation with water, and with tlie Holy Ghost, whilst the preposition e?i is the l)reposition in every one of these instances. Even prepossession cannot blind to the absurdity of saying — although it would not be more unjust to the original than is our translation, so much approved in this instance by some of the Pa3dobaptists — "were baptized of him loith Jordan" (Matt. iii. 6); "did baptize tvifh the wilderness" (Mark i. 4); "were all baptized of him vnth the river of Jordan" (ver. 5); "was baptized of John ivith Jordan " (ver. 9). In vindication of our assertions respecting prepositions, we may subsequently speak. The error of other meanings than immerse for baj^tizo is ascertainable, as we think, by every- one who will candidly read over all the occurrences of the word in the New Testament. SECTION XII, HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE FROM IIvniERSIOX TO POURING AND SPRINKLTNO. Prof. Wilson. — "The baptism referred to or admini.'stered during the e.arly ages, we regard a.s a valuable auxiliary in ascertaining the eliaraeter of apostolic baptism ; beyond this point it has no valid claim on our acceptance " \p. 5'2r» , Archb. Wii.\TKi,Y. — "If men apparently piou.s, and of far greater knowledge and ability than ours, find so many difficulties in agreeing as to tlie sense of Scripture, . . . what is to tliem a difficulty must bo to us an impossibility, and Scripture tlierefore can contain no Rcvdatioii properly so called, or, at least, no revelation to the mass of mankind. ... It is doubly important, therefore, to point out — where this can be done with truth — how far dilticulties and disputes may liave been created, or aggravated, by theologians themselves." — E/snays, pp. 27.'i, '274. 7th Edi. W, Thorn. — "His fOln-ist's] laws are not to be abridged nor enlarged ; nor can tliey be improved by any human sagacity or care. Wliat is written we are to receive .as from (Jod, in order to become perfect in every good word and work. Fearful i)enalties are denounced on those presumptuous mortals, of whatever political or ecclesiastical position, who attempt to mend the institutions of .Tcliovali, or wlio disregard His infallible and imperious declarations. It would not be more preposterous to attempt to re-arrange tlie movements of nature, re-gild the orbs of light, or remodel the perfect structure of human beings, than to labour to improve the laws of God." — Inf. Bap., p. 374. Dr. F. Wayland. — "We want Christianity, not C'liristian antiquities: and the latter only as they may subserve the illustration of the former." " Wlio will dare to change the constitution which Christ has given to His church? If we may do it in this case, we may do it in all cases, and we assume the very worst badge of the Papacy." — Priii. of the Bap., pp. 2,'iO, 38, 39. Dr. J. Bennett.— "With the apostles, we inquire, ' Wliat saith the Scripture, which is able to make the man of (lod perfect?'" "(!od has . . . placed a great gulf between inspired and uninspired writers." "Look around, or look back, wliere we may, we find no era, but tlie sliort one of virgin innocence, in which we can acquiesce ; and even the apostles saw the apostacy commence." —Cong. Lee, pp. 271, 272, 200, 209. .1. C. RvLr;. — "No tradition or man-made institution can ever . . . justify disobedience to .iny plain commandment of God's Word.'' — E.i-pns. : on Matt. xv. 1-9. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 125 We have already adduced, as we think, abundant evidence tliat the meaning of bcq)tizo in the days of tlie apostles, also before and after their time, was to immerse. If doubts in the mind of any reader are not wholly removed, it is conceived that historic evidence of a change from immersion to pouring and sprinkling is at hand, evidence adapted to confirm our position, and to cause in all who will candidly examine it, a removal of any remaining doubt. We wish it to be distinctly understood that we do not admit the necessity of being acquainted with ecclesiastical history, any more than of being acquainted with the Jewish Talmuds, in order to know the mind of God relative to an ordinance of His appointment. We believe God's will to be clearly revealed in His own Word, and that nothing but prepossessions or other imperfections prevent ourselves or our opponents from discovei'ing the Divine mind on this subject. That the study of uninspired ecclesiastical history, although the study of the progress of en-or, is not instructive and profitable, Ave do not maintain; but its testimong that Christian baptism is immersion, we accept only as confirmatory of the truth sufficiently revealed in the Sacred Oracles. So great is the imijortance which we attach to the snfiiciency of Divine revelation, and so appropriate does it appear in connexion with historic evidence relative to immersion, that we shall, first, adduce a portion of the testimony of the Divine Spirit in regard to baptism in the days of our Saviour and His apostles. Secondly, we shall narrate a number of allusions to this ordinance by apostolic contemporaries or tliose immediately succeeding them, to prove that with them baptism was immersion. Thirdly, we shall remind the reader of the unvarying practice of the Greeks and the Greek church. Fourthly, we shall adduce the character of Ancient Baptisteries, Ritual Regulations and Confessions, in proof of a change having subsequently taken place from immersion to pouring and sprinkling. Fifthly, we shall record the clearest acknowledgments of a host of the most distin- guished Paidobaptists that have adorned the Church of Christ in our own countiy and in other countries, during the present generation and some that have preceded. If they testify simply that immei'sion was the primitive practice, it is equal testimony that a change has taken place from immersion to pouring or si^rinkling. Sixthly, we shall adduce the explicit testimony of historians, mostly Peedobaptist historians — and M'hen this is not the case, it will be noted — to the fact and to the progress of a change from immersion to pouring and sprinkling. 1. We record a few portions of the Divine Word which in our judgment evince that haptizo had the sense of immerse when used by the inspired penmen, and, consequently, that immersion certainly is enjoined, and was the apostolic practice. Remembering what has been asserted and conceded respecting the import of the word, let the following be read : " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens 126 IMPORT OF BAPTISM, opened," &c. (Mark i. 1-10.) The last joarticular record respecting John's baptism is in John iii. 23, 24: "And John also was baptizing in xEnon, near to Salim, because there was mucli water there : and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison." After the ascension of Christ, we read first of the baptism of the Spirit in these words: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all witli one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting" (Acts ii. 1, 2). The next record is of a baptism, not by Christ himself, but by Christians. As the simple fact is recorded, we know nothing respecting it but what is taught us l)y the import of the word Divinely chosen to describe it, the definite and certain meaning of which we have already endeavoured to show. But we shortly read what is more particular. " Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. . . . And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," itc. (Acts viii. 35-39.) "We subsequently read what refers, to all the baptized : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death 1 Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection " (Rom. vi. 3-5). In the spirit and after the example of apostolic teaching we would say, Let us believe all men to be erring on the ordinance of baptism, rather than reflect on the wisdom, goodness, or justice of Christ, by believing that He has given an obscure, unintelligible, or contradictory record. 2. We shall now narrate a number of allusions to this ordinance by Christian writers who were contemi^oraiy with the apostles, or who lived in the immediately succeeding period. As the writings of some of the Fathers were at an early peiiod mutilated, interpolated, or otherwise corrupted, it would be hazardous, and otherwise improper, to maintain in every instance more than that we quote from the writings attributed to them. The term Fathers is applied to eminent personages in ecclesiastical history, especially to those who lived prior to the sixth century. "About fifty individuals are honoured wdth this title. Five of them, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are alleged to have been contemporary with the apostles, and are therefore called apostolic Fathers. Twenty more lived prior to Christianity becoming a State religion in the days of Constantine, and the remainder subsequently to that period." Excepting to the apostolic Fathers, we shall give to those who are cited the dates of their flourishing, to enable the reader to determine how near to apostolic times each lived. The works attributed to Barnabas and Hermas are certainly of very early origin.* * Not possessing the originals of these Fathers, the learned reader may perceive that in some instances, as elsewhere, we extract from more than one who has given translated quotations. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 127 Baknabas. — "Blessed are they who, putting their trust iu the Cross {katahesan eld), have gone down into the water." Shortly after: " {Hemeis men katabalnomen rls) We r/o down into the water full of sius and pollutions; but come up again bringing forth fruit ; having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus, by the Spu-it."— i!/>(5., § 11; and Wake's Gcu. Epis., pp. 180, 181. Hermas. — "The water [of baptism] into which men go down bound to death, but come up appointed imto life" (Pastor., Sim. ix., g 16). Also speaking of the church imder the emblem of a tower, he says of the stones which were to compose the building: "Some fell near the water, and coidd not be rolled into the water" (Lib. 1, vis. 3, § 2). Again : " But what are the rest which fell by the water side, and could not be rolled into the water? They are such as have heard the woi'd," &c. (§ 7.) Justin Maktyk, a.d. 140. — "Isaiah did not send you into the bath, that you might there wash away tlie miu'der and the other crimes which all the waters in the sea were insufficient to purge aAvay ; but as it was proper, anciently, the saving initiation was," &c. (Works, Paris Ed., p. 229). "Therefore by the laver of repentance, and the knowledge of God, Vhich on account of the sius of the i)eople of God hath been instituted, as Isaiah 2>roclaims, we believe and declare that this, the very baptism," &c. (ji. 231, C.) "But in what manner we, having been madeauew through the Christ, devote oiirselves to God, I will narrate, in order that I may not, by omitting this, seem to commit an error in the discoivrse. If such there be as believe that the things taught and spoken by us are true, obey them, and profess that they are able to live so (as these things require), these persons are instructed, fasting, to pray and beseech from God a pardon of all their former sins : we fasting and praying with them. After that they are led by us to where there is water,* and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again. For upon the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Chi'ist our Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, the immersion + iu water is performed ; because the Christ hath also said, ' Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaA-eu' " (p. 93, D). "But this immersion is called an enlightening, since those who are learning these things are instructed as to the mind ; and he who has been enlightened is immersed by the authority of Jesus Christ," &c. (p. 94, D). " And as we have before written, it is stated by Isaiah in what way we who have sinned and repented may escape from sin. But it is stated thus. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil from your souls. . . . But from the apostles we have learnt a reason for this ; since being altogether ignorant of our first nativity, we were produced and Ijorn by a necessity of nature, . . . and continued in vain conversation and corrupt habits ; but in order that we might not remain children of this ignorance and corrupt necessit}^ of nature, but by choice and knowledge obtain in the water a forgiveness of the sius we have committed, the name of the Father and Lord of all is pronounced on him who chooses to be l)orn again and has repented of his sin. Those Avho lead to the laver the individual to be immersed pronoimcing this the name of God only" (p. 94, A). See Stovel's Disci., p. 360. Theophilus, a.d. 180. — "As we are by baptism buried in water, so Christ was bm-ied in the earth." — In Wallace, on Bap., p. 12. Clejient, of Alexandria, a.d. 194. — "A Christian is one who knows God, who believes in Christ, who possesses the grace of God, and who has been dipped in the sacred laver." — See Eusebius, b. 4, c. 62. Terxullian, who flourished in the former part of the third, and last part of the second century: "The person was brought down into the water without pomp, without any new ornament or sumptuous preparations, and dipped at the pronun- ciation of a few words. And there is no difference whether one is washed in the * Did we ever read of persons being led to a place where there was water for the puri^ose of sprinkling? Dr. Bennett says: "Justin merely says, 'We bring the candi- date where there is water,' which shows that they did not bring the water to him" (Cong. Lee, p. 199). We admit the inference from Justin, but deny that he "merely says " this. _+ Since this extract from Mr. Stovel was printed, we have seen that this word iu the original is loxitron, which we should have rendered ivashing. We have no doiibt that Justin meant immersion ; but neither in this extract, nor in those that succeed, do we wish to translate by words more strong or more explicit than the original. 128 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel ; * nor is any distinction to be made between those whom John {in Jordane tinxit) dipped in Jordan and tliose whom Peter dij^pcd in the Tiber." Again: "We are immersed three times, fulfilling somewhat more than our Lord has decreed in the Gospel." And to some who denied baptism he said: "You act naturally, for you are serpents, and serpents love deserts, and avoid water ; but we, like fishes, are born in the water, and are safe in continuing in it," that is, in the i)racticc of immersion. (See Hinton's His. of Bap., ^. 151.) Elsewhere: "Our hands are clean enough, which, together with our whole body, we have once washed in Christ" (De Ora., p. 133). Also: " {Tingnimur) We are immersed not once, but thrice into each person as he is named." — Adv. Pra.v., c. 26. The Author of the Apostolic Constitutions, of an imcertain period, but supjiosed to be of the second or third century: "Baptism was given to represent the death of Chi'ist, the water His burial. "—Lib. iii., c. 17. The Author of the Recocjnitiom, also of an early though imcertain time, "repre- sents Peter preaching to the people," says Bingham, "and telling them that they might wash away their sins in the water ef a river, or a fountain, or the sea : and he describes his own baptism and some others as given them by Peter in certain fountains in Syria on the sea-shore." — Origines Eccle., vol. i., b. 2., c. 6. HiPPOLYTUS, A.D. 230. — "After the declaration of the catechumen, he was immersed into water in the name of the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Clirist), and the Spirit, the Lifegiver of the church. " — In Bunsen. Cyprian, a. d. 248, will be afterwards quoted. Cornelius, a.d. 250. — "He [Novatian] fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he woidd die immediately, he received baptism, being sprinkled [rather, ^jjoiurd around'] Avith water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed a baptism." — J^pis. ad Fahium, ajiud Euse. His. Eccle., b. vi., c. xliii. Basil, a.d. 330.— "How can we be placed in a condition of likeness to His death ? By being buried with Him in baptism. How are we to go down with Him into the grave? By imitating the burial of Christ in baptism ; for the bodies of the baptized are in a sense buried in water." — In Robinson's His. of Bap., p. 65. (See also Basil and Chrysostoni, pp. 65, 66, 76, 77. ) Jerome, born a.d. 331, says: "And thrice loe are immersed (nicrrjimur), that there may appear one sacrament of the Trinity." — Com, on Eph. ; on 4, 5. Cyril, of Jeru.salem, a.d. 370. — "As (ho cndunon en tois hudasi) he who is plunged in vatcr and baptized, is encompassed by the water on every side; so arc they that are wholly baptized by the Spirit. There (under the Mosaic economy) the servants of God were partakers of the Holy Spirit ; but here they were perfectly baptized or immersed of Him" (Catech. 17). In a sermon to the newly-baptized : "Then you were conducted to the font of the holy baptism, and every one of you was asked whether he believed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and you were three times immersed into the water." — In Bnnsen's Hyi'pol., vol. iii., p. 29. Ambrose, a.d. 374.— "Thou saidst, I do believe, and wast immersed; that is, thou wast buried."— I u Wallace, p. 12. Chrysostom, a.d. 398. — " (To bajitizesthai kai kaiaduesthai) To he Ixqytized and su7ik (in the water), and then to arise out of it again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and of our ascent from thence : and, therefore, Paul calls baptism a burial" (Horn. 40, in 1 Ep. ad Cor.). " Our first man is buried (etaphc ouk en ge, air en hudati) : he is buried not in earth, hut in unter." — On Col. ii. 12. Acts of the First Nicene Council (Fourth Century). — "He who is baptized descends (into the water) subject to sin; but he arises (out of it) freed from sin." — In Actis Concilii Niceeni 1, par. 2, p. 173. Augustine, a.d. 420. — "After you professed your belief three times (demcrsi- vius), did tve submerge your heads in the saci-ed fountain." — In AVaUace, p. 12. 3. We remind tlie readei- of the admitted unvarying practice of the * Mr. I. T. Hinton remarks: "What a pity, since the 'strong arguments in favour of affusion or sprinkling as the preferable mode have been in all a(ics (Ustincthi appre- ciated,' that Tertullian, amidst his numerous baptisteries, forgot to mention a basin! Dr. Miller can jjerhaps explain this," — His. of Bap., p. 151. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 129 Greeks, and of the Greek church in all its branches. Assuredly this is no unimportant historical evidence in favoiir of immersion as the action which has been Di-vdnely enjoined, and which ought to have been invariably practised. (See pp. 75-79.) '* It is tnie that the practice of immersing three times prevailed in a very early age ; but surely this was no approximation to sprinkling. Tertullian admits that it was ' doing somewhat more than the Gospel required. ' Basil (De Spir. Sane. , e. xxvii.) and Jerome (llieron. cont. Lucif.^ c. iv. ) place it among those rites of the church derived from apostolic tradition. Chrysostom seems rather to refer it to the words of the commission. (Horn, de Fid. , tom. vii. , p. 290. ) Theodoret was of the same opinion. {Hreret. Tab., lib. iv., c. ii., p. 236.) The practice of trine immersion prevailed in the West as well as the East, till the fourth Council of Toledo, which, acting imder the advice of Gregory the Great, in order to settle some disputes which had arisen, decreed that henceforth only one immersion should be used in baptism ; and from this time the practice of one immersion only gradually became general through the Western or Latin Church." — Hinton's His. of Bap., p. 152. 4. "We adduce the character of Ancient Baptisteries, Ritual Regula- tions, and Confessions, in proof of immei'sion as the ancient practice. As these do not carry us back to a2:)ostolic times, they do not, of themselves^ prove that immersion was the apostolic practice. They carry us back to a time when sprinkling and pouring were not in use except in cases of real or pretended weakness, and corroborate the priority of the practice of immersion to that of poui'ing or sprinkling. The writings of Justin, Tertullian, and others, prove that for some time baptism was performed by j^rimitive Cliiistians in any convenient plnce, in accordance with the records of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The vai'ied testimony respecting a lengthened subsequent period clearly shows that immersion, throughoiit the professing church, con- tinued to be the general practice, and that pouring and sprinkling, exceptions being at first made in favour of invalids, did not for a lengthened period become general even in the Western Church. Here we shall quote at some length from Mi*. Robinson, respecting whom, says Mr. I. T. Hinton: "Whatever may be said respecting his theological sentiments and his satirical style, no man can impugn the extent of his research, or the correctness of his quotations" (pp. 155, 156). "Authors," says Mr. Robinson, "are not agreed about the time when the first baptisteries were built. All agree that the iirst Avere, like the manners and con- ditions of the people, very simple, and merely for use, and that in the end they rose to as high a degree of elegant superstition as enthusiasm coiUd invent" {His. of Bap., pp. 56, 57). "Writers of unquestionable authority affirm that the primi- tive Christians continued to baptize in rivers, i)ools, and baths, till about the middle of the third century. . . . About the middle of the third century, baptisteries began to be built : but there were none within the churches till the sixth century ; and it is remarkable that, though there were many churches in one city, yet (with a few exceptions) there was but one baptistery" (p. 58). This "was lent to the other churches" (pp. 58, 59). "When the fashion of dedication came up, the church that owned the baptistery was generally dedicated to St. John the Baptist, and assumed the title of S. John in fonfe, or S. John adfontes" (p. 59). "These baptismal churches were generally birilt near rivers, or waters, as those of Milan, Naples, Ravenna, Verona, and many more" (p. 59). "By a baptistery, which must not be confoimded with a modern font, is to be understood an octagonal building, with a cupola roof resembling the dome of a cathedral, adjacent to a church, but no part of it. All the middle part of this building was one large hall, K 130 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. capable of containiug a great multitude of people ; tlie sides were parted off, and divided into rooms, and, in some, rooms were added without-side, in the fashion of cloisters. In the middle of the great hall was an octagon bath, which, strictly speaking, was the baptistery, and from which the whole building was denominated. This was called the pool, the pond, the place to swim in, besides a great nimiber of other names of a figurative nature taken from the religious benefits which were supposed to be connected Avith baptism; such as the laver of regeneration, the luminary, and many more of the same parentage. Some had been natural rivulets before buildings were erected over them, and the pool was contrived to retain water sufiiciont for dipping, and to discharge the rest. Others were supplied by pipes, and the water was conveyed into one or more of the side rooms. ... It was necessary they should be capacious, for as ba^Dtism was administered ouly twice a year, the candidates were numerous, and the spectators more numeroiis than they. Baronius relates an anecdote of a little boy falling, through the pressiu'e of the crowd, into a baptistery in Rome. . . . It is an opinion generally received, and very probable, that these buildings took some of their names from the memorable pool of Bethesda, which was surrounded with porches, or cloistered walks. The Syriac and Persic versions call Bethesda a place of baptistery, or, laying aside Eastern idioms, plainly a bath. The Gi'eek name JcolumbetJira signifies a swimming-place, a place to swim in; and the Latin name 2^wci«« simply signifies a dipping or diving- place" (pp. 59, 60). "There were in process of time baptisteries at most of the principal chm-ches of Home, as at those of St. Peter, St. Laurence, St. Agnes, St. Pancras, and others" (p. 61). The spacious and splendid chiu'ch of St. Sophia was built by Constantino, and amplified and adorned by succeeding emperors. ' ' The Ijaptistery was one of the appendages of this spacious palace, something in the style of a convocation-room in a cathedral. It was very large, and coimcils were held in it, and it was called Mega 2}hotlsterion, the great Illiuninatory. In the middle was the bath, in which baj^ism was administered, and there were outer rooms for all concerned in the baptism of immersion, the only baptism of the place" (p. 63). On the Lateran liaptistery at Rome, Mr. R. says: "A traveller entering Rome by the gate Del Popolo must go up the street Strada Felice, till he arrive at the church of St. John Latei'an. Tm-ning in, and passing along through the chm'ch, he must go out at the door behind the great choii% which lets him into a court surrounded with walls and buildings. On the left hand is a porch supported by two marble pillars, which leads into the octagon edifice called the baptistery. On entering, he AviU observe eight large polygonal pillars of porphyry support the roof, and there is a spacious walk all round between them and the wall. In the centre of the floor, iinder the cupola, is the baptistery properly so called, lined with marble, with three steps down into it, and about five Roman palms, that is, thirty- seven inches and a half deep" (p. 72). "The adjoining chapels, built by Hilary for the use of administrators and catechumens, were appendages to the baptistery, and are, as it were, inserted into it" (p. 73). "The indefatigable Ciampini, Avho took great pains to reconcile the different opinions of antiquaries, has concluded that the Latin baptistery was originally a bath in the precincts of the imperial palace ; that it was begun to be converted into a baptistery by the Emperor Constantine ; that the buildings were carried on by Pope Xystus Third, and finished and ornamented by Pope Hilary; and this reconciles inscriptions and pontificals" (p. 74). On the baptistery at Ravenna, Mr. R. says : " This edifice is octangiUar, as is the Arian baptistery, and as almost all baptisteries were; at present the two angles on the right and left hand sides, at the ujiper end, are carried out in a semicircular form, and parted off for oratories, or chapels. On entering the front door, you find yourself in an octangular room of about two-and- thirty English feet square. It is not necessary to be so exact as to introduce fractions. . . . Exactly in the centre of this liaU is a vast bath of white Grecian marble, or, in otlicr words, an octangular rccejitacle for water about nine feet square." It is not necessary to state more. A lengthened descri]ition of the baptisteries at Constantinople and Ravenna, at Venice, Florence, Novara, and Milan, is given, whilst quotations in Latin from niimerous authors are given in the notes, all proving that these baptisteries were for the administration of immersion. " A Saint John adfontes was a sacred edifice, in which there was one ljai)tistery or more, supplied by running watei\ The buQding was frequently called adfontes, and so by degrees the bath itself obtained the name of a font. When the baptism HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 131 of infantg became an estalDlished custom, it was unnecessary for the administrator to go into the Avater, and they contrived cisterns which they called fonts, in which they dipped the children without going into the water themselves. In the first baptisteries, both administrators and candidates went down steps into the bath. In after ages, the administrator went up steps to a platform, on which stood a small bath, which they called a font, into which they plunged children without going into the water themselves. In modei'u practice the font remains, but a Imsin of water set in a font serves the jjurpose, because it is not now supposed necessary either that the administrator should go into the water, or that the candidate should be immei'sed" (pp. 110, 111). Mr. K. next refers to the time of Queen Elizabeth, when in England churchwardens were required to "see that in every parish there be a holy founte, not a bason, wherein baptism may be nunistered;" and "that the font be not removed, nor that the ciu-ate do baptize in ^pa^'/s/t churches in any basons, nor in any other form than is ah-eady prescribed" (p. 111). He says : "That all fonts, fixed and moveable, were intended for the administration of baptism by dipping, is alloAved by antiquaries." "About the middle of the fourth century," says he, ' ' during the pontificate of Liberius, Damasus, who was afterwards Pope, constructed a baptismal font in the old Vatican church at Rome. The spot had been a burial place, and stagnant waters rendered it ofiiensive. Damasiis caused the oozing waters to l^e traced to theu* spring, and by lajdng pipes underground, received and carried the whole in a stream into the church, where it fell into a large receptacle of beavitiful alabaster marble, the vmdulated veins of Avhich produced a pleasing effect in the water, as also did the reflection of the ornamented roof, the panels and the altars of the chapel, for the figures above seemed to live and move in the transparent fluid below " (pp. Ill, 112). The Catholics say that "when Pope Damasus was baptizing here, the crowd was so great that a little boy was pushed into the font and was drowned : that it was an hour before they could get the corpse out : that Damasus lifted up his eyes to heaven, and prayed God to restore him to life : that the boy was restored to life," &c. (p. 112.) In the year 1300, the poet Dante was prior of Florence. The baptistery at Florence was then an elegant and highly-ornamented building, remarkable for the munber of baths in its floor, and the magnificence of its furniture ; but a friend of the poet haAang been in danger of droAvning, he ordered these baths to be broken up (p. 89). "A font remarkable in ecclesiastical history is that belonging to the church of Notre Dame, in Avhich CloA-is, the first Catholic, if not the first Christian King of the Franks, Avas bai^tized. " "In this font Clovis was dipped three times in water at his baptism. . . . More than three thousand Franks Avere baptized at the same season in the same manner" (p. 113). Speaking of "fonts of necessity," Mr. E. says: "Paulinus baptized in a river, because he had no baptismal chapels : and he baptized King Edwin and his court in a temporary Avooden oratory, because he had not any such baptistery as the wealth and elegance of the Greeks and Ptomans had erected. In the twelfth century, Otho, Bishop of Bamberg, baptized his converts in Pomerania in bathing- tiibs let into the ground, and svirrounded with posts, ropes from post to post, and curtains hanging on the ropes. Within the ciu'tains the people undressed, Avere baptized, and afterAA'ards di'essed again. Many of these also Avere used for baj^tism in the depth of AAanter, and the baths and tents were warmed by stoves " (p. 116). "The font used at the baptism of the Princess Elizabeth was silver, probably the old one of Canterbury; that of Prince Edward, 'the most dearest sonne of the king,' was of silver gilt, and very likely a new one" (p. 122). The baptism of the princess and of the prince was their immersion, as all recorded preparations and circumstances unite to prove. Some fonts, we are told, were designated fancij fonts, being decorated to serve the piu-pose of one baptism (p. 118). That fonts in parish churches were made and iised for the immersion of children is evidenced by their size, as well as by the laws and rubrics of the church at the time. Further, speaking of fonts, Mr. E. says: "Grymbald was a native of French Flanders, and ^Ifi-ed, the glory of the Saxon kings, brought him into England in the year eight hundred and eighty-five, and placed him at Oxford. . . . The old church of St. Peter was built by Grymbald, and a part of it remains entire to this day. In this church there was imtil lately a very ancient baptismal font, of elegant sculpture for the time. Mr. Heame 132 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. thought it was of the same date as that of Winchester, and he adds : After it had kept its place about five hundred years, it was ordered to be removed, and one much inferior to be put in its place. It was therefore turned out and put over a weU. It is in circumfei'euce eleven feet, and of pi-oportional depth. In separate niches the twelve apostles are represented. The upper part is bordered ^vith a running sprig. The form is circular. The place, the size, and the scxilptiu-e, serve to inform a spectator that, in the opinion of the donor, the dijyj^iiig of children, according to the jtrescribed form of the church, was apostolical baptism" (p. 124). " In the church of Bridekirk, near Cockermouth, in Cumberland, there is 'a large open vessel of greenish stone,' which antiquaries pronounce a Danish font. It is undoubtedly a very ancient, a very rude, aud a very singular curiosity. That it was intended for a baptismal fout ab oriijine, as Bishop Gibson observes, cannot be questioned ; for on the east side the baptism of Christ is represented. Jesus stands naked ' in a kind of font or vase, with a nimbus almost defaced round His head, and over Him a dove.' On His right hand, near the font, stands John the Baptist, his left hand being behind the shoulders of Jesus, and his right on His side " (p. 125). Again: "Among the plates published by I\Ir. Strutt, there is one from a manuscript life of Eichard, EarJ of Warwick, which represents 'how he Avas baptized.' . . . Hound a neat Saxon font the company stand. A bishoj) is holding the child, stark naked, and just going to be dipped, over the font. The hand of the royal godfather is on his head. The archdeacon, according to custom, stands by the bisliop, holding up the service-book open, which implies that the baptism is perfoi-ming according to the ritual. As the child's face is towards the water, this is the last of the three immersions, and the bishop may be supposed now uttering the last clause of the baptismal words: And of the Jlohj Ghost, Amen. The priest on the other side of the officiating bishop is holding the chrism. Fonts, like medals, form a history, and from a history of fonts incontestable evidence rises to prove that during the whole reign of Popery ])ublic ordinary Ijajitism was administered : that the mode was not chauged to sprinkling here, any more than on the continent, for such considerations as climate or timidity, rank or caprice; and that in the piiblic opinion there was no hazard to health in dipping infants" (pp. 126, 127). Foi" more on the subject of fonts we refer the reader to Robinson's History of Baj^tlsrn, and to a Series of Ancient Bcqjtismal Fonts, Cltrono- logically Arranged, drawn by F. Simpson, juu. Of the latter, Dr. S. S. Cutting thus speaks : — ' ' This superb volume, dedicated by pei-mission to the Marchioness of Exeter, contains engravings of a large ninnber of fonts, commencing with the Norman era, and extending down to the period of the Reformation. Connected with each engraving is a full explanation, giving tlie period to which each font belonged, with its materials, dimensions, &c. The dimensions are the important consideration iu this connection, showing their cai)acity for immersion. For example, the font in the Lincoln Catliedral, a fout belonging to the Normal ei'a, is two feet eight inches in diameter in the inside, and one foot one inch in depth. To the Normal succeeded the early English style, the style of the thirteenth century, and here -we have the font of All 8aints, Leicester, two feet one inch in diameter, and one foot one inch iu depth. The fourteenth century was the period of the Decorated Style, and belonging to this style is the font of Noseley, Leicestershire, two feet in diameter, and one foot three inches deep. The last font given in the work is that of St. Mary's, Beverley, Yorkshire, a very splendid one, bearing date of 1530, in the Perjiendicular Style of that ]icriod, three feet two inclies in diameter, and one foot two inches iu deptli. The sizes of the whole series range from one foot seven inches in diameter and ten inches in depth, to that of St. Mary's above-named, which is the largest — the more usual size being a little over tAvo feet in diameter, aud a little over one foot in dejith ; all being, however, of sufficient capacity for the immersion of infants, and intended for that purpose." — His. Vlnd., p. 78. Tn confirmation of much of the preceding, let the following from Psedobaptist authors be read. Ency. Brit. — "Baptistery, iu ecclesiastical writers, a jilace in which the ceremony of baptism is performed. In the ancient church it was one of the cxedrce HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 133 or buildings distinct from the church itself, and consisted of a porch or ante-room where the persons to be lja2)tized made their confession of faith, and an inner room where the ceremony of baptism was i^erformed. Thus it continued until the sixth century, when the baptisteries Ijegau to be taken into the church porch, and after- wards into the church itself. The ancient baptisteries were commonly called j)hotisteria, q.d., places of illumination ; an appellation sometimes given to baptism. Or they might have the name for another reason, because they were the places of an illumination, or instruction, preceding baptism : for here the catechumens seem to have been trained up and instructed in the first rudiments of the Christian faith. Those baptisteries were anciently very capacious ; because, as Dr. Cave observes, the stated times of baptism returning but seldom, there were usually great multi- tudes to be baptized at the same time, and then, the manner of baptizing, by immer- sion, or dipping iiuder water, made it necessary to have a large font likewise." — Art. Baptistery. London Ency. — "The Italian baptistery is not dissimilar to the octagon in Ely Cathedral." — Art. Bap. Penny Cy. — "These buildings were of difTci'ent forms, and some of them are of very high antiquity, as that of St. John, connected with the church of Constan- tinople, a very splendid and spacious edifice. This bajitistery was very large, and was called the great illuminary. In the middle was the bath, in which baptism Avas administered ; it was supplied with water by pipes, and there were outer rooms for all concerned in baptism. In Italy, although the churches were numerous in some of the most considerable cities, there was only one general baptistery, to which all resorted. Of the baptisteries in Eome, the Lateran is the most ancient. It was made out of an old mansion-house, given by Constantine to Bishop Sylvester, about the year 320, and was endowed with a handsome income. Before that time baptisms were performed ' either in private baths, or in subterraneous waters, or ia any place without the city. ' " — Art. Bap. Dr. J. Gardner. — " Baptistery was the name given to the whole building in which the font stood, and where the whole rite of baptism was performed ; whereas the font was only the fountain or jiool of water in which the immersion took place." — Faiths of the World. Avt. Baptisttry. Dr. Cave, having noticed on the authority of Justyn Martj'r and TertuUian that the early converts to Christianity were taken to any place where there was water, and were baptized either in ponds or lakes, fountains or rivers, makes the following remarks: — "Afterwards they had haptisteria, or, as we call them, fonts, built at fu'st near the church, then in the church porch, to represent baptism's being the entrance into the mystical church ; afterwai'ds they were placed in the church itself. They were usually very large and capacious, not only that they might comport with the general custom of those times, of persons baptized being immer- sed, or put under water, but because the stated times of baptism returning so seldom, great m\iltitudes were usually baptized at the same time." — Prim. Chris., p. l.,c. 10. J. Bingham. — "In the apostolic age, and some time after, before churches and baptisteries were generally erected, they baptized in any place where they had conveniences, as .John baptized in Jordan, and Philip baptized the eunuch in the wilderness, and Paxil the gaoler in his own house. So TertuUian observes that Peter baptized his converts in the Tiber at Rome, as John had done in Jordan, and that there v/as no difference whether a man was baptized in the sea, or in a lake, in a river, or in a fountain. After this manner tlie author of llie Becognitions, under the name of Clemens Romauus, rejiresents Peter preaching to the people, and telling them that they might wash away their sins in the water of a river, or a fountain, or the sea ; and he descril^es his own baptism, and some others as given them in certain fountains in Syria on the sea-shore. But in after ages baptisteries were built adjoining to the church, and then rules were made that baptism should ordinarily be administered nowhere but in them " (Origi)ies Ecde., vol. i., b. 2, c. 6). Again, when speaking of the construction of the baptisteries which were used in the early ages of the Christian church, Mr. Bingham says: "These baptisteries were anciently very capacious, because, as Dr. Cave truly observes, the stated times of baptizing returning but seldom, there were usually great multitudes to be baptized at the same time. And then the manner of baptizing by immersion, or dipping under water, made it necessary to have a large font likewise. Whence the author 134; IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of the Chronicon Alexandrlnwn styles the baptistery whither Basilicua fled to take sanctuary, Meja photisftrion, the great iUuminary, or school of baptism, which was judeecl so capacious that we read sometimes of councils meeting and sitting there, as Du Fresue shows out of the Acts of the Councils of Chalcedon ; and Suicerus haa observed the same in the Acts of the Councils of Carthage, which speaks of a council at Constantinople held in the baptistery of the chiu'ch. For the baptistery, properly speaking, was the whole house, or building, in which the font stood, and where all the ceremonies of baptism were performed; but the font was only the foimtaiu or pool of water wherein the persons were immersed or baptized." — Orig. Eccle., vol. i., b. 8, c. 7. Also the distinguished antiquarian, Archdeacon NicnoLsox, afterwards Bishop of Carlisle, in his letter to Sir William Dugdale resi)ecting the large Saxon font at Bridekirk, in Cumberland, says : " There is fairly repi-esented on the font a person in a long sacerdotal habit, dipping a child into the water;" and then he remarks, ' ' Now, su', I need not acquaint you that the sacrament of baptism was anciently administered by phmging into the water, in the Western as Avell as the Eastern parts of the chm-ch ; and that the Gothic word daupjan, the German word tauffen, the Danish word dohe, and the Belgic doopen, do as clearly make out that practice as the Greek baptizo." • — Camden's Britannia, by E. Gibson, p. 841. Mr. Chambers, respecting a baptistery, says: "It is a place or edifice where water is preserved for persons to be baptized in." Dr. Rees says : ' ' The baptistery was a kind of pond where the catechumens were plunged ; though in many places the next river served for a baptisterj^, which was the case in the time of Justin Mai-tyr and of Tertullian." M. Piozzi, in Observations in a Journey through Italy, says: "The baptisterio is another structure close to the church [the Duomo, or Cathedral at Florence], and of siu'prising beauty. . . . The font has not been used since the daj's when immer- sion in baptism was deemed necessary to salvation : a ceremony still considered by the Greek church as indispensable. . . . The Romanists dropped the immersion at baptism of themselves, and in so warm a climate too ! Very strange it is to think that, while other innovations have been resisted even to death, scarcely any among the many sects we have been divided into retain the original form in that ceremony so emphatically called christening." — Vol. i., pp. 312, 313. J. Glyde. — "The early Christians first baptized wherever a convenient place could be found, in ponds or rimning streams. AfterAvards bairtisteries, or covered baths, were erected near the place of worship, and in these the converts to Christianity, and their children, were immersed." — On Bap)., p. 10. Sncli, then, in regard to baptistei'ies, is tlie testimony of tliose whose principles will screen them from the suspicion of favouring the cause of the Baptists. Let the impartial reader consider their statements, and inquire — Why did the first teachers of Christianity take their converts to large collections of water, as rivers, lakes, and ponds, for the purpose of baptizing them % Why, in subsequent ages, did the cliurches erect spacious baptisteries, furnished with distinct rooms and changes of raiment for the men and women, if tliey did not consider a total immer- sion of the body as essential to baptism 1 On ritual regulations, or directions for the administration of baptism, and on confessions, we shall be very brief Concerning the Greek church abundant testimony has already been afforded. Concerning the * Mr. Booth, after citing Quenstediiis, who assigns the following threefold reason for converting infant baptism into infant sprinkling, — "the tenderness of infants — shame, especially in regard to female catechumens— and because even in the veiy act of baptizing, natura cursum sutun tenet," says: "In .4 Specimen of the History of Oxfordshire, the author says, 'It may be remarked in gencr.al, that fonts, originally intended for the immersion of the inf.ant, are ancient in proportion as they are capacious. ... It is recorded of King Etheldi'eJ, that at his baptism, in nine liuntlred and seven, he defiled the font. . . . On this ominous occasion. Archbishop Dunstan, who baptized the royal babe, with an oath exclaimed, Per Deum et Matrem ejus, ignavus homo erit.'" HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 135' Latin church, yea, and the church at large, it is intended shortly to adduce abundant, and principally Protestant, testimony. Eome's denial of the sufficiency of Sci'ipture is well known. The exaltation of tradi- tion by the Greeks is also a fact. And though the Church of England pi'ofesses power to decree rites and ceremonies, but not in opposition to Scriptux'e, we maintain both the unauthorized and inconsistent character of this pretension. Concerning the Greeks, it may be remarked, that they " divided their institutes into two classes, the Scriptural and the traditional. The division was merely speculative, for they thought both equally binding. Basil gives an instance in baptism : The Scripture says, ' Go ye, teach and baptize,' and tradition adds. Baptize by trine immersion ; and ' if any bishop or presbyter shall administer baptism not by three dippings, but by one, let him be punished with deprivation.' At what time this canon was made, and by whom it was first called an apostolical canon, is micertain; but it was early received for law by the established Greek church; it was in full force when the cathedral of St. Sophia was built, and no person durst baptize any other way in the Sophian baptistery." — Robinson's His. of Bap., p. 63. One of the duties of deacons and deaconesses (of the fonner of whom one hundred and fifty, and of the latter forty, have belonged to the church of Sophia) appears to have been to attend on the candidates for baptism. The office of deaconesses is said to have continiied in all chmxhes, Eastern and Western, till the eleventh century; then it fell into disuse, fii'st in the Roman church, and then in the Greek, but it continued longer in the Oriental churches, and the Nestorian hath deaconesses to this day. The cessation of these female officers is thought by some to have arisen from a discontinuance of the immersion of believers. — See Robinson's Ilis. of Bap., p. 6-i. There are bodies of Christians among the Eastern nations who are not under the dominion of either the Greek or Roman chiu'ches. Of these, the Nestorians, so denominated from Nestor, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who sepax'ated from the Greek church in the fifth century, are among the most interesting. Their liturgy is evidently taken from that of the ancient Greek church. Their method of baptizing is thus described : — "The candidate goes into the baptisterj-, which they call Jordan, where the priest reads lessons and prayers, after which the auditors are dismissed, the gates shut, and the catechumen repeats the Nicene creed. Next the catechumen oil and the baptismal water are blessed, after which a deacon anoints the catechumen all over, and then leads him to the priest, who, standing on the west side of Jordan, turns the face of the catechumen to the east, and laying his hand upon his head, bows him forward into the water a first time, saying. Such a one, the servant of God, is baptized in the name of the Father; to which the company answer, Amen: then, bowing him a second time, he says, And of the Son; — answer as before. Amen: then a third time, saying. And of the Holy Ghost. ^7?ie?!."— Eobinson's His. of Bap., pp. 485, 486; Hinton's His. of Bap., pp. 177, 178. "Mr. Wolff, missionary, says that 'the priest (of Armenia) puta the child into the water, and washes the head with three handfuls of water, and prays, and saith, I baptize thee in the name, &c., and then dips the child,' &c. This is confirmed by missionaries Smith and Dwight, who say that, according to the rules of the Armenian church, baptism consists in plunging the whole body into water three times, as the sacred formula is repeated." — In Hinton, p. 178. GoAR, in his Eucholocjion, or Ritual of the Greeks, after the mention of preliminary 136 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. ceremonies, says: "Andwlien the whole body is anointed, the priest immerses* him [the child], holding him erect, and looking toward the east, saying. The servant of God [name] is immersed in the name of tlie Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; now and ever, and to ages of ages. Amen. At each invocation bringing him down, and bringing him np. And after the immersing, the priest washes his hands, singing with the people, ' Hapj>y they whose sins are forgiven,' " &c. The deviations from this practice, for convenience or other cause, are said to be occasional, exceptional, and without canonical authority. Venema quotes Martene as declaring (in his Antlq. Eccle. Bit., b. i., p. i., c. i.) "that in all the ritual books, or pontifical MSS., ancient or modern, that he had seen, immersion is required, except by the Cenomanensian, and that of a more modern date, in which pouring on the head is mentioned." After assurances that baptism was immersion in apostolic times, and in immediately succeeding centuries, Venema adds: "In the Council of Ravenna also, held in the year I31I, both immersion and pouring are left to the determination of the administrator : and the Council of Nismes, in the year I2S4, permitted pouring, if a vessel could not be had; therefore only in case of necessity. . . . The Council of Celichith, in the beginning of the 9th century, forbade the pouring of water on the heads of infants, and commanded that they should be immersed in the font. ... In the 1 3th century, baptism was administered by immersion thrice repeated ; yet so, that one immersion was esteemed sufficient, as appears froin Augerius de Montfaucon. That was a singular synodical appointment under John de Zurich, Bishop of Utrecht, in the year 1291, which runs thus: 'We ajipoint tliat the head be put thi-ee times in the water, unless the child be weak or sickly, or the season cold ; then water may be poured by the hand of the priest, lest by phmging, or coldness, or weakness, the child should be injured and die.'" (See his His. Eccle. Secu. i. § 138, ii. § 100, iii. § 51, iv. § 110, vi. § 251, viii. § 206, xii. § 45, xiii. § 164.) The Order of Sacra- ments, composed by Gregory the First, thus reads : ' ' The font being blessed, and he holding the infant by whom it is to be taken up, let the priest inquire thus: What is thy name? A. . . . Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth ? A. 1 believe. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born and suffered? A. I believe. Dost thou also believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body? A. I believe. Then let the priest bcqHize with a trine immersion [baptizet sub trina mersione), once only invoking the holy Trinity, saying. And I baptize thee in the name of the Father (and let him immerse (mergat) once), and of the Son (and let him immerse a second time), and of the Holy Spirit (and let him immerse a third time)." Mr. Hinton says that Father Mabillon collated sixteen ordines, of various dates from the ninth to the fourteenth century, in none of which is there "a trace of sprinkling or pouring." And after asserting that "none dare affirm that the papacy introduced immersion," he appeals to those who affirm or believe that spi'inkling, as the preferable mode, has been in all ages duly appreciated." So in the Confession of Helvetia, drawn up by the direction of Bucer in 1536, ten years before the death of Luther, and re-published in 1566 by the jDastors of Zurich, it is said: "Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God; and the first that baptized was John, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan" (I [arm. of Confess., p. 395). Thus in the Danish Catechism: "What is Christian dipping? Water in conjunction with the word and command of Christ. What is that command which is in conjunction with water? 'Go, teach all nations,' &c. (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15, 16.) What is imjilied in these words? A command to the dipper and the dipped, with a promise of salvation to those that believe. How is this Christian dipping to be administered ? The person must be deep-dipped in M-ater, or overwhelmed with it, in the name of God the Father," &c. So the Articles of Smalcald: "Baptism is no other than the word of God, with plunging into water according to His ai)pointment and command" {Kromayeri Epitom. Lib. Concor. Chris., p. 107). Thus the confession of faith adopted by the Saxon churches, and written by Melanctlion in 1551: "Baptism is an entire action, to wit, a dipping and a pronouncing these words, 'I baptize thee,' &c." (In Dr. A. Campbell's De., * That Goar uses haptizo in the sense of immerse, we presume no Pjedobaptist will doubt. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 137 pp. 316, 317. See also Confessions of Bohemia, &c., in the Harmony of Confessions, § 13.) Thus the Shorter Catechism of the Assembly of Divines (Presbyterian): *' What is baptism ? Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the Avashing with water, in the name of the Father," &c. " Thus Dr. Wall says: "In the case of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such like extraordinaiy occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face was by the ancients counted sufficient baptism." "France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in healtli, and in tlie public way of administering it." "There had been, as I said, some synods in some dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion, without mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice ; but for an office or liturgy of any church, this [referring to Calvin's Form of Administering the Sacraments] is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes aspersion absolutely;" and "for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was at 1645 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after forty-one." "But then came The Directory, which . . . says, ' Baptism is to be administered, not in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation,' &c. ; and 'not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were iinlitly and superstitiously placed.' So they reformed the font into a basin" {His. of Inf. Ba]}., part ii., c. ix.). Thus the Catechism of the Chm-ch of England : ' ' What is the outward visible sign or form in baptism ? Water : ivherein f the person is baptized in the name of the Father," &c. And in the Baptismal Service: ' ' If they shall certify him that the child may well endui-e it, he shall dip it in the water, discreetly and warily, saying, I baptize," &c. The American Episcopal church has thus altered it: "Then shall the priest dip the child into the water discreetly, or shall pour water upon it." Also that the Church of England's words are not precisely what they were in the days of Archb. Cranmer and King Edward the Sixth, we may now show by the aid of Dr. Ryland, who, in his Candid Statement, &c., says: "In the library at Bristol we have a copy of The Booke of the Common Prayer and Adniinistracion of the Sacramentes and Ceremonies of the Churche: after the use of the Churche of England. Londini in Officincc Edouardi Whitchurche. Cum privilegio ad i7nprimendum solum. Anno Do. 1549. Mense Junij., in which trine immersion is enjoined in these words: Then the j^rieste shall take the childe in his handes, and aske his name: and namyng the childe, shall dyppe it in the water thryce. First dipping the right side: seconde, the left side: the third time, dipping the face toivarde the fonte : so it bee discretely and warely done, saying, •. 77.) The Presbyterian petition in the time of Charles II., was that pouring might be used for dipping, if the child "cannot be safely or conveniently dipt." Let tlie reader judge whether the facts adduced respecting Ancient Baptisteries, and Ritual Regulations and Confessions, are not confirma- tory of immersion as the primary and ancient baptism, and of a cliange having taken place from immersion to pouring and sprinkling, 5. We shall now cite from a considerable number of the most dis- tingu.ished Peedobaptists of our own country, and of other countries, of the present age and of several preceding ages, the clearest acknowledgments of a change from primitive immei'sion to subsequent pouring and sprinkling. We believe that such acknowledgments from Protestant Psedobaptists nothing could have extracted but the undeniable evidence and undoubting assurance of their truthfulness. Of Roman Catholic divines we shall quote very few. We shall commence with a number of eminent continental divines of a former age, with the names of some of whom every one versed in theological literature is acquainted. We do not wish it to be' understood that all the divines believed that the apostles so invai-iably pi-actised immersion as utterly to exclude pouring and sprinkling. But hear their concessions.* * Chronological order is not here observed, but the reader will perceive that the first extracts are from divines of a former age, whilst some that are living arc among the last quoted. HISTORIC EVIDENCE, 139 LtTTHER AND PoMEEANUS. — J. B. Pomeranus, a fellow and successor of Luther at Wittenburgh, affirms : "That he was desu-ed to be a witness of a baptism in the year 1529 ; that when he had seen the minister only sprinkle the infant, wrapt in swathing-clothes, on the top of the head, he was amazed ; because he neither heard nor saw any such thing, nor yet read in any history, except in the case of necessity, in bed-rid persons. In a general assembly, therefore, of all the ministers of the Word, that was convened, he did ask of a certain ministei-, John Fritz by name, who was sometime minister of Lubeck, how the sacrament of baptism was administered at Lubeck ? who for his piety and candour did answer gravely, that the infants were baptized naked at Lubeck, after the same fashion altogether as in Germany. But from whence and how that peculiar manner of baptizing hath crept into Hamburg, he was ignorant." Dr. Du Veil (in Com. on Acts viii. 38) adds: "At length they did agree among themselves that the judgment of Luther, and of the divines at Wittenburgh, should be demanded about this point : which thing being done, Luther did write back to Hamburg, ' that this sprinkling was an abuse which they ought to remove.' " WiTSirs. — "It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practised immersion ; whose example was followed by the ancient church, as Vossius has shown, by producing many testimonies from the Greek and Latin writers." — JEcon. Fosd., b. iv., c. xvi., § 13. M. MoRUS. — "Baptism was formerly celebrated by plunging the whole body in water, and not by casting a few drops of water on the forehead: that representing the death and resurrection much better than this.^' Deylingitjs. — "It is manifest that while the apostles lived, the ordinance of baptism was administered not out of a vessel, or a baptistery, which are the marks of later times, but out of rivers and pools: and that not by sprinkling, but by immersion." — Obs. Sa., pars, ii., obs. xliv., § 3, Keckermann, — "We cannot deny that the first institution of baptism consisted in immersion, and not sprinkling." — Sys. Theo., b. iii., c. viii., p. 369. Salmasius. — "The ancients did not baptize otherwise than by immersion, either once or thrice, except clinics, or jiersons confined to their beds, who were baptized in a manner of which they were capable ; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water ; but the whole body had water poured upon it. (C'ypr. iv., Epis. 7.) Thus Novatus, when sick, received baptism, being perechxi- theis* poured around, not bajptistheis, baptized." — Apud Witsium, JScon. Fce,d, b. iv., c. xvi., § 13. CuRCELL^us. — "Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few droj^s, as is now the practice. For ' John was baptizing in .^non, near to Salim, because there was much water ; and they came, and were baptized. ' Nor did the disciples that were sent out by Chi-ist administer baptism afterwards in any other way : and this is more agreeable to the significa- tion of the ordinance (Rom. vi. 4). . . . They are now ridiculed who desire to be baptized, not by sprinkling, but as it was performed by the ancient church, by an immersion of the whole body into water." — Rd. Chns. Inst., b. v., c, ii. Libert. Chris, a Lege Cib. Vet. , c. xiv. , § 3. Vossitrs. — "That John the Baptist and the apostles immersed persons whom they baptized, there is no doubt (Matt. iii. 3, 6, 16; John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38). And that the ancient church followed these examples, is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the Fathers." — Dispu. de Bap., Disp. i., § 6. TuRRETiNE. — "Immersion was used in former times and in warm climates. But now, especially in cold countries, when the church began to extend itself toward the north, plunging was changed into sprinkling, and aspersion only ia used." J, A. TuRRETiNE (on Rom. vi. 3, 4). — "Baptism was performed in that age, and in those countries, by immersion of the whole body into water."— In Dr. Conant, on Bap., p. 155. Heidegger. — "Plunging or immersion was commonly used by John the Baptist and by the apostles."— Cor. Theol. Chris., loc. xxv., § 35. * The correct rendering of this word is "poured around," which Salmasius opposes to baptistheis, "baptized;" who also says that "baptism is immersion," and that sprinkling is rhantism. 140 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. TiLENUS. — " The ceremony iu bai^tism is threefold : immersion into the water, a continuance under the water, and a rising out of the water." — In Booth's Peed. Ex., vol. i., p. 142. Venema speaks of "the rite of immersion, iu which way it used to be adminis- tered by the apostles and first Christians" {Diss. Sac, b. ii., c. xiv. ). From his Eccle. His. we shall subsequently quote. QuEXSTEDirs. — "It is highly probable, if not certain, that John the Baptist and the apostles immersed the persons to be baptized into water. . . . Both the Eastern and the Western churches were very observant of the rite of immersion for a great number of years." — Antiq. Bib., part i., c. iv., § 2, WoLFius. — "That baptismal immersion was practised in the first ages of the Christian church, many have shown from the writings of the ancients. . . . Some learned Christians, therefore, have judged that the same rite of immersion should be recalled into practice at this day, lest the mystical signification of the ordinance shoidd be lost. . . . Here the apostle alludes to immersion in baptism, practised of old." — Curce, ad Rom. vi. 4, et Col. ii. 12. Altmann. — "In the iDrimitive church, persons to be baptized were not sprink- led, but entirely immersed in water; which was perfoi-med according to the example of John the Baptist. Hence all those allusions : seeing, by immersion, they plainly signified a burial ; by the following emersion out of the water, a resurrection ; and agreeably to these ideas are those passages of Scripture to be explained which refer to this rite (See Eom. vi. 3-5; Col. ii. 12; and Gal. iii. 27)."—Melet. Phil. Pit., tom. iii., Exei'c. in 1 Coi'. xv. 29, § 8. ViTRTNGA. — "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles." — ^jj/to?-. Sanct. Theol., Aph. 884. Eavanellus. — "In the first institution of baptism, when adult persons were chiefly baptized, and that in a warm country, immersion was used, as appears from 'Matt. iii. 16; Acts viii. 36, 38, 39 ; Horn. vi. 4, 5. But in the present age, in which infants are genei'ally baptized, and that in cold countries, aspersion is pi'actised." — Bihliotheca, sub voce, Bciptismus. LiMBORCH. — "Baptism, then, consists in ablution, or rather in immersion {im- mersione) of the whole body into water. For, formerly, those who were to be baptized, were accustomed to be immersed {immergi), with the whole body, in watei-." — Clcr. Theol., b. v., c. 67. HooRNBEEK. — "We do not deny that iu the first examples of persons baptized they went into the water, and were immersed." — Socin. Confut., b. iii., c. ii., § i., tom. iii., p. 268. Heidanus. — "That John the Baptist and the apostles immersed, there is no doubt, whose example the ancient chiirch followed, as is most evident from the testimony of the Fathers." — Corp. Theol. Chris., loc. xiv., tom. ii., p. 475. BuDDEUS. — "Concerning baptism, it is particularly to be observed, that in the apostolic church it was jjerformed by immersion into water; which, not now to mention other things, is manifest from this : The apostle seeks an image in this immersion, of the death and biu'ial of Christ, and of mortifying the old man, and raising up of the new (Kom. vi. 3, 4). There are, indeed, some authors who think otherwise, and contend that sprinkling was practised in the apostoKc church : to convince us of which, Dr. Lightfoot has left no stone imturned. But what may be said in answer to his arguments, has already ujipearcd in my Instiiu. Theol. Dog., b. v., c. i., § 5." — Eccle. Apos., c. vii., pp. 825, 826. H. ALTiNff. — "This baptismal washing, in warm countries and ancient times, was performed by immersion into water, a continuance under the water, and au emersion out of tlie water; as the practice of John the Bajjtist (^latt. iii. 6, 16; John iii. 23), of Christ's apostles (John iii. 22, iv. 1, 2), and of Philip (Acts viii. 38), and also the signification of these rites teach. (Rom. vi. 4.)" — Loci. Commun., pars ]., loc. xii., p. 199. J. Alting. — "Formerly in the Christian church they jnit on Clnist, being immersed." — Opera, tom. iv., p. 242. (See his Comm., Heb. ix. 10.) Grotius. — "That this rite was accustomed to be ])erformed by immersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the propriety of the word, from the places chosen for its administration (John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38), and from the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling. (Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 141 Col. ii. 12.) The custom of pouring or sprinkling appears to have obtained some time later, for the sake of those who, lying dangerously ill, desired to dedicate themselves to Christ: whom the rest called clinics. (See Cyprian's Epistle to Magnus.) Nor ought we to wonder that the ancient Latins used tinrjere for baptizare, since the Latin word t'lnrio properly and generally signifies the same as merso (to immerse, to overwhelm)." — Anno., on Llatt. iii. 6. HoLLAZirs. — "In the beginning of the primitive chm'ch, baptism was adminis- tered by immersion." — ThcoL, jiart iii., § ii., c. iv. JuKiEU. — The ancients "used to plunge themselves into the water, calling on the adorable Trinity" {Pas. Let., Let. v., p. 36). "Because baptism was then administered by immersion " (Let. vi., p. 42). " He that was baptized was plunged into the water." Le Clekc. — "The manner of baptizing at that time, by plunging into the water those whom they baptized, was an image of the burial of Jesus Christ." — On Rom. vi. 4. EoELL. — "It is certain that immersion into water, and emersion out of it, were practised iu Christian baptism in the beginning." — Excr/. Epis. ad Col., c. ii. 12. Pamelius. — "Whereas the sick, by reason of their illness, could not be immersed or plunged, which, properly speaking, is to be baptized, they had the saving water poured upon them, or were s^trinkled with it. For the same reason, I think, the custom of sprinkling now used iirst began to be observed by the Western church ; namely, on account of the tenderness of infants, seeing the baptism of adults was now very seldom practised." — Apud Forbesium, Instr. His. ThcoL, b. x., c. v., §57. PiCTETUS. — "As to the manner of administei'ing baptism, it was usual in ancient times for the whole body to be immersed in watei-. ... It must be confessed that such a rite most hai)pily represented that grace by which our sins are, as it were, drowned, and we raised again from the abyss of sin." — Theol. Chris., 1. xiv., c. iv., § 17. GuKTLERUS. — "The action in this element of water is immersion; which rite continued for a long time in the Christian church, until, in a very late age, it was changed into sprinkling: of which an example is hardly to be found in ancient history, except what relates to the clinics, or sick pei'sons, who, when confined to their beds, were to be initiated by the sign of the covenant of grace. Hence baptized persons are said to have ' descended into the water, and to be buried with Christ into death' (Matt. iii. 16; Acts viii. 38; Eom. vi. 4); for they who are immersed in water are covei'cd with it, and, as it were, buried in it, until they arise out of it."— Inst. Theol, c. xxxiii., § 117, 118. Momma, — -"They were wont to go down into the water. Philip and the eunuch went down into the water." — De Statu. Eccle., tom. ii., c. v., § 193. BoEHMEE. — "The place of admin istei-ing baptism was not the chm-ch, but a river, in which people were dipped in the presence of -witnesses." Clignetus. — "In the primitive times, persons baptized were entirely immersed in water." — Thesau. Dispu. Sedan,, tom. i., -p. 769. Castalio and Camekaeius. — "And were baptized; that is, they were immer- sed in water." — In Poole's Synop., on Matt. iii. 6. Beza. — " 'Ye have put on Christ.' This phrase seems to proceed from the ancient custom of plunging the adult, in baptism." — Anno., ad Gal. iii. 27. Masteicht. — "The sign representing, or the element in baptism, is water; the sign applying is washing, whether it be performed by immersion, which only was used by the apostles and primitive churches, ... or whether it be performed by sprinkling."— T/ffo?., b. vii., c. iv., § 9. Calvin. — "Here Ave perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients ; for they immersed the M^hole body in water" (Com., on Acts viii. 38). Again : "It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient chiirch." — Ins.,c. xv., § 19. Zepperus. — "It appears from the very signification and etymology of the term what was the custom of administering baptism in the beginning; whereas we now for baptism have rhantism, or sprinkling." — In Leigh's Crit. Sac., under Baptismos, Has^us. — "Though in the time of the apostles the custom was not known which prevailed in the following ages, namely, that persons, immediately after their baptism, Avere clothed with white garments, which thej'^ wore for a week afterward, and thence were called Albati, Candidati ; yet, seeing they were entirely 142 IMPORT OF BAPTISM, immersed in water, tliey could not be baptized witliont putting off, and again putting on, their clotlies." — Bibli. Bremens., class iv., pp. 1042, 1043. Leigh. — "The ceremony used in baptism is either clipping or sprinkling : dipping is the more ancient. At first, they went down into the rivers ; afterwards they were dipped in the fonts" {Body of Div., b. viii., c. viii., p. 665). Also, in his Critica Sacra, he says, under haptlsmos, that "in accordance with the derivation of the word, the custom in the beginning was to immerse, and not to sprinkle, as ^vith lis. " DiODATi. — "In baptism being dipped in water according to the ancient cere- mony, it is a sacred figure unto us, that sin ought to be drowned in us, by God's Spirit." — Anno., on Kom. vi. 4. DouTEiN'. — "How is this water administered to the baptized? Formerly it was done by dipping quite in ; but in our climate only by sprinkling. " — Scheme of Di. Truths, c. xxii., qiies. 24. Daille. — "It was a custom heretofore in the ancient church to plunge those they baptized over head and ears in the water." — Right Use of the Fathers, b. ii., p. 148. BossuET. — " The baptism of St. John the Baptist, which served for a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging. ... In fine, we read not in the Scripture that baptism Avas other^^dse administered ; and we are able to make it appear by the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus administered throughout the whole church, as far as was possible." — In Stennett's Ans. to Buss., pp. 175, 176. Weemse. — "When [in the primitive times] they were baptized, they went down into the water, and were baptized all over tlie body." — Expo, of Laws of Moses, h. i., c. xliv. Sir Thomas Ridley. — ' ' The rites of baptism in the primitive times were performed in rivers and fountains ; and this manner of baptizing the ancient church entertained from the example of Christ, who was baptized of John in Jordan." — In T. Lawson's BajJtls., p. 105. Bower. — "Baptism by immersion was undoubtedly the apostolical practice, and was never dispensed Avith by the church, except in case of sickness, or when a sufficient quantity of water could not be had. In both these cases, baptism by aspersion or sprinkling was allowed, but in no other." — His. of the Poj^es, vol. ii., p. 110. Note. Hardy. — " ' They were l)aptized,' that is, they were immersed in water. That this rite was commonly performed by plungiug, and not by pouring, is indicated both by the proper meaning of the word, and by the passages relating to the ordinance ; for the custom of sprinkling seems to have prevailed somewliat later in favour of those who desired to give up tliemselves to Christ, or to be baptized, when lying ill of disease; whom others called clinics." — Anno., on Matt. iii. 6. Dr. LiGHTFOOT. — "That the baptism of John was by plimging the body (after the same manner as the washing unclean persons and the baptism of proselji;es was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him ; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, that he baptized in ^Enon, because there loas omich ivater there; and that Christ being baptized, came up out of the ivater; to which that seems to be parallel. Acts viii. 38, PhiUp> and the eunuch went doron into the vmter, &c. Some complain that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of liaptism, or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging" (In Dr. A. Clarke's Com. , at the end of Mark ; and this is commended by Dr. Clarke). la there no justice in the complaint that a Divine appointment is superseded by a human invention ? Dr. TowERSON. — "The third thing to be inquired concerning the outward visible sign of baptism is, how it ought to be applied ; whether by an immersion, or an aspersion, or efi'usion ; — a more material question than it is commonly deemed by lis, who have been accustomed to bai)tize by a bare cflusiou, or sprinkling of water upon the party. For in things which depend upon the mere will and pleasure of Him who instituted them, there ought, no doubt, great regard to be had to the commands of Him who did so ; as without which there is no reason to presume we shall receive the benefit of that ceremony, to which He hath been pleased to annex it. Now, what the command of Christ was in this particular cannot well be doubted HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 143 of by those who shall consider the words of Christ (Matt, xxviii. 19) concerning it, and the practice of those times, whether in the bai)tism of John, or of our Saviour. For the words of Christ are, that they should baptize, or dijy, those whom they made disciples to him (for so, no doubt, the word baptizeiii properly signifies) ; and which is more, and not without its weight, that they should baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : thereby intimating such a washing as should receive the party baptized within the very body of the water which they were to be baptized with. Though if there could be any doubt respecting the signification of the words in themselves, yet would that doubt be removed by considering the practice of those times, whether in the baptism of John, or of our Saviour. For siich as was the practice of those times in baptizing, such in reason are we to think oiir Saviour's command to have been concerning it, especially when the words themselves incline that way ; there being not otherwise any means, either for those or future times, to discover His intention concerning it." "What the practice of those times was . . . wUl need no other proof than resorting to rivers, and other such like receptacles of water, for the performance of that ceremony, and that, too, ' because there was much water there. ' For so the Scripture doth not only affirm concerning the baptism of John (INIatt. iii. 5, 6, 13; John iii. 23), but both intimate concerning that which our Saviour administered in Judea (because making John's baptism and His to be so far forth of the same sort, John iii. 22, 23), and expressly affirm concerning the baptism of the evmucli, which is the only Chi-istian baptism the Scripture is in any way particixlar in the descrip- tion of. The words of St. Luke (Acts viii. 38) being, that ' both Philip and the eunuch went doAvn into a certain water,' which they met with in their journey, in order to the baptizing of the latter. For what need would there have been either of the Baptist's resorting to great confluxes of water, or of Phili^J and the eunuch's going down into this, were it not that the baptism both of the one and the other was to be performed by an immersion ? A very little water, as it doth with us, sufficing for an affiision, or sprinkling." Again: "But, therefore, as there is so much the more reason to represent the rite of immersion as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one that can answer the ends of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it ; so especially if (as is well known, and imdoubtedly of great force) the general practice of the primitive church was agreeably thereto, and the practice of the Greek church, to this very day. For who can think either the one or the other woidd have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite were it not that they were well assured, as they of the primitive church might very well be, of its being the only instituted and legitimate one." * ' The first mention we find of aspersion in the baptism of the elder sort was in the case of the clinici, or men v/ho received baptism upon their sick beds : and that baptism is represented by St. Cyprian as legitimate upon account of necessity that compelled it, and the pyrsumj^tion there was of God's gracious acceptance thereof because of it. By which means the lawfulness of any other baptism than Ijy immersion will be found to lie in the necessity there may sometimes be of another manner of administration of it." — Of the Sac. of Bap)., part iii., pp. 53-56, 58-60. Would tliat our present Psedobaptist professors, doctors, and others, before publishing their fallacies respecting the import of baj)tizo, and the practice of apostolic and subsequent times, would read these conces- sions from the candid and learned belonging to their own party. Chamieeus. — "Immersion of the whole body was used from the beginning, which expresses the force of the word baptize; whence John baptized in a river. It was afterwards changed into sprinkling, though it is uncertain when or by whom it commenced." — Panst. Cath., tom. iv., b. v., c. ii., § 6, Dcr Fresne. — "From the custom of baptizing by pouring or sprinkling the sick, who could not be immersed (which is properly baptism), was introduced the custom which now prevails in the Western church." — Lat. Glos., on the word CUnici. Dr. R. Wetham (a Roman Catholic writer). — "The word baptism signifies a washing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by dipping or plunging a thing under water, which was formerly the ordinary way of administering the sacrament of baptism. But tlie chiu-ch, which cannot change the least article of 144 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. the Christian faith, is not so tied up in matters of discipline and ceremonies. Not only the Catholic church, but also the pretended reformed churches, have altered this primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, and noAv allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling water on tlie persons baptized. Nay, many of their ministers do it now-a-days by filliping a wet finger and thumb over a child's head, or by shaking a wet finger or two over the child, which is hard enough to call a baptizing in any sense." — Anno, on iV. T., Matt. iii. 6. BoEHMER. — "The place of administering baptism was not a church, but a river, in which persons were dipped in the presence of witnesses." — In Jones's Eccle. His., vol. i.,p. 277. Dr. Priestley. — "This rite appears to have been generally, though probably not always, performed by dipping the whole body in water. ... It is certain that in very early times there is no particular mention made of any person being baptized by sprinkling only, or a partial application of water to the body." — His. Comip. , vol. ii. , pji. 60, 67. Dr. D. Scott. — "Tlie verb haptizo expresses the form of admitting a proselyte into the Christian church, which tradition assures us was by a trine immersion, or plunging imder water. JBut of late, aspersion, or sprinkling, is admitted by the Church of England instead of immersion, or dipping." — Ntxo Version of St. MatVs Gas., note on Matt, xxviii. 10. D. Rogers. — "None of old were wont to be sprinkled; and I confess myself unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for infants' sprinkling. It ought to l>e the church's part to cleave to the institution, which is dipping; and he betrays the church, whose officer he is, to a disorderly error, if he cleave not to the institution, which is to dip. That the minister is to dij^ in water, as the meetest act, the word haptlzo notes it : for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other act besides dipping, if the institution could bear it. What resemblance of the burial or resurrection of Christ is in sprinkling? All antiquity and Scripture confirm that way. To dip, therefore, is exceeding material to the ordinance ; which was the usage of old, without exception of countries, hot or cold." — In Dr. Russel's Just Vind. of Doc. and Prac. of John, &c. Epis. Dedi., p. 5. Ai'chb. TiLLOTSON. — " Anciently those who were baptized, . . . were immersed and buried in the water." — Works, vol. i. , Ser. vii. Bp. Sherlock. ^ — "Baptism, or our immersion into water, according to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our Ijurial with Christ, and of our conformity to His death, and so signifies our dying to sin and walking in newness of life." — Kno. of Chris f, c. iv., § i., ]>. 127. Dr. S. Clarke. — " We are buried idth Christ in hajyfism. In the primitive times, the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into the water ; and this manner of doing it Avas a very significant emblem of the dying and rising again referred to by St. Paul in the above-mentioned similitude." Bp. Nicholson. — "The sacrament of baptism was anciently administered by plunging into the water, in the AVestern as well as the Eastern part of the church. " — Let. to Sir W. Dugdale, in Camden's Britannia, p. 841. W. Gilpin (Prebendary of Salisbury). — "They used immersion in baptizing." — Lee. on the Ch. Cat., vol. ii., p. 170. Archb. Sharp. — "Whenever a person in ancient times was baptized, he was not only to profess his faith in Christ's death and resurrection, but he was also to look upon himself as obliged to mortify his former carnal affections, and so enter u])on a new state of life ; and the very form of baptism did lively represent this obligation. For what did his being i)lunged under water signify, but his under- taking, in imitation of Christ's death and burial, to forsake his former evil courses, as liis ascending out of the water did his engagement to lead a holy, spiritual life?" — Sermon, March 27th, 1692. Bp. Burnet. — "We know that i\\efrst ritual of baptism was by going into the waters, and being laid as dead l^ackwards all along in them: and then the persons baptized were raised up again, and so the}' came out of them." "The danger of dipping, in cold climates, may be a very good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling." (?) Dr. R. Newton. — "It must be confessed that in the primitive times, and in those hot countries where the Gospel was first preached, baptism for the most part was administered by dipping or plunging the person baptized into water." — Prac. Expo, of Cat. , p. 294. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 145 Bp. Taylor. — "The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion ; in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem, that they did not account it lawful to receive him into the clergy who had been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Autioch, apud Euse., b. vi., c. xliii. 'It is not lawful that he who was spi'inlded on his bed, by reason of sickness, should be admitted into holy orders.' Nay, it went farther than this : they were not siire that they were rightly christened, yea or no, who were only sprinkled; as appears in the same epistle of Cornelius in Eusebius, eige dire lege'ui tou toiouton eilephemd, which Nicephorus thus renders, If at least .suck a sprinkling may he called baptism. And this was not spoken in diminution of Novatus, and indignation against his person ; for it was a formal and solemn question, made by Magnus to Cyprian, whether they are to be esteemed right Christians who were only simnkled with water, and not washed or dipped. He [Cyprian] answers, that the baptism was good when it was done iu the case of necessity; God pardoning and necessity compelling." — Ductor Dub., h. iii., c. iv., r. XV., p. 644. Archb. Usher. — "Some there are that stand strictly for the particular action of diving or dipping the bajttized under water, as the only action which the institu- tion of the sacrament will bear ; and our church allows no other, except in case of the child's weakness; aud there is expressed in our Saviour's baptism both the descending into the Avater, and the rising up." — Sum and Subs, of the Chris. Bel., p. 413. 6th Edition. Dr. Hammo:nd. — "John baptized in a river, in Jordan (Mark i. 5), iu a confluence of much water (John iii. 23), because, as it is added, therx was much neater there; and, thei'efore, as the Jews, writing iu Greek, call those lakes wherein they wash themselves Icoluinbelhrai ; so in the Christian church, the bapt'isterion, or vessel which contained the baptismal water, is oft called kolumbethra, a swimming or diving place." — Anno., on Matt. iii. 1. If these quotations are considered too numerous, will the reader regard himself as being favoured with a sprinkling of them, or as being immersed in them % Bp. Stillingfleet. — "Rites aud customs apostolical arc altered; therefore men do not think that apostolical practice doth bind : for if it did, there coidd be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto." — Ircnicum, part ii., c. vi. , p. 34-5. Evans. — "In the church of Cranbrook is a large dipping-place, in which the persons, agi'ceable to the primitive mode, are to be immersed on the i^rofession of Christianity."— /iody was omitted only in the case of the sick who could not leave their beds. In this case, sprinkling was substituted, whicli was called dinie baptism. The Greek church, as well as the schismatics in the East, retained the custom of immersing the whole body; but the Western church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sjirinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted." "It was not till 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be inditferent." "In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never 2)ractiscd in oi'dinary cases l.tefore the Reformation. From Scotland it made its waj' into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was nut authorized by the Established Churcli. In the Asscmljly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adojjted; twenty-five voted for sprinkling, and twenty-four voted for immersion ; and even tliat small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great infiuence in the Assembly." — Ai't. Baptism. Ency. Ecclesi^i.sti(\v. — " Whatever weight may be in these reasons as a defence for the practice of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first ages of the church, and for many ages afterwards, the practice of iunncrsion prevailed ; and it seems, HISTORIC EVIDENCE, 147 indeed, never to be deparied from except when it was administered to a person at the point of death, or upon the bed of sickness. " ExcY. Perthexsis. — "In performing the ceremony [of baptism], the usual custom (except in clinical cases, or where there was scarcity of water) was to immerse and dip the whole body. ... To prevent any indecency, men and women were baptized apart ; and either the baptisteries were divided into two apartments, one for the men, tlie other for the women, as Bingham has observ'ed, or the men were baptized at one time, and the women at another, as is shown by Vossius, from the Ordo Romnnus, Gregory's Sacramentarlum, &c. There was also an order of deaconesses, one part of whose business was to assist at the baptism of women. These precautions, however, rather indicate a scrupulous attention to delicacy than imply any indecency in the circmnstauce of immersion itself. From the candidates being immersed, there is no reason to infer that they were naked. The present Baptists never baptize naked, though they always immerse." Referring to our own country, it is said: ' ' The custom of sprinkling children, instead of clipping them in the font, which at first was allowed in the case of the weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed that immersion is quite excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling, was that several of the Protestant divines, flj^ing into Germany and Switzerland duriug the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been slieltered and received ; and having observed that at Geneva and some other places baptism Avas administered 1 ly sprinkling, they thought that they could not do the Churcli of England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, together with the coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish entirely the practice of dipping infants in the font." Nati. Cyclo. — "The manner in which the rite was performed appears to have been at first by complete immersion." "It was the practice of the English, from the beginning, to immerse the whole bodJ^" E>'CY. Brit. — "In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual custom, except in clinical cases, or where there was scarcity of water, was to immerse the whole body. Thus St. Barnabas, describing a baptized person, says : 'We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we ascend bearing fruit in owt hearts.' And this practice of immersing tlie whole body was so general, that we find no exception made, from respect either to the tenderness of infants or the bashfulness of the other sex, unless in case of sickness or disability." "What iirincipally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling was, that several of our Protestant diA^ines, flj'iug into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and retiu'ning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back witli them a gi-eat zeal for the Protestant chm'ches beyond the sea, where they had been sheltered and received ; and ha\dng observed that at Geneva and other places baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater piece of service than l)y introducing a practice dictated by so great an authority as Calvin." — Art. Baptism. Penxy Cyclo. — "The manner in which it was performed appears to have been at first by a complete immersion." "It was the practice of tlie English chm'ch from the beginning to immerse the whole body. Tyndale, writing at the eve of the Reformation, speaks of it as a general practice, and says that the exceptions were in cases of sickness, when the water was only poured on the head of the infant. Dr. John Jones, ■m-iting in 1579, notices the fact that some of the old priests of that time were accustomed to dip the child very zealously to the bottom of the font. A few years later the practice was gi\'ing way, and the custom of sprinkling only becoming general." Dr. JonNSOX. — "As to giving bread only to the laity, they [the Papists] may- think that, in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience : and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration as we are to substitute sprinliling in the room of the ancient baptism." — Life, by Boswell, vol. ii., p. 499. Dr. PiEES. — "In primitive times this ceremony was performed by immersion." He nevertheless, without evidence, believed in a deviation from this when great numbers were baptized at the same time. He acknowledges that, "in the reign of 148 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. King Edward, the Established Church practised in oi'diuary cases trine immersion ; and jjouring or sprinkling was allowed only in cases of danger, in private." — Art. Bap. ViCECOMES, of Milan, says: "I will refute that false notion that baptism was administered in the iirinutive church by pouring or sprinkling." Baxter. — "We grant that baptism then [in the primitive times] was by washing the whole body; and did not the differences of our cold country, as to that hot one, teach us to reiuember, ' I will have mercy, and not sacrifice ; ' it should be so here." "It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabai)tists, as our commenta- tors declare, that in the apostles' times the baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signified their profession, both of believing the burial and resurrection of Christ; and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried aud risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth in the forecited texts of Col. and Eom. And though (as is befure said) Ave have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water, yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it." "For my own part, I may say as Mr. Blake, that I never saw a child sprinkled; but all that I have seen baptized had water poured on them, and so Avere washed."- — Para, on the N.T.,at Matt. iii. (3. Dispu. of Right to Sac. Plain iScrij'). Proof, p. 13-4. Poole. — "A great part of those Avho went out to hear John, were baptized, that is, dipped in .Jordan." "It is true the first baptisms of which we read in Holy Writ Avere by dippings of the persons baptized." — Com., on Matt. iii. G; xxviii. 19, 20. WiiiTBY (on Hom. A'i. 4). — "It being so expressly declared here, and Col. ii. 12, that Ave are buried tvith Christ in haptism by l>eing buried under Avater; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to Flis death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously obserA'^ed by all Cliristians for thii'teeu centuries, and ajiproA'cd by our church, aud the change of it into sprinkling cA^en Avithout any alloAvance from the author of this institution, or any licence from any coimcil of the chui-ch, being that Avhieh the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it Avcre to be Avished that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinic, or in present danger of death." — Com. It may be a relief to the monotonous but not unimportant cliaracter of these extracts, to introduce the following from the same author. Having pleaded, in his Protestant Reconciler, for some condescension to be made to Dissenters in order to reconcile them to the church, he adds : "And, on the other hand, if, uotAvithstauding the CAddence produced, that baptism by iramei-sion is suital)le both to the institution of our Lord and His apostles, and Avas by them ordained to represent our bui'ial Avith Christ, and so our dying \into sin, and our conformity to His resurrection by ncAvness of life, as the apostle doth clearly maintain the meaning of that rite, — I say if, notAA^thstanding this, all our Dissenters [meaning P;cdobaptists] do agree to sprinkle the baptized infant, Avhy may they not as Avell submit to tlic sigiiiHcaut ceremonies imposed by our chiu'ch ? For since it is as laAvful to add unto Christ's institutions a significant ceremony as to diminish a significnnt ceremony wliich He or His apostles instituted, and iise another in its stead which they never did institute, Avhat reason can they have to do the latter, and yet refuse submission to the former ? And Avhy should not the peace aud union of the church bo as ])revailing Avith them to jicrform the one as is their mercy to the infant's body to neglect the other ?" (p. 280.) Dr. DouDiuiiGE (on Ilom. A'i. 4). — "It seems the part of candour to confess that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by iuuncrsion- as most usual in these early times" (Ejp.). A\^o,\\\\dii Lectures: "The most considerable argument in favour of immersion is that it was i)raetised in the primitive ages. Several texts in the New Testament ])lainly declare this : Matt. iii. G, IG ; .John iii. 23 ; Acts A-iii. 8G-39. And it appears by the Fathers that this Avas at least generally retained till clinic baptism, i.e., a baptism of the sick in their beds, took place." " It Avill appear, hence, that they Avho practise baptism by immersion are by no means to be condemned on that account, since, on the Avhole, that mode of baptism is evidently faA'oured by scriptural examples " (Lee. 202). HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 149 BuEKiTT. — "Observe tlie maunei- of the aiTministration of baptism to the eunuch : he went down into the water, and was l>aptized by Philip. In those hot countries it was usual so to do." — Exjio., on Acts viii. 38. Dr. G. Campbell.- — "I have heard a disputant of tliis stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more i:)roperly to si^rinkle than to plunge ; and, in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earlier, and for many centuries the most general jiractice in baptizing." — Lee. on >S'//.9. Theol. and Piil. IJloqu., p. 480. Wesley.- — "Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized, according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour." — Journal, p. 11. Dr. A. Clarke (on Rom. vi. 4). — "It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion. " "Baptism among the Jews, as it was performed in tlie coldest weather, and the persons were kept under water for some time," &c. — Com., on Matt. xx. 22. J. LiNGARD (Roman Catholic), writing to Dr. Barrington, the Bishop of Durham, says : " From the expressions of Scripture, and the ju-aetice of the lirst Ciiristiaus, it is evident that the sacrament of baptism was, in tlie lirst institution, conferred by inmiersiou. "• — In Peng., p. 71. Note. Elsley, on Matt. iii. G, i-efers to " a long and curious note of Lightfoot" on this l^assage, for ' ' reasons why sprinkling may properly have taken place of total im- mersion."— Anno., on Matt. iii. 0. J. Glyde. — "Except in cases of sickness, when sprinkling was substituted for it, immersion, regarded as being the most exact and complete fulfilment of the com- mand of Christ, was the only mode of administering liaptism for many centuries" (On Bap., pp. 9, 10). We naturally ask. If sprinkling had been regarded as of apostolic origin, why should it have been limited to the sick ? S. Bromley (on Christ's baptism). — "Now, while going out of the water (in which he had doubtless been immersed) in the act of prayer, the heavens opened above his head," &c.^ — Life of Christ. Uenee. — "In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolic action shows." — In Wal., on Bap., p. 39. Dr. G. Hill. — "In one circumstance respecting the mode of administering bap- tism, the greater part of Christians have departed from primitive practice. " "There is reason to believe that immersion was more commonly practised at the beginning." — Lee. in Dii\, vol. ii., p. 334. Bp. Heber, in his Life of Jeremy Taylor. — "He evidently regretted, as Wesley afterwards did, the discontinuance of the ancient i^ractice of immersion, and even of dipping three times in honour of the Trinity. Like Wesley, he condemns the ]tractice of sprinkling altogether, as contrary both to the analogy of the ceremony, the apostolic tradition, and the canons of the English and Irish Chui'ch." — In Tex. of Em. Pm., p. 33. Bretschneider. — " The apostolic church baptized only Ijy immersion." — Tlieoh, vol. i., p. 684. Attgustl — "The word baptism, according to the etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c., and the clioice of the word betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not lieen introduced." — In Wal., on Bap., p. 37. Hahn. — "According to apostolic instruction and example, baptism was per- formed by immersing the whole man." — Theol., p. .556. TiiOLUCK (on Rom. vi. 4). — "For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circum- stance that in the early days of the church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below, and then raised above the water." Rheinwald. — "Baptism was administered by immersion ; only in case of neces- sity by sprinkling." " Immersion was the original apostolical practice." — Archaol., pp. .302, 303. Fritsche. — "With infant baptism still another change in the outward form of baptism was introduced, that of sprinkling with water, instead of the former practice of immersion."— 5i6. Theol, vol. iii., p. 507. Storr AND Flatt. — "The disciples of our Lord could understand His command in no otlier manner than as enjoining immersion ; for the baptism of John, to which Jesus himself submitted, and also the earlier baptism (John iv. 1) of the disciples 150 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of Jesus, were performed by dipping tlie subject into cold water, as is evidenced from the following passages: — Matt. iii. G, 'were baptized in Jordan;' ver, 16, ' Jesus ascended out of the \\ater ; ' John iii. 23, ' Ijecause there was much water there.' " "And that they actually did understand it so is proved partly by those passages of the New Testament which evidently allude to immersion : — Acta viii. 36, 'when they had come up out of the water;' ver. 39; Rom. vi. 4, 'are buried with Him (Christ) by Ijaptism, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead,' &c. ; com p. Col. ii. 12, and partly from the fact that immersion was so customary in the ancient church, that even in the third century the baptism of the sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, was entirely neglected by some, and by others was thought inferior to the baptism of those who were in health, and who receive baptism not merely l>y aspersion, but who actually bathe themselves in water." The same writo's add : ' ' Moreover, the old custom of immersion was also retained a long time in the Western church, at least in the case of those who were not indisposed. And even after aspersion had lieen fully introduced in a part of the Western churches, there yet remained several who for some time adhered to the ancient custom. Under these circumstances, it is certainly to be lamented that Luther was not able to accomplish his wisli with regard to the introduction of immersion in baptism as he had done in the restoration of wine in the eucharist. " ~Blh. Theol.,ix2lG. Knapp. — "Immersion is peculiarly agi'eeable to the institution of Christ, and to the practice of the apostolic church, and so even John baptized, and immersion remained common for a long time after; except that in the third century, or perhaps earlier, the bajitism of the sick {haptlsma cUnlcorum) was performed by sjn-inkling or affusion. Still, some would not acknowledge this to be true baptism, and controversy arose concerning it, so unheard of was it at that time to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first defended baptism by sprinkling, when necessity called for it, but cautiously and with much limitation. By degrees, however, this mode of baptism became more customary, probably because it was foiiud more convenient ; especially was this the case after the seventh century and in the Western church ; but it did not become universal untU the commencement of the fourteenth century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had ajiproved and promoted this inno- vation more than a hundred years before. In the Greek and Eastern churches they still held to immersion. It would have been better to have adhered generally to the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin allowed." — C'/n: TJieol., p. 428. WiNEK. — -"In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical explanation shows." "Affusion was at first applied onbj to the sick, but was gradually introduced for others after the seventh century, and in the thirteenth became the jirevailing practice in the West. But the Eastern church has retained immersion alone as valid." — 31. S. Lee. on Archceol. Olshau.sen. — "John's baptism was in all j)robability like Christian baptism, not only in this, that in it the liaptizing party pei'formed the immersion on the baptized," &c. "The one-half of the action — the submersion — represents the negative aspect, viz., the taking away of the old man (Rom. vi. 4); in the other part — the emersion — the positive aspect, ... is denoted." — Com., on Matt. iii. 1, 16, 17. Chalmers. — -"The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion; and though we regard it as a point of indifferency whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." — Lee. on Horn. On Rom. vi. 4. Dr. WoOD.s. — " Our Baptist brethren undertake to prove from ecclesiastical history that immersion was tlic prevailing mode of baj^tism in the ages following the apostles. I acknowledge that ecclesiastical liistoiy clearly proves this. And I am very willing to acknowledge, also, that immersion might be one of the modes of baptism, and perhaps the prevailing one, used in the time of Christ and the apostles, and that the Christians in the following ages probably derived it from them. " — In Hinton's His. of Bap. , p. 36. Dr. Stuart, after quoting a number of the Fathers, says : " But enough. It is, says Augusti, a thing made out, namely the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughl,y investigated this subject conchule. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly and certainly HISTOKIC EVIDENCE. 151 made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines the subject, to deny this" (On Bap., ji. 359). Elsewhere he says: "In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ from a very early period, to say the least, imder- stand the word bcqyfizo in the New Testament ? Plainly, they understood it as meaning immersion." — Bib. Rep., p. 662. Dr. BuNSEN. — "In the East, peo])le adhered to immersion. The Western chiu'ch, which evidently commenced her career under the giiidauce of Rome, . . . abolished. . . immersion, and introduced sprinkling in its stead" (Hippol., vol. iii., p. 203). Also, in his letters to Arndt, on the *S7^«.s of the Times, he says, resijecting "the modern Baptists:" "As regards their form of government, they ai-e, as every one knoAVS, Independents, who perform the rite of bajitism, like the primitive Christians, by immersion."* Dr. Laxge. — "Baptism, in the apostolic age, was a proper baptism — the immer- sion of the body in water." — On Injf. Bap., p. 81. E. H. Landon. — "Baptism. . . . Originally it was always confeiTed by immer- sion. . . . The universal practice of the church for nearly twelve centui'ies was to baptize by immersion : but in two cases a mitigation of this rale was allowed : first, when sick persons were to be baptized ; in their case affusion was alloAved. This was called clinic baptism. And, secondly, in cases where sufficient water for immersion coiild not be obtained." — Eccle. Die. Art. Bap. The Quarterly E,eview, for June, 1S54, on MiLman's Latin Christianity, says: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters ; and that for at least foiu* centuries any other form was either unknown, or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To this form the C4reek church still rigidly adheres, and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine empii'e, absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid. The Latin church, on the other hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of a northern climate, to the change of manners, to the con- venience of custom, has wholly altered the mode, surrendering, as it could fairly say, the letter to the spirit — jireferring mercy to sacrifice ; aud with the exception of the cathedral of Milan, and the sect of the Baptists, a few di'ops of water are now the Western substitutes for the three-fold plunge into the gushing river or the ■wide baptisteries of the East." J. Hewlett. — "Baptism was at first performed by immersing the whole body." — Com., on Eom. vi. 3. Dr. Hook. — " The place of baptism was at first unlimited, being some pond ot lake, some spring or river." " Afterwards, the baptistery was built, at the entrance of the church, or very near it ; which had a large basin in it, that held the persons to be baptized, and they went down by steps into it. Afterwards, when immersion came to be disused, fonts were set up at the entrance of chui'ches." "Though immersion was the usual practice, yet sprinkling was in some cases allowed, as in clinic baptism, or the baptism of such persons as lay sick in bed" {Die. Art. iBap>.). "Clinical i^erfiision," says Dr. Carson, "could never have been introduced as a substitute for baptism had not Puseyism been previoTisly introduced." I. Taylor says that, "instead of a regular and slow development of error, there was a very eaiiy expansion of false and pernicious notions in their mature proportions, and these attended by some of their worst fruits." — Anc. Chris., pp. 103, 104. Bp. CoLENSO. — "In holy baptism, the ' outward visible sign ' of water, in which the person in those days [apostolic times] was immersed, or, as it were, bm-ied, is the sign, indeed, of our dying and rising again" (Trans, and Exp. of Rom. ; on vi. 4). Grievously heretical on the Pentateuch, yet Dr. C. makes truth- ful assertions on the historic fact of immersion. Dr. Macbeide. — "Immersion, . . . which so significantly represents 'our death unto sin, and our rising to ne\\Tiess of life,' was that of the primitive Christians." — Lee. on the Diat., p. 187. * " This is not a question in which German neology or philosophy spoils the value of the opinion given ; it is a question of exact knowledge of antiquity. In this knowledge the scholars of no other country equal the Germans." Historic quotations are given in some Posdobaptist concessions previously adduced. The reader who chooses can re-peruse them. 152 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. E. Robinson. — "In the primitive cliurclies, where, according to Oriental habits, bathing was to them what washing is to ns, the rite appears to have been ordinarily, though not necessarily, performed by immersion."- — 7.r,T. Art. Dap. Dr. Bloomfielp (on Matt. iii. 0). — "Ebcqytizonto. This, with the- Jews, was always effected, not by sprinkling, but by immersion." — Crif. Dig., on Matt. iii. 6. Dr. Halley. — "Their practice of immersion forbids lis to account for their language by supposing that a conventional use of the term had grown up in accord- ance with the customs of the chui-ch. They did immerse, for they seem as if they could not have made too much use of the holy water. With one immersion not content, tliey observed the trine immersion as the sacramental emblem of the Trinity " (p. 340). Dean Alfokd. — "The baptism was administered by the immersion of the whole person." — Gr. Tes. Matt. iii. 6. Dean Stanley. — "If from the general scene we turn to the s]iecial locality of the river banks, the I'eason of John's selection is at once explained. He came ' baptizing,' that is, signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their former sins." "There began that sacred rite which has since spread throughout the world, through the vast baptisteries of the southern and oriental churches, gradually dwindling to the little fonts of the north and west, the plunges beneath the water diminishing to the few drops which by a wise exercise of Christian freedom are now in most churches the sole representative of the descending river" {Sinai and Pales., \i]). 304-306). " There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters ; and that for at least four centuries any other form was either imknown, or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstroiis case " {East. Church, p. 44). How accordant the above with Milton's speaking of Christ's "burial, in which He was immersed, as it were, for a season." Also, in his treatise on Christian Doctrine, Milton says : "Under the Gospel, the first of the sacraments, commonly so-called, is baptism, wherein the bodies of believers who engage themselves to pureness of life are immersed." Bp. Browne. — "The language of the New Testament, and of the primitive Fathers, sufficiently jioints to immersion as the common mode of baptism." CoNYBEARE AND HowsoN. — "It is nccdless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water, to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial, to represent his resurrection to the life of righteous- ness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of Ijaptisra . . . has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages of Scripture." — Life and Ejns. of Paid, vol. i., c. xiii. It is matter for thankfulness that all Predobaptists are not like some who in immersion appear to think of nothing but a putting into the water, as if a covering with it and an emerging from it were nonentities. When the words "buried" and "raised up" are mentioned, although by an ins2:)ired apostle, they are confused, if not confounded. Their thoughts seem never to reach to the man in the water, or rising up out of the water. They stick fast in the idea of putting into. If the blinding influence of prepossessions will not allow an ins^m-ed apostle, whose language is so lucidly explained and forcibly expressed by some of their own brethren adduced, to dii-ect their thoughts further, what can insignificant mortals like ourselves accomplish in this matter ! That we subscribe to evei-ything in tiie writers quoted, it wdll not be believed. We accept their testimony to the fact of immei'sion being meant whenever baptism in Holy Writ is mentioned; or their testimony to the fact of immersion Ijeing the practice of the cluirch for some ages after the apostles, without admitting that the alteration which has taken place is a wise exercise of Christian freedom. Similarly we accept their HISTOBIC EVIDENCE. ^ 153 testimony to the fact that affusion oi- aspersion (we believe affiision) Avas first adopted instead of immersion in the case of afflicted or dying persons who desired the Christian ordinance, and that this baptism, if it might be so called, was at first deemed imperfect, and was exclusively administered to the afflicted, and that the first record of such a departure from i:)rimitive immersion is in the case of Novatian, about a.d. 250; and that exceptional cases increased, until at length, throughout the Western or Eomish church, in tlie 13th or 14th century, pouring or sprinkling was a common practice. But after giving a few lines from the Friends, whose testimony, we conceive, sliould be regarded as impar- tial, we shall extract from writings more directly historical. Wm. Penx. — There is "not one text of Scripture to prove that sprhikling in the face was the water baptism, or that children were the su])jectsof water baptism in tlie first times."- — Def. ofGos. Truths. Thos. Lawsox. — "John the Baptist, that is, John the clipper, so called because he was authorized to baptize in water. . . . Such as rhautize, or sprinkle infants, have tio command from Christ, nor example among the apostles, nor the first primitive Christians, for so doing. . . . Sec the aiithor of rhantism, that is, sprink- ling ; not Christ, nor the apostles, but Cyprian ; not in the days of Christ, but some two hundred and thirty years after." — Bap., pp. 7, 75, 117. These Friends, whose testimony accords with that of Grattan, Ellwood, and, as we believe, with that of every other Friend who has alluded to this, are not only historically, b\it j^hilologically, coi-rect. How diflerent from the PsedolDaptist quoted by Hanbury, who says that "no one is fully baptized without pouring, sprinkling, and washing." — His. Memo., vol. ii., p. 271. G. We shall cite a few of those whose woi-ks ai'e professedly historic. A brief extract we shall first give from three Baptist historians. The reader may judge of their correctness by comparing them with Psedo- baptist preceding or succeeding testimony. Crosby. — "I have traced the practice of the British churches relative to bap- tism, from their commencement to the time that sprinkling was first introduced among them ; and I find that in the first three centuries no other rite was used as baptism but that of immersion ; and no other subjects were baptized but those of adults upon a profession of their faith : and after the subjects were changed, and infant baptism was introduced by a massacre of almost all those that refused to comply with the change, yet immersion was continued for about twelve hundred years. " EoEixsox. — '"Immersion, in the Church of Rome, stood by law established till the latter end of the eighth century. Then poitring was tolerated in cases of necessity. In this country, sprinkling was never declared valid, ordinary baptism, till the Assembly of Divines, in the time of Cromwell, influenced by Dr. Lightfoot, pronounced it so. Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry the Eighth ; Prince (after- wards King) Edward the Sixtli ; and Princess (afterward Queen) Elizabeth, were all baptized by immersion'' {His. of Bap., p. 525). He mentions even mockeries of baptism as evidence in favour of immersion. "In an history of the Byzantine theatre, it is said that, in the year 297, the players at a theatre in a city of Asia diverted the pagan spectators with a mock baptism. For this purpose, they pro- vided a large bathiug-tul>, filled it with water, and plunged Gelasirius into it, to the no small diversion of the comjjany." "It is also recorded of one Porphyry, a pagan player, that he grew to such an height of impiety, that he adventm-ed to baptize himself in jest upon the stage, on purpose to make the people laugh at Christian baptism, and so to bring both it and Christianity into contempt ; and for this purpose he plunged himself into a vessel of water which he had placed on the stage, calling aloud upon the Trinity, at which the spectators fell into great 154 IMPOKT OF BAPTISM. laugliter. But lo ! the goodness of God to tliis profane miscreant ! It pleased God to show such a demonstration of His jiiower and grace upon him, that this sporting baptism of his Ijecame a serious laver of regeneration to him, inasmuch as from that of a graceless plaj'cr he l^ecame a gracious Christian ; and not long after he received the crown of martyrdom" (pp. 433, 437, &c. ). "The administration of baptism by sprinkling was first invented in Africa in the third century, in favour of clinics, or bed-ridden people ; but even the African Catholics, the least enlightened, and the most depraved of all Catholics, derided it, and reputed it no baptism " (p. 449). "The absolute necessity of dipping, in order to a valid baptism, and the indispensable necessity of baptism, in order to salvation, were two doctrines which clashed. Therefore, a thousand ingenious devices have been invented to administer baptism by sprinkling in extraordinary cases. It would shock the modesty of people unused to such a ceremony to relate the law of the case. ... A humane doctor of divinity and laws, of Palermo, in 1751, published at Milan, in the Italian tongue, a book of 320 pages in quarto, dedicated to all the guardian angels, to direct priests and phj'^sicians how to secure the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them when they could not be born" (p. 430). HiNTON. — "It is true that the firactice of immersing three times prevailed in a very early age ; but surely this was no approximation to sprinklmg. TertuUian admits that it was doing somewhat more than the Gospel required. Basil {De Sp. Sane, c. xxvii.) and Jerome [Contra Luc'if., c. iv.) place it among those rites of the church derived from apostolic tradition. Chrysostom {Horn. deFlde., tom. vii., p. 290) seems rather to refer it to the words of the commission. Theodoret {Hceret. Tab. Lib. iv., c. ii. , p. 236) was of the same opinion. The practice of trine immersion pre- vailed, in the Wesfa as well as the East, till the fourth Council of Toledo, which, acting imder the advice of Gregory the Great, in order to settle some disputes which had arisen, decreed that henceforth only one immersion should be used in baptism ; and from this time the practice of one immersion only gradually became general through the Western or Latin church." "It is as needless, as it would be endless, to multiply ciuotations from the Fathers relating to the maiform practice of immersion, excepting only in case of danger' of death. Because some instances of this kind ai'e found, they have been spoken of as thoixgh they sustained the position that it was immaterial whether sprinkling or immersion were j^erformed; while, on the con- trary, they present the clearest evidence that immersion was dispensed with only because, while the ordinance was deemed essential to salvation, immersion was in these cases impracticoable. The case of Novatiau, as stated by Eusebius, will serve as an instance. Literally translated, it reads thus: '"Wlio, assisted by the exorcists (having fallen into a dangerous disease, and being supposed near to death), received [baptism], being jyottred round (perikytJieis) on the bed on which he lay; if, indeed, it is proper to say that such a one could receive [baptism].' There is no word in the original for baptism, nor is it at all certain that this word ought to be supplied ; indeed, there is the strongest probability that it ought not to lie supplied, for baptism, when Eusebius ^n'ote, meant immersion ; and, consequently, there was a manifest reason for omitting the word altogether. The sense would be given by inserting after received ^tlie ordinance,' or some word of like import. This passage is a proof that, in the time of Eusebius, baptism was still understood to describe an act, as well as to designate a rile; and, thei'efore, Novatian could not be said to be baptized. The following is a translation of a note of Valetius on the word perikythels : 'Eufinus rightly translates this perfusum (poured about). For those who were sick were baptized in bed ; since they could not be immersed by the priest, they were only i)oured about (perfundlbantur) Avitli water. Therefore, Ijaptism of this kind was not customary, and was esteemed imperfect, as being what appeared to be received by men labouring \mder delirium, not willingly, but from fear of death. In addition, since baptism jiroperhj signifies immersion, a pour- ing of tills sort could hardly he called baptism. Wherefore clinics (for thus were they called who had received baptism of this sort) were forbidden to be promoted to the rank of the Presbytery by the twelfth canon of the Council of Neo Csssarea.'" "Nothing can be more striking, as evidence of immersion being deemed the only legitimate baptism except in cases of the greatest emergency, than the exjiressiou used by Eusebius — perlluthels, j^ourcd about: clearly an application of water generally to the body, and not to the face only ; which, had it been the case with Novatian, would have been sure to have been mentioned, as it was designed to HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 155 invalidate his baptism as much as possible, and no term limiting the application of water to the face is employed. Baronius observes of cases of this kind, that 'those who were baptized upon their beds were not called Clmstians, but clinks.' All the excejitions to immersion which are to be found, are upon the principle of danger of death, or other absolute necessity, and do, therefore, but contirm the rule. Even the reasonings of Cyprian on this point, \\ath which Dr. Miller is so delighted, are entirely founded on the cases of those who had been baptized on their sick beds. The sole reason v/hy the Fathers 'poured about' individuals on sick beds was, that they fully believed baptism to be essential to salvation ; those A^ho follow their 2}ractlce certainly eucoui'age the belief from which that practice arose. The Scrip- tures contain no intimation that either of the ordinances is to be introduced to the chamber of sickness and death. Each is a jrablic commemorative act; not a 'viaticum,' a passport to heaven." — His. of Bap., pp. 152-155. Eede, the Saxon liistorian, born A. D. 672 — the veneral)le Bede, who lived before the controversy between Baptists and Ptedobaptists had assumed its present shape, ■ — after giving an accoimt of Paulinus's baptizing King Edwin at York, in the year 627, informs us that the king's sons, and many of the nobles, and a great number of other persons, were baptized at various times, by the said Paulinus, in the river Glen, and in the river Swale, and in the river Trent {Eccle. His., pp. 158, 159, 164. Steven's Edition). Along with the foUoAving we might have introduced some of the previous Psedobaptist concessions in the archteological extracts. SvMSON, a Scotch historian, in the account he gives of the Fourth Council of Toledo, which was held in the year 639, says : ' ' Concerning the rites iised in bap- tism,-— some iisiug the ceremony of thrice dipping in water, others once dipping only, — it was thought expedient to be content with one dipping, because the Trinity is so lively represented in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that there is no necessity for three dippings in water to represent the Trinity." — His. of the Church, cent. 7, p. 527. TuENER. — "The Anglo-Saxons baptized by immersion. Prince (afterwards King) Ethelred was plimged." — His. of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii., p. 34. SiBBALD, in his History of Fife, referring to tlie Culdees, who first planted the Cxospel there, says: "And without the ceremonies iised by the Romanist, they baptized in any water they came to, as the same Bede shows (lib. ii., c. xiv.)." And Maule (quoted by Sibbald) says : "The Culdees had no certain settlement, but travelled on foot through the provinces, preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments after the manner of the primitive church." Dr. Jamieson, in his accoimt of the Culdees, referring to Sibbald's words given above, says: "It has been supposed from the language of Bede, that 'without the ceremonies used by the Romanist, they baptized in any water they came to.' This is confii'med by the complaint which Lanfranc, Archl)ishop of Canterbury, makes concerning the Irish Christians who were taught by the Culdees. ' Infants,' he says, ' are bajjtized by immersion -nathout the consecrated chrism ' " (Lanfranc died in 1089). Also, Dr. Jamieson, on Primitive Christians, says: "The place where the rite was performed was long as vmsettled and fluctuating as the time ; the ordinance being administered indifferently in a hoiise or a prison, by a river- side or the sea-shore [this expression we regard as somewhat equivocal], in salt water or in fresh, according to the convenience or situation of the party. But in after-times, when the form of Christian worship was duly established, it was usual to administer the ordinance in a baptistery or font belonging to the church, situated at first in the porch, as emblematical of the rite being the entrance into the society of the faithful ; but aftei'wards fenced in the body of the church itself. It was a spacious receY)tacle, contrived as well for the accommodation of several persons at a time, which the number of the candidates often made necessary, as adapted to the mode of baptizing then generally adopted. In situations where there was a scarcity of water, or in cases of sickness or imminent danger, the oi'dinance was administered by sprinkling; and this being in the latter circumstances generally performed at the bed-side of the convert, received the name of clinic baptism, — a form which, however necessary it was considered, was yet looked upon as imperfect, and as interposing an obstacle to the future advancement of the person so baptized to any of the offices of the ministry. With the exception of sucli cases, however, the mode which seems to have been most prevalent was by immersion ; and while, from the greatest number of the primitive Christians being natives of the warm 15G IMPORT OF BAPTISM. climates of the East, it was most suited to their habits to phiiige the whole body under water, it was thought that this practice more fully answei-ed to the idea of heing buried with Christ in baptism; and their coming oixt of the element, to that of rising vnth Him to newness of life. Tlie wooden structure in which it was performed, was divided by a partition wall, for the oi'derly and decent accommodation of the persons about to l)e baptized. The men were waited upon by deacons, the women by deaconesses" (pp. 138, 139). Since we have in Scripture no command respecting the places or days of baptism, we are assuredly at perfect lilierty to accept suitable accommodation for the decent and orderly administration of this ordinance when- ever and wherever we please. Hales, in Annals of Scotland, states that in Canons of Councils, held at Perth in 1242 and 1296, there were instructions for the administration of baptism in which the following words occur: — "Before the immersion, the foresaid woi-ds are to be said." CoDEAU, in his Ilisforij, informs us that in the times of Charles the Great, baptism was conferred )jy plunging into the watei', and not Ijy pouring it on tlie head, or by sprinkling. — In Steunett's Answer to Bussen, p. IGO. Dr. Gregory, speaking of the first century, says: "The initiatory rite of baptism was publicly performed by immersing the whole body." — His. of the Church, vol. i., p. 53. Magdeburg Centuriators. — "The Son of God was dipped in the water of Jordan l>y the hand of John the Baptist." — Cent, i., 1. i., c. iv., p. 118. J. LiNGARD, in Historij and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, says: "The regular manner of administering it was by immersion ; the time, the two eves of Easter and Pentecost ; the place, a baptistery, a small l)uilding contiguous to the church, in which had been constructed a convenient bath called a font. ^Vllen an adult solicited baptism, he was called upon to profess his belief in the true God, by the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed; and to declare his intention of leading a life of piety, by making a threefold renunciation of the devil, his works and pomps. He then descended iiito the font ; the priest depressed his head three times below the surface, saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In the baptisni of children the same rites were observed, with a few necessary variations. . . . The priest himself descended into the water, which reached to his knees. Each child was successively delivered undressed into his hands, and he plunged it thrice into the water, pronounced the mysterious words, and then restored it to its sponsors. . . . Such were the canonical regidations with respect to the administration of baptism." — VoLi.,p. 317. BiN'GHAM, having described the accommodations with which the ancient bajitis- teries were provided, such as distinct apartments for the men and the women, the vestments to be worn Ijy the candidates after baptism, the attendance of deaconesses iipon the females, says: "They were usually baptized by immersion, or dipping of their whole bodies under water, to represent the death, Ijurial, and resurrection of Christ, together and therewith to signify their own dying imto sin, the destruction of its 2)ower, and the resurrection to a new life. Thei-e are a great many passages in the Epistles of St. Paul which jilainly refer to this custom. And as this was the original apostolical practice, so it continued to be the xiniversal practice of the church for many ages, upon the same syralx)lical reasons as it was first used by the apostles. Indeed, the church was so punctual to this rule, that we never read of any exception l)eingmade to it in oi'diuary ca.se3 ; no, not in the baptism of infants. For it ap]iears from the Ordo Bomanns, and (Jregory's Sacramenfarium, that infants, as well as others, were ba]»tized by inunersion; and the rules of the churcli, except in cases of danger, do still recpiire it. But in two cases, a mitigation of tJiis rule was allowed: iu cases of sickness aiul extreme danger of liio."—Orig. Eccle., vol. i., b. XV., c. xi. ^'ESE1IA. — "It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive church was administered ]»y immersion into water, and not by sjirinkling; seeing John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much vxitvr, as Christ also did by His disciples in the neighbourhood of those places (Matt. iii. and John iii.). Philip also going doicn into the water, baptized the eunuch (Acts viii.). To which also the apostle refers (Rom. vi.). . . . Nor is there any necessity to have recourse to tlie idea of sprinkling in our interpretation of Acts ii. 41, when three thousand souls HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 157 are said to be added to Christ by baptism ; seeing it might be i>erformed by immer- sion equally as by aspersion, especially as they are not said to have been baptized at the same time. . . . The essential act of baptizing, in the second century, con- sisted not in sprinlding, but in immersion into water, in the name of each person in the Trinity. Concerning immersion, the words and phrases that are used sufficiently testify ; and that it was performed in a river, a pool, or a fountain. ... To the essential rite of baptism, in the third century, pertained immersion, and not aspersion ; except in cases of necessity, and it was accoiinted a /(c/(/'-perfect baptism. . . . Immersion, in the fourth ccntuiy, was one of those acts that were considered as essential to baptism ; nevertheless, aspersion was used in the last moments of life, on such as wei-e called clinics, and also where there was not a suflicient quantity of water. . . . Beveridge, on the fiftieth apostolical canon, asserts that the ceremony of sprinkling began to be used instead of immersion about the time of Pope Gregory, in the sixth century, but without producing any testimony in favour of his assertion; and it is undoubtedly a mistake." — His. Eccle., sec. i., § 138; ii., § 100 ; iii., § 51 ; iv., § 110 ; viii., § 200. Dr. Wall. — "Their [the primitive Christian.?] general and ordinary way was to ba])tize Ijy immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant, or grown man, or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavours of such Pajdobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disovrn and show a dislike of the jnofane scoffs which some people give to the English Anti-Pa;dobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. It is one thing to maintain that that circumstance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of baptism, and another, to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent ; when it was, in all probability, the way by which our blessed Saviour, and, for certain, was the most usual and ortliuai'y way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. ... It is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. . . . It is plain that the ordinary and general practice of St. John, the apostles, and primitive church, was to baptize by ]iutting the person into the water, or causing him to go into the water. Neither do I know of any Protestant who has denied it ; and but very few men of learning that have denied that, where it can be used with safety of health, it is the most fitting way. . . . John iii. 23, Mark i. 5, Acts viii. 38, are Kndeniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily into the water, and sometimes the baptist too. We should not know by these accounts whether the whole body of the baptized was put imder water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, • which seem to me to put it out of question. One, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial ; which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive them to have gone into the water only up to the arm-pits, &c., as it is if their whole body was immersed. The other, tlie custom of the near-succeeding times. ... As for sprink- ling, I say as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, Let them defend it that 2ise if. . . . They [who ai-e inclined to Presl)yterianism] are hardly prevailed on to leave off that scandcdous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a basin, or porringer, in a bed-chamber; hardly persuaded to bring them to church ; much farther from having them dijiped, though never so able to end\ire it." Again: " France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion M'as used ordinarily to persons in health, and iu the public way of administering it." "It being allowed to weak children" (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) "to be baptized by aspersion, many fond ladies, and gentlewomen, first, and then, by degrees, the common people, Avoidd obtain the favour of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after forty-one. They [the Assembly of Divines in Westminster] refoi-med the font into a basin. This learned assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had always been iised by the primitive Christians long before * In oiu- judgment, the evident meaning of baptize is sufficient proof. We accept as confirmatory what he designates "two later proofs." 158 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. the beginniug of Popery, and ever siucc churches were built ; but that sprinkling, for the common use of Ijaptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery. And that, accordingly, all those countries in tvhich the usurped jyower of the Pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dippiyig of children in the font; hut that all other countries in the loorld, ivhich had never regarded his authoi-ify, do still use it; and that basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by jxqjists or any other Christians ivhatsoever, till by themselves. . . . What has been said of this custom of pouring or sjirinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to these western parts of Europe ; for it is used ordinarily nowhere else. The Greek church, in all the branches of it, does still iise immersion ; and they hardly count a child well baptized without it : and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. That which I hinted before, is a rule that does not fail in any particular that I know of ; namely, all the nations of Christians that do now or formerly did submit to the authority of the Epear, and pei'haps to a demonstration, that it never was used in any other sense than by immersion till after the time of Constantino the Great. One objection his lordship admits of, and that is, that when peojdc were converted from paganism on their death-beds, and desired to be l)a])tize(l, they were only sjtriiddcd" (]). 71S). MosiiEiM. — ' ' The form of initiation wliich he [J olinj adopted, in regard to all those who promised amendment of heart and life, was to immcrge them in the river. Jesus himself, before He entered on His ministry, condescended to comply with this rite, and was solemnly baptized by John in the river Jordan" (Com. on the First Three Cent., Vidall's Edition, p. 114). Respecting the tii'st century of the HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 159 Christian era, lie says: "The sacrament of bajitism was administered in this century, mthout the puljlic assemblies, in places appointed for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body" (Eccle. His., cent, i., c. iv., § 8). In speaking of the second centiu-j'-, he says : ' ' The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and par- ticularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water " (Cent. ii., c. iv., § 13). Concerning the action in baptism for some subsequent centuries, he does not particularize; but under 17 Cent., sec. ii., part ii., c. vii., § 1, referring to persons to whom the appellation of CoUeglants was given, he saj-s respecting them: "Those adult persons that desu'e to be bairtized, receive the sacrament of baptism, according to the ancient and primitive mamier of celebrating that institu- tion, even by immersion." Brenner, a Roman Catholic, after a full investigation of original authorities, closes his work with a summary of the residts, of which the first paragrajih is as follows : — " Thii'teeu hundi'ed years was baptism generally and regularly an immer- sion of the person iinder water, and only in extraordinary cases a sprinkling or pouring with water ; the latter was, moreover, disputed as a mode of baptism, nay, even forbidden" (In Dr. Conant, on Bap., pp. 140, 141). This testimony accords with that of the late scholar and linguist, Mr. J. B. Lindsay, who saj's : "We have foimd that all the ancient churches practise immersion at the pi'esent day, with the exception of the Eoman Catholics, who introduced sprinkling in 1311." About this time, what had been the exception became the riile. Starcke. — "In regard to the mode, there can be no doubt that it was not by sprinkling, but by immersion." — His. of Bap., p. 8. Von CoELLN. — "Baptism was by immersion; only in cases of the sick was it administered by sprinkling. It was held necessary to salvation, except in cases of martjrrdom." "Immersion in water was general imtil the thirteenth century, when among the Latins it was displaced hy sprinkling, but was retained by the Greeks." — His. Theol. Opin., vol. i., pp. 459, 203. Thiersch. — "Baptism was performed by immersion in the sea or in other waters." — Ch. Hi'^., Apos. Age, vol. i., i\ 279. vScHAFF. — •"Finally, as to the outward mode of administering the ordinance, immersion, and not sprinkling, was uncpiestionably the original normal form. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek words baptizo, haptisma, baptis- mos, used to designate the rite. Then, again, by the analogy of the baptism of John, which was performed in the Jordan (Matt. iii. G; compare •with I6th; also, eis ton lordanen, Mark i. 9). Furthermore, by the NeAv Testament comparisons of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea — with the flood — with a bath — Avith a bui-ial and resurrection. Finally, by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, which was always immersion (as it is to this day in the Oriental and also the Grteco-Eussian churches) ; pouring and sprinlding being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness or approaching death," — His. of the Apos. Church, vol. ii., pp. 256, 257. Guericke. — "Baptism was origiaally administered by immersion." — Ch. His., vol. i., p. 100. Gieseler. — ^'Fo7' the salce of the sick, the rite of sprinkling was introducecU'' — Ch. His. Gen. Ed., vol. ii., p. 274. Concerning Prof. Gieseler, Dr. J. Campbell says: "Of all, during the present century, who have laid themselves out in that held [the field of history], there is, we believe, none who have brought to their task a larger amount of the necessary qualification — judgment, candour, integrity, and learning." — Chris. Wit, p. 441, 1855. Dr. C. Hase. — "Baptism was administered usually by immersion three times; to the sick by sprinkUng."— i^/*-. of the Chris. Ch. from a.d. 100 to 312, p. 691. IsLAY Burns, respecting the second period of the first three hundred years, says that the approved candidate for baptism "ajiproaches the mystic waters, and after solemnly renounciag the 'devil and all his works,' and articiUately expressing the confession of his faith, is, by trine immersion, anointing with oQ, and laying on of hands, consecrated to the service of the Father," kc.—Ch. His., p. 198. Dr. G. Waddington. — "The sacraments of the primitive chm-ch were two — those of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The ceremony of immersion (the oldest form of baptism) was i)erformed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." —Ch. His.,]). 27. J CO IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Coleman, in the Chronological Index, at the conclusion of his Christian Antiqui- ties, opposite A.D. 50, inserts "Baptism by immei'siou. " ^^ Immersion, or dipping. In the primitive church this was undenialjly the common mode of baptism. The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early period is, that it was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a general rule. " "It is a great mistake to suppose that baptism by immersion was discontinued when infant bai)tism became })revalent. This was as early as the sixth century; Init the practice of immersion continued until the thirteenth or fourteenth century." ^^ Aspersion, or sjrrinMing. After the lapse of several centuries, this form of baptism gradually took the place of immersion, without any established rule of the church, or formal renunciation of the rite of immersion." "Aspersion did not become general in the West imtil the thirteenth century, though it appears to have been introduced some time before that period" {Antiq., pp. 122, 123). Like others, he speaks of allowed deviation from immersion "in case of severe sickness" (p. 29). Kurtz. — "Baptism was administered by complete immersion." Speaking, subsequently, of baptism in the third century, he says : ' ' Baptism was performed by thrice immersing." "Immersion was followed by anointing." Speaking of A.D. 323-692, he says : " The ])ractice of sprinkling was confined to the huptismus clinico7nim."—B'is. of the Chr. Ch., pp. 72, 119, 226, 227. Clark's Edition. Neander. — "Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of Saint Paul allude to this form of its administration : the immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of resurrection with Christ; and both taken together represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resm'rcction to a new life." Speaking of the early church, he says: "Baptism was by immersion; only in cases of the sick by sprinkling. It was held necessary to salvation, excejit in cases of martyrdom " (Ch. Jlis., vul. i. , i^. 429. His. of the Planting, vol. i., p. 202). In a letter to Mr. Judd, he says: "As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt whatever that in the primitive times it Avas per- formed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle of the Divine life which was to be imparted by the Messiah" (In J ndd's liejjly to Stuart, p. 194). S[)eaking of the time when in the fcase of the afliicted Novatus there was a departure from the Divine precept of immersion, he says : ' ' The first imequivocal trace of exorcism in bai)tism is found in the acts of the council of eighty-five or eighty-seven bishops wliich met at Cartilage in the year 256." But on baptism at this period he says: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution ami the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion." After reading this historic evidence of a change from immersion to pouring and .sprinkling, will any hesitate to approve of the doubt expressed by Cornelius when speaking of the so-called baptism of ISTovatian 1 He says : " He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being poured round witli water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed bai)tism."* — Apud Ense. His. J^cclc, 1. vi., c. 43. Well does Dr. W. H. Stowell say : " Those who have added to the devout rcadmg of the New Testament an intelligent stiidy of Christian history, will remember the insidious ])rocess by which the human in religion has stealthily encroached on the Divine" {Cong. Lee, p. 150). * Dr. Wall thus renders the reference to the baptism of Novatus by Coi-nelius : "He received it by affusion in his bed, as lio lay, if it be fit to say that such a one as he received it .at all." The words of Cyprian to IMagnus are thus i-endcred by Dr. W. : "You inqiurc also, dear son, what I think of such as obtain the grace in the time of their sickness and infirmity; whether they are to 1)C accounted lawful Cliristians : because they arc not washed all over with tlie water of salvation, but liave only some of it poured on them" (p. ii., c. ix.). Bishop Taylor says: "Nicephorus thus renders. If at least such a sprinkling may be called baptism" (Due. Duh.,\>. iii., c. iv.). That it was more than si^rinkling, however, the original words testify. HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 161 Because cii'cumfusiou, whicli subsequently diminished to sprinkling, was first adopted in case of danger of death, when immersion was deemed impracticable, and baptism deemed essential to salvation, it has at length been maintained to be immaterial in all cases whether sprinkling or immersion be performed! Does not Soames say truly: "This was, however, a case of sudden emergency; but almost anything will do for a precedent" (Any. Sax. Ch. His., p. 233). Even Prof Wilson adroitly endeavours to draw an argument from clinic baptism, " baptism by pouring, or circumfusion," in favour of pouring or sprinkling as baptism. Because they called this baptism — as just now we have done, and often must if we avoid circumlocution and attain but needful precision — Avhich he teaches they could not consistently do if baptism were " immer- sion, and nothing but immersion;" although it is said, respecting this first clinic baptism of which we have a record — as we at times say respecting all such— if this may be called baptism, and although it is frankly avowed "that the validity of this mode gave rise to doubts and discussions;" yet because they called this baptism, baptism is not immer- sion and that alone. Surely a drowning man may clasp a straw. The learned professor might as well have maintained. Because among the Fathers "the term enlightened being then commonly regarded as inter- changeable with baptized," therefore to baptize means to enUgJiten, as well as to immerse, to pour, and to sprinkle. It is a cogent argument, in which there can be some glorying, that in the year of our Lord 250, the pouiing or circumfusion of the clinic with water — an acknowledged substitute for immersion through the necessity of the case — should be called bajitism, if, indeed, it may be so called ! This learned professor is gi-eatly in love with this " Divine abridgment or compend," which Cyprian, says our informant, "not only maintains to be perfectly suffi- cient, but in defence of which he adduces Scripture testimony, particularly Eze. xxvi. 25, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' " What matter for thankfulness that the prophet Ezekiel has so clearly and Divinely sanctioned tliis Divine abridgment ! " We have found Cyprian quoting this lovely prophecy in support of perfusion as valid ecclesiastical baptism" ! (inf. Bap.., pp. 319-324.) "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O eai'th " ! On the case of Novatiau, the Cliristlan Beviiu; apparently a Baptist pu1;>lication, says : "Eusebius informs us that when he received baptism by pouring, it was 'on account of his sickness.' It is natural to inquire, why aspersion, if it was of apostolical origin, should be limited to the sick ? What objection could there be that any one in health should be so baptized ? ^Magnus inquired of Cyprian (see Epis. 76) whether persons thus baptized ' were to be regarded as legitimate Chris- tiaiis, inasmuch as they were not baptized Ijy bathing, but by n fusion.' Cyprian is not prepared to give a decisive answer, bxib expresses his opinion, and says each one must settle this question for himself. His own views are stated thus : ' "When there is a 2}resising necessity, with God's indulgenrc, the holy ordinances, though oid- uxirdhj abridged, confer the entire blessing upon those who believe. ' ^ We have given oleander's translation, as the last two words cannot be expressed in English without a paraphrastic rendering. ... In the same letter, Cyprian, speaking of those who supposed themselves ' empty and devoid of a blessing because they were not immer- * Necessitate cogente, et Deo indulgentiam suam largicnte, totam credentibxis confcrunt diviiia compendia. 162 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. sed, but merely sprinkled,' says, 'Let them not imagine that they can be re-baptized when they recover. ' ' ' We ask, could all these remarkable circumstances have existed, if the whole church regarded sprinkling as apostolical in its origin, and, consequently, of equal authoritj'^ with immersion? Coiild JNIagnus liave proposed suck a question? Could Cyprian have given such an answer ? Why did not the practice and tradition of the church satisfy Magnus ? Why did not Cyprian bring it up in reply ? Whj% in his long argument to show tiie validity of sprinkling, did he not attempt to prove it from the practice of the primitive church, or from the New Testament, either directly or indirectly ? The case required such a defence, and Cyprian fdt it; and, not being alile to demonstrate anythmg, he left every one to his own views, and yet, wishing to lind some support, he resorted to the Old Testament, and to the nature of x)urification. To these, these alone, and nothing else, did he appeal. Besides, if sprinldmj was a Divine ordinance, what need of any 'urgent necessity,' or (what is still more strange) 'Divine indidgence,' in order to make it pass? What does he mean by that antithesis of an abridged form but a tottd result? In his time, antiquity had not thrown sufficient obscurity around primitive usages to have it ever enter his thoughts that the apostles must have sprinkled for want of water in some cases, and of time in others. Let it be observed, too, that, even in clinic baptism, an effort was made to imitate, as far as possible, the act of immer- sion. It Avas not the asj^ersion of a few drops of water on the face, but pouring water all around the body, as the words 2)erichi/theis and jjer/usus show. " Our readers can now perceive some of the reasons which have induced almost the entire body of German critics, our teachers and guides in Biblical learning and antiquities, to decide, though against their own practice, in our favour. The reasoning adopted in this country by the abettors of sprinkling is ridiculed openlj' in the German universities." — Vol. iii., pp. 106.-108. It were easy to add many more to the number of Psedobaptist testimonies, both respecting the meaning of baj^tizo as being to immer.se, and respecting apostolic and primiti^^e practice as being accordant with this its undoubted meaning. It will, however, be generally conceded, that if these are insufficient, more of the same chai'acter would not suffice. So many would not have been quoted had not language of an opposite character so strong, and in some instances so contemptuous, been used by our opponents. For instance, Dr. Miller, of Princeton, has the audacity to say: "There is not the smallest probability that he [John] ever baptized an individual in this manner [by immersion]." " The sacred writers have not stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evinces that they either preferred or practised immei'sion in a single case." More of the same kind appears, which we cannot but regard as a gross outrage iipon inspired, ecclesiastical, and profane writings. Also our Wesley an brother, who begins with a simple plea for liberty/ to sprinkle, to pour, or to immerse, proceeds to attempt to prove that the passages which are most .strongly ui-ged in proof of immersion, fail "in ever)/ particulai". No critical violence can coerce them into a single utterance in its favour " (p. 236), whilst " the characteristic incidents of the several examples [of apostolical baptism recorded in the Acts] are such as to establish by the strongest presump- tive evidence that the mode actually adopted Avas either pouring or sprinkling" (p. 226). In one place he assures his readers that "even imagination requii-es some material out of which to fashion its theories; and a love for truth demands that its flights shall be i-estricted within the range of at least apparent probability " (p. 224). In one instance he says: "A greater improbability cannot Avell be imagined" (p. 222). Elsewhere, speaking of the opei'ation of "dipping," he says: "It lacks HISTORIC EVIDENCE. 163 all the elements of convenience and proin-iety, facility and delicacy" (p. 219). In another instance, the faith of the Baptists "requires a most sovereign disregaixl of probability" (p. 213). Bnt enough. How far short of Dr. Miller, Mr. Thorn, and some others, he comes, we wish to be sei'iously considered by himself. Verily " there is ground for an attempt of showing men to themselves." We do not disapprove of strong language in certain cases, especially if, instead of being used in applica- tion to a mere figment of the bewildered imagination, it is used in support of what is clearly demonstrable. We all use it in regard to things which Ave deem almost self-evident. We regard the expressionts to which we have referred as a proof of the extent to which prejudice has blinded our estimable brother; and as a call from ourselves to adduce facts of which, as we jDi-esume, through a one-sided — a most pax'tial examination of this subject, the worthy author, and many others who share with him in the dishonour and culpability of the most unfounded assertions on the injport and history of baptism, from the same cause are ignorant. Dr. Halley labours hard to convince us that we have insuperable difficulties in believing that haptizo was not diluted and changed in its imjiort, if not immediately on being touched by the pen of inspiration, at least whilst it was being held; and he is sufficiently severe with Dr. Carson, and he sufficiently animadverts on the Baj)tists as not being consistent with themselves ; but whilst he wishes all su.pposed and supposable difficulties in the way of immersion to be considered, he makes many more candid confessions in favour of immersion than our wary brethren Stace}^ and Wilson. It is not intimated, it is not believed, that there is any design on the part of these and other brethren to deceive. It is believed that they are so blinded by prejudice, and that some are on this subject so ignorant through then- partial and prejudiced reading, as to require vaiied evidence from varied sources before they can see that baptism is immersion; whilst it is believed that, if they Ave re free from this prejudice, nothing but God's Word would be needed. We shall conclude this part in the words of Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Stuart, and Mr. I. T. Hinton : — Dr. Chalmers. — "When a huadred facts exhibit one and the same i)heiiometion, the expression of this phenomenon in its generality'' is the expression of a principle in philosophy : when a hiindred verses speak one and the same truth, this truth, sustained on the basis of a multiple testimony, may by means of one brief and comprehensiA'e affii-mation become the article of a creed." — Inst., vol. i., pp. 291, 292. Dr. Stuart. — "We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to come to the following general conclusion respecting the practice of the Christian chiuch in general with regard to the mode of baptism, viz., that from the earliest ages of which we have any account subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for several centuries, the churches did generally practise baptism by immersion, perhaps by immersion of the whole person ; and that the only excejyiions to this mode AA'hicli were usually allowed, Avere cases of urgent sickness, or other cases of immediate and imminent danger, where immersion could not be practised. It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular cases been now and then practised in primitive times, AA^ere gradually introduced, and became, at length, quite common, and, in the Western church, almost universal, before the reformation." * * I. T. Hinton (pp. 183, 184), from whom this is quoted, designates the clause, IG-i IMPORT OF BAPTISM. I. T. HiNTON.— "Can auy historical evidence be more complete respecting the time and the causes of the introduction of the innovation of sprinkling ? May I resjjectfully ask the Padobaptist who reads this volume (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Methodist), 1. Whether he has not been ke])t in ignorance of these facts? 2. AVhether those clergy * who vdthhold these facts from their flocks do not take uj^jn themselves an undue and dangerous responsibility ? 3. Whether he will have independence enough to take auy adequate means to ascertain if these statements can be denied? And, finally, whethei-, if they cannot be gainsaid, he will remain unhapflzed, and in a state of disobedience to the King of kings?" SECTION XIII. ON EVIDENCE FKOM THE FUTILITY OF ALL KNOWN OBJECTIONS. CtIlbf.bt '^^'F:sT. — " Objections built on popular notion:; and prejudices are easily conveyed to the mind in few words : and so conveyed, make strong impressions : but whoever answers the objections must encounter all the notions to which they are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well if with many words he can lind admittance." — The Tried. &c.. p. 57. Robert Hall. — "A.s we no longer live in times (God be thanked) when coercion can be employed, or when any individual, or when any body of men, is invested with that Divine authority which could silence disputation by an oracular decision, there appears to be no possibility of maintaining tlie interests of truth without having recourse to temperate and candid controversy."' Pr. J. Paekeh. — "As there are millions of men who must be instructed upon the questions which are involved, and as every year more exactly circumscribes and defines the battle-ground, there is no course so just, so wise, so useful, as an open and conscientious statement of the argument on both sides." — Ch. Quen., p. 8. Dr. J. P. Smith.—" We believe tliat God, the fountain of ,t11 truth and goodness, has furnished us with means for the obtaining of evidence, sufficient for a ration.al satisfaction, upon all objecto which it concerns us to know." But, alas ! "the suspicion and disapprobation — I might even say horror — with which some excellent persons view any deviation from those interpretations which they have been accustomed to hear and read." — Cong. Lee., pp. 16, 17, 154. In acklucing objections, we feel a delicacy, if not a difficulty, from the fact that in several instances, if not in all, what one Piedobaptist ha.s adverted to as an objectiou to our sentiments, another has acknowledged to be invalid ; or even to favour onr views, if considered apart from other facts or considerations. It is therefore impossible to notice all objections without adducing those tliat by some of our opponents are, as objections, deemed altogether irrelevant. We might, therefore, appear to some Piedobaptist readei's, if this fact were not stated, as if we were adducing objecticnLS for the jnirpose of holding up the entire body to contempt for what one or anotlier has foolishly advanced in opposition to the senti- ments of tlie Baptists. Yet, if we overlooked certain objections which to us appear contemptible, and overlooked certain authors of celebrity, we might be regarded by some as .shrinking from the work we have undertaken, and by others as overlooking some of the strongest supports of sprinkling or pouring. We are not sure, indeed, that some of the most groundless objections, some of the most unsubstantiated assertions, and most improbable hypotheses, have not proceeded from some of the Psedo- baptists of note in their respective denominations. Unless we mistake, certain names to which diplomatic honours belong, occupy a most unen- " perhaps by an immersion of the whole per.sou," a literary cuiiosity. Also he says : " The reader will be able to correct Prof. Stuart, by substituting the words soon after, for before." * Clcrplies arguments to establish their sentiments. § 1. — FUTILITY OF P.EDOBAPTIST PHILOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS. frof. GoLDWiN Smith. — "I do not believe controversy to be an evil if it be conducted fairly, temperately, and with a determination to come to a decisive issue. I believe that it is the only mode we have of settling disputed questions." "The only security against the bad consequences of human speculation is discussion ; and, as discussion is necessary, it must not be taken as an offence." — Rat. Mel. and Rat. Obj., pp. v., vi , 14G. Dr. Eadie. — "Foolish is it for any pei-son first to imagine that the Bible ought to contain what he thinks is true, and then to come to it resolved to find in it nothing else than his own cherished opinions." " He will not allow the Bible to speak its own meaning, but he imposes his favourite sense upon it. He tries to bribe the oracle ; he is determined tliat it shall not teach him certain truths ; he twists and perverts all the texts opposed to his own view, and so ' handles the Word of God deceitf\illy. ' " "Ever aim at clear and just conceptions of the Word of God." " Remember that every word has a meaning." " The sense of a verse is only the united signification of all the words contained in it. Never, then, pass lightly or lazily over any word which you may not at ths moment comprehend." " The smallest words and particles have each its own signification." — Lee. OR the Bible, pp. 38-44. T. H. HoRNE. — "Although in every language there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance there is only one true sen.se attached to any word; which sense is Indicated by the connexion and series of the discourse, by its subject-matter, by the design of the speaker or writer, or by some other adjuncts, unless any ambiguity be purposely intended. That the same usage obtains in the sacred writings, there is no doubt whatever. In fact, the perspicuity of the Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of sense, in order to render intelligible to man the design of their great Author, which could never be comprehended if a multiplicity of senses were admitted. In all other writings, indeed, besides the Scriptures, before we sit do\v^l to study them, we expect to find one single determinate sense and meaning attached to the words ; from which we may be satisfied that we have attained their true meaning, and understand what the authors intended to say. Fiu-ther, in common life, no prudent and conscien- tious person, who either commits his sentiments to \\Titing, or utters anything, intends that a diversity of meanings should be attaclied to what he writes or says ; and, consequently, neither his readers nor those who hear hiiu affix to it any other than the true and obvious sense. Now, if such be the practice in all fair and upright intercourse between man and man, is it for a moment to ba supposed that (xod, who has graciouslv vouchsafed to employ the ministry of men in order to make known His will to mankind, should have departed from tliis way of simplicity and truth?" "Since no text of Scripture has more than one meaning, we must endeavour to find out that one true .ten.ie precisely in the same manner as wc would investigate the sense of Homer or any other ancient writer." "1. Ascertain the usu.i loqucndi, or notion atfl.xed to a word by the persons in general by whom the language is now or formerly was spoken." "2. The received signification of a word is to be i-etained, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned * Mr. Okely was a Moravian minister at Northampton, who was baptized at Blunliam, in Bo.lfovdshire, and who retained his o]>iniiiii nn hnptism, thon^jJi )io returned to his connection with the Uuited Brethren. 166 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. or neglected." "Of any particular passage, the most simple sense, or that which most readily suggests itself to an attentive and intelligent reader, possessing competent knowledge, is in all probability the genuine sense or meaning." — Intro., voL ii., pp. 357-366. We have maintained that philologically we are required to regard immersion as the import, and only import, of the Greek word chosen by the Spirit of inspiration to describe the Christian's initiatory ordinance. We shall now notice some objections of good and learned men; show some of the fallacies and absurdities into which they are unconsciously drawn by the unfounded hypotlieses to which theii* prepossessions cling "vvith unenviable tenacity; and further establish our own position. We shall not be lengthened in exposing every objection and supposition. We remember the declamtion. To propose this is all but to refute it. I. — On haptizo as meaning to di]} for the purpose of sprinkling, and on ascertaining its inijiort from the occurrences of tabal. The assertion of tlie v/ell-known commentator, Dr. A. Barnes, that the import of ba^^tism is to be obtained from a careful examination of the passages in the Old Testament in which the word tabal occurs, we will not combat at length. He comes by this route to the very sage conclusion, " that its radical meaning is not to sprinkle or tc> immerse. It is to dij), commonly for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other purpose" [Com., on Matt. iii. 6). That tabal and bapto, or tahal and baptizo, are univocal, we are far from maintaining. Let Dr. Barnes, however, and those who in this agree with him, if there be such, have a practice accordant with their belief. Let them " dip for the purpose of s^jrinkling, or for some other purpose," if they belicA'e this to be the import of what Christ has enjoined. II. — On baptizo as meaning to purify. In the estimation of the late Prof. Beecher, we are gieatly at fault in regarding baptizo, when occurring in the New Testament, as meaning to immerse. We shall, however, say less in opposition to purify, as the meaning of baptizo, than in opposition to pour and spx'inkle as supposed meanings of the Greek word, because to purify, we believe to be an import less generally embraced, or more generally abandoned, and because those wlio advocate this import of the word, so far as we know, practise sprinkling. That the Greeks had another word for to purify, is as evident as that they had another word for to sprinkle or to talk. That sprinkling and immersion were Divinely-appointed means of purification under the law of Moses, we fully admit. But when purification resulted from immer- sion or sprinkling, it did not follow that the words meaning to immerse and to sprinkle, meant to puiify. The result of immersion and sprinkling has often been a defilement, and that of immersion has been a dyeing ; but who says that the meaning of to immerse or to sprinkle, is to defile, or to dye ? That John the Baptist was "a purifying priest," as asserted by Dr. W., is no more asserted in Holy Writ than that he was a sacri- ficing priest, or tliat his baptism was an expiation. If Jolni was a purifier, why was lie called the Baptist % Was the accomplishment of purification a new thing, or a new ordinance from heaven % Or was FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 167 John's baptism, and not our Lord's death, "the substitute for all cere- monial purification"? Is it an idea generally entertained by Psedo- baptists, that baptism is " pux-ification by water"? "the Christian purification " 1 Prof. J. H. Godwin, — of whose work on Baptism The Watchman says, " We fully concur in much of what has been advanced : his arguments in defence of infant baptism, and of baptism by sprinkling, are most solid and satisfactory," — also teaches that "it is highly probable that ba23tizo denotes to purify," although " the classic sense of haptizo " is " to immerse," which, he says, "commonly denotes continued subjection to a liquid." He says that "if the subject were left for a while in the water, then the effect would be rightl}' called an immersion." He calls into requisition all his available logic and learning in the vam attempt to prove that the classical haptizo would immerse a man unto drowning, whilst the scriptural haptizo would just sprinkle the same ! He also teaches that " the sense of pturifying agrees with the peculiarity of sense belonging to haptismos ; and that of purification, with the peculiarity of sense belonging to baptisma." John's baptism, according to Prof. G-., was "a corporeal purification," and "a spiiitual purification," as "baptism and repentance coincide," repentance being represented as a purification both in Isaiah i. 16, and James iv. 8 ! (See pp. 35, 36, 42, 43, 90, 91, 132, 141, &c.) Prof. Wilson says of haptizo, " Never, even in a solitary instance, have we encountered it in the sense of purification" (p. 184). Some of our Psedobaptist friends plead for three or four distiiict, opposite, and unproved meanings, and in every particular instance take what meaning they like. It has been asserted, and, in substance, re- asserted, in favour of purify, that the word hajitizo "denotes 'to put or keep under water for a considerable time,' and would be inappropriate to a transient dipping." We believe not that this is correct; nor that, if correct, it would favour sprinkling or pouring. Dr. Beecher's assertion wants nothing but j^/'oo/" when he says, '^ Baptizo, as a religious term, means neither to dip nor sprinkle, immerse nor pour, nor any other external action in applying a fluid to the body, or the body to a fluid, nor any action wdiich is limited to one mode of performance ; but as a religious term it means at all times to ' piirify, or cleanse.' " He also asserts : " In this usage it is in every resj^ect a perfect synonyme of the word katharizo." Let any reader peruse the passages in the New Testament where the Christian ordinance is mentioned, and adopt purify instead of baptize as one means of testing the accuracy of his statement.* Mr. "Wallace thus replies to Mr. A. Gr. :— "Dr. M'Crie's meaning is, to cleanse. He takes no account of the means, but only of the effect. He looks not at ho%o the thing is done, but at the thing when done. As he states in the last clause of youi- quotation, ' It has no reference to any mode of cleansing whatever.' True, he says that cleansing may be indicated by sprinkling. But while we may indicate one thing by another, it does not follow that the one includes the other. The thermometer indicates heat, and the barometer the weather; but surely heat does not include thermometer, nor weather barometer. Cleansing, you say, includes sprinkling ; then it must also include rubbing m all its forms, and rinsing, and blowing, and brushing, — real means of cleansing ; for I am not aware that people cleanse by sprinkHng. You might thus indicate the ordinance by any one of these ; and I put it to yourself, if any of them would not be more significant of cleansing than sprinkling. The Baptist does literally what he considers God com- mands, and the word imports : he immerses ; you only cleanse by figure. I know you ](i8 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Also, let any one re-peruse the occiuTeiices of the word iu Greek writings in order to satisfy himself whether or not the meaning of haptizo is " to place iinder water 2>6rmanently." Further, let the reader decide whether the classical sense of immei-se does not completely meet all the facts of every New Testament case; whether alleged probabilities of another import are not imaginary; whether it is not opjjosed to all jjrobability tliat our Lord would use haptizo and mean katharizo ; whether ritual defilement is at all recognized as belonging to Christianity ; whether moral defilement can be cleansed by an oiit^vard ceremony, can be cleansed by any human being, by any other than the Lord himself; and whether the legitimate inference from the hy2:)othesis that baptism is purification, is not, like that of some of our opponents on the inspired jihrases, " buried with Ilim by baptism," and " bin-ied with Him in baptism," that external baptism is a nonentity. Indeed, were we to predict on this subject, we shovdd predict that the nonentity of the external ordinance will be the next discovery of those whose preposses- sions prevent their seeing that baptism is immersion. Such a discovery on this "vexed question" would be less per23lexing to many than the idea entertained by one learned brother, that the Greek word means to purify, and to stand, whilst it allows the ^>r«c^{ce of sprinkling. III. — On Bajitizo as meaning to wash, in order to cleansing. Dr. J. A. Alexander says that " baptism is neither washing nor im- mersion simply, but symbolical or ceremonial washing" (Com., on Matt, iii. 6). Amongst other things written by the amiable and learned Dr. J. P. Smith of Avhich we aj^prove, we may quote the following, which should have an application to baptism as much as to geology : — "Our great object is to imderstand them [the Holy Scriptures] in their true meaning, i.e., to take them in the sense in which they were intended bj^ the Spirit of tnith, from whose inspiration, mediately or immediately, they have proceeded. This true sense and meaning must l)e brought out l)y an im])artial application of the same means which men use, from a conviction of their necessity and adecjuacy, in order to obtain a just understanding of any writings composed in long-past times and in ancient languages." "The testimony of the Word of Heaven does not lie at our disposal. We have not the power of conceding anything from it."' " Inter- pretation, as well of the Bible as of other ancient \\Titings, is to be conducted by a rigorous process of examination into words and i)hrases." — Cong. Lee, pp. 23, 153. We are, however, prepared, jiartly in the doctor's own words, to say, " I present, then, my solemn protest against the assumption which runs throughout and characterizes the whole structure of the " statements on baptism wliich Dr. W. Farrcr has given as Dr. Smith's in his First Lines of Theology. Dr. F. has on baptism incorporated with Dr. Smith's do not like that word; but surely you will not affirm that you literally cleanse in sprinkling! Again, if clean.sing includes sprinkling,- — cleansing the generic woi-d, and sprinkling the specific, — then we niny use cleanse iu tlie place of .sprinkle. You know we can always use the generic in tlie j]lace of any of its specifu's. Let us trj' in this case. Job's friends 'cleansed dust upon their lieads.' 'Then will I cleanse clean water upon you.' 'Moses cleansed tlie aslios towards heaven.' You will thus see that this iniiversal law of languagt; does not liold good here. And I wmdd liave you further to bear in mind, that we can sprinkle so.jt, as well as water, and that spiinkle is far more effectual to dirty than to cleanse. You may, therefore, with more ])ropriety, say that sprinkle is included in the word dirty than in tlic word ••Icausc."- ifr/c(., p. 7. FUTlLlTi' OF OBJECTIONS. I(j9 svUabus another manuscript and some notes of a sermon. The whole represent the doctor as teaching that baptizein, " in classical use, denotes any sort of dii3ping or wetting, partial or total." The incori-ectness of this as a classical use of the word, we trust, has already appeared. That dipping may be partial, we have admitted, without admitting that the import of dipping is altered, whether applied to an object large or small, to the whole or to a part thereof. If the dipping is jxirtial, we learn it not from baptizo, but from other words in the sentence. In regai'd to "sacred usage," he examines "cases in which the terms occur," and first adduces Heb. ix. 10. Adopting loashlnc/s as the rendering of baptismois in this verse, he thus most fallaciously (we had actually written sophisti- cally) proceeds: "Having examined all the instances of washings which occur in the Pentateuch, I am brought to these positions: (1.) In some cases {e.g., Lev. xiii. 58), immersion is signified. . . . (2.) In some {e.g., Lev. xiii. 58), immersion viic/ht be used. ... (3.) In some it is more probable that not immersion, but some other more ready and easy mode was employed {e.ij., Ex. xxix. 4). (-i.) In many cases the ceremony of purification was performed by sprinkling {e.g., Num. xix. 18—20)" (p. 659). Here is the gratuitous assumption tliat the apostle, referring to the baptisms of the law, was referring to purifications whether by immer- sion, pouring, or sprinkling. What more glaring petitio pi-incipii can there be i Baptismos, we admit, may be loosely rendered washing, immersion being understood to be included therein; but to deduce from vv'ashing, or from the apjjointment of sprinkling or pouring when neither baptizo nor any of its derivatives occui's, that baptismos means pouring or si^rinkling, is to reason in egregious destitution of all evidence. We deny not that sprinkling was enjoined under the lavv, but we deny that baptism before about a.d. 250 was ever used to denote either sprinkling or pouring, unless the ]ionring was so abundant as to effect an immersion. Next, New Testament occurrences of the word are adduced. We are now referi-ed to Mark vii. 4, 8; Luke xi. 38; Mark i. 4; of which an interpretation is given which it is thought Acts xix. 3 does not over- throw; to Matt. iii. 11, and John i. 32, on which we are told that the fire is an allusion '■^ most probably to the act described in Isaiah vi. G, 7, and the nature and form of the symbolical image is given in Acts ii. 3, 4;" to Luke xii. 50; Mark x. 38, 39; and to 1 Cor. x. 2. We are next directed to the Septuagint, first, to 2 Kings v. 14, where, he says, "it appears probable that Naaman dipped himself into the water of the river," yet that "this does not appear to be a necessary conclusion;" to Isaiah xxi. 4; Judith xii. 7; and Wisd. Jes. Sir. xxxiv. 27 (25). The inference is deemed to be in favour of " cleansing by any application of water that would be suitable to the case :" ergo, &c. That these passages are not only destitvite of proof that bajjfizo signifies aught but to immerse, yea, that at least some of them incontrovertibly confirm this as its import, we think has been already shewn. " Recitals with regard to sacramental baptism " come next. Here we have Matt. iii. 6; Mark i. 10; and Acts viii. 38, 39, adduced; and we are gravely told that the prepositions en and ek "signify, respectively, at as well as in, and from as well as out o/!" The sophism respecting 170 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. prepositions we intend subsequently to notice. We ai-e next dii-ected to John iii. 23, and are told that streamlets were of importance ''that the multitudes and their cattle might obtain the requisite pro^^sion." * More undisguised fallacy is not to be met with. The italics we have given are all those of Dr. F. We are next informed that "in no instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament is it clear, nor on any ground certain, that immersion was used; \>\\t there is at least one case in which it seems extremely improbable; viz., that in Acts ii. 41." Nay, even let us "suppose that there were twelve bajjtizers," it yet "ajopears impossible." Who taught Dr. J. P. Smith that twelve persons, "after the noon of the day and before dark," could not possibly baptize the three thousand 1 Who has taught either him or any other person that of the liundred and twenty only twelve were employed in baptizing ? The estimable doctor reminds us of other doctors, who sagely teach us, on Acts viii. 38, that if going down into the watei" proves immersion, we have the same proof that Philip was immersed as we have that the eunuch was immersed. He lastly asserts that " some ^j?-o6a6^e reasoning may be adduced from Acts x. 47." After such assumption, fallacy, and pervei'sion of some of the clearest truths, we are not astonished at liia finale — "I conclude that haptizein does not of necessity denote a dipping or pjlunging in water, but that it does signify an appli- cation of water in any way that is suitable to the occasion, for the purpose of cleansing or purifyingT Nor will we say how much of truth and error there is in the unproved and unprovable assertion, " that the proper and leading idea of the term \baplizd\ is, washing with water, in order to cleanse and purify" (p. G69). But if our Paedobaptist friends believe that to baptize is to wash, in order to cleanse and purify, let them honestly and consistently perform the washing, whether they believe that it will effect a cleansing either in the very act of washing, or at some subsequent time; yea, even if they but hope that this washing will or may at some time lead to the said cleansing and purification. We do not see, but we nevertheless do not despair of our Ptedobaptist fi'iends seeing, hoAv there may be a " washing with water in order to cleanse and purify " those who are already cleansed, except it should be to effect by this means an additional cleansing. And though the good doctor refers his students or readers to Messrs. Ewing, Williams, and Beecher, of the second of whom he himself was a jjupil, Ave think Bishop Taylor's words both true and apropos, — " In all questions of the sense of Scripture, the ordinary way is to be preferred before the extraordinary." — i)MC. Bvh., b. i., c. 2. IV. — On baptizo as not confined to a modal dij^ping, or putting into. The Presbj'teriau professor, Dr. R. Wilson, admits that the baptizing element should encompass its object (see p. 30); that though the action of the verb may apply to an object of which the whole or a part is baptized, this is learnt from the context, and not from the word baptizo; * On this see the inspired record itself, Dr. Halley, and every writer open to con- viction. The assumption and fallacy involved in many of these and other philological assertions we show more fully elsewhere. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 171 that this encompassing of the object, by whatever means effected, as the import of baptizo, has respectable Baptist and Peedobaptist authority; and then he reasons as if Baptists believed nothing to be baptized which is not put into the element, and teaches that his view of the import of baptizo may be adopted without immersion being implied in its import ! If immersion necessarily included the putting of the object into, the element, we should admit the possibility of baptism without immersion. That this is not the case with immersion is known, we presume, to every one acquainted with the English language. That some of Dr. Wilson's remarks have a legitimate application to some parts of Dr. Carson's work, to which woi'k they are sometimes expressly applied, we do not deny. Also, Dr. W. asserts " that in the New Testament baptism is more than once referred to as a washing" (p. 148). Granted that it is thus loosely rendered in the English authorized version in Mark vii. 4, 8, Luke xi. 38, and Heb. ix. 10, who does not see in this an entire destitu- tion of evidence that baptismos and baptisma are anything less than immersion'? Our learned brother admits that Ppedobaptists have "had no legitimate warrant to argue from an ascertained secondary sense of bajito to a supposed or.iassumed similar sense oi baptizo" (p. 15). In his own words we ask of him and his fellow-Psedobaptists, " Why do they adopt a meaning without proof 1 " Or if the acknowledged meaning of the word is its meaning in the inspired writings, why do they not by some means encompass with water the persons they professedly baptize ? Does not the Word of God, and also the common sense of the whole world, make the clearest distinction between pouring, sprinkling, and immersion '? Does the Greek language sixpply words explicitly meaning to immerse, to pour, to sprinkle, to cleanse; and does the New Testament evidently recognize this distinction of import in the selection of words to convey these ideas, and are we at liberty to say that the Greek word, meaning according to demonstration and acknowledgment to immerse, means to apply water in any way ? and, consequently, that the use of this woi'd sanctions a sprinkling of the face as a baptism of the person ] When Christ meant that we should sprinkle, or that we should pour. He undoubtedly said so, and explicitly too. We say that unless baptizo in any place necessarily means something else than its known and acknowledged meaning to immerse, it oynist be regarded as meaning to immerse; as our learned brother says on bap>tizei7i eis aphesin, that unless it "necessarily conveys the priority of baptism to the pardon of sin, we would not consider it entitled to distvirb our exposition of the verses " (p. 360). In reply to his assertion that, were "baptism ascertained to be strictly synonymous with dipping, then it might be triumphantly contended that ' the mode is the ordinance ' " (pp. 4, 5), we say that the Greek word for baptize is admitted and has been proved to be so far synonymous with the English word immerse, that immersion, or an encompassing of the object with the element, is in the ordinance. Baptizo is a modal word, as comjjared -with rhantizo. The one, when applied to water, signifies a use of water that covers, that encompasses ; and the other, a use of water that bespattei's. Imitating our honoured opponent, we might say to Psedobaptists on 172 IMFOKT l)F BAPTISM. haptizo, " We defy tliem to fix on a solitary instance in which it neces- sarily or by fair exposition denotes " sprinkling, or anything less than immersion by some means effected, in any writing till about A.D. 250. "Why do they adopt a meaning without proof?" Dr. Wilson sometimes speaks of Dr. Carson and sometimes of the Baptists as maintaining that haptizo is confined to the modal sense of putting into. He writes three to four hundred octavo pages proving sira})ly tluit haptizo does not in its invariable use mean to dip in the sense of putting into. The real pith of his elaborate and lengthened argumentation is, "that sufficient grounds have been laid for refusing to l>e fettered by the modal exclusiveness of our Baptist friends " (p. 331). His final boast and glorying is, that haptizo, instead of being invariably used for putting the object into the element, is sometimes used for a covei-ing and encompassing of the object with the element hy some other means. What a foundation for the practice of sprinkling the face, or pouring a little water on the face or head, and calling it baptism, the baptizing of the person ! Our Wesleyan Methodist brother, Mr. S., only proceeds a little further, drawing the rash, extravagant, and utterly groundless inference, from haptizo's meaning sometimes to encompass the object otherwise than by putting the object into the element, that baptism both in classic and sacred literature includes "every conceivable application of watei*," and that sprinkling, or pouring, or immersing, of the whole or of a part of a person, is the baptizing of that person ! If our opponents did by any means encompass with water those whom they pi'etend to baptize, their reasoning and practice in regard to the ordinance of baptism would not be so despicable as they now ai'e. The advocacy of sprinkling as baptism from such premises by our Wesleyan and Presbyterian brethren is only less dishonourable than the decision of our Independent brother. Dr. Halley, to continue the practice of s})rinkling, although admitting that tlie meaning of haptizo is entirely to surround with some liquid, until the Baptists shall either ignoi*e and "sdolate their convictions, or change their minds. Since the above was penned, we have observed that Dr. W. Cooke, an able Wesleyan New Connexion minister, in the defence of sprinkling thus wi'ites : " Assuredly the meaning of the words hapto and haptizo are too diversified to authorize any one to dogmatize as to the mode of the ordinance. True, the word means 'to dip,' or 'to immerse;' but it means also 'to stain a vesture with blood' (Rev. xix. 13); 'to wet the body with dew' (Dan. iv. 30, in Sept. ver.); 'to dye, tinge, or imbue;' 'to wash the body l)y the affusion of water;' to pour water on the hands;' and ' to sprinkle' " {Inf. Bap. Def., pp. 18, 19). Wliy does Dr. C drag in the word hapto, which in (Jod's Word is never used in relation to the ordinance I In these enumerated instances there is not a single occurrence of the word haptizo. What can tln^ ado])tion of such philology involve but a leading of the blind by the blind ] We feel assured that not a single occurrence of haptizo can be adduced in which it means "to dye," " to |)Our," or " to sprinkle." He proceeds to mention two passages of Scripture, Mark vii. 4, and 1 Cor. x. 2,. in which he teaches, that "to sprinkle is evidently the meaning" of th(> w(»-d. We shall subsecjuently notice these passagfs. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIOXS. 173 V. — On haptizo as proving nothimj. The Rev. Eichard Watson, a Wesleyan of deserved celebrity, makes philological assertions, with which we may intermix, and to which we may add, a few remarks. In his Theological Institutes, b. iv., speaking of the Gi"eek term for baptism, he says : " The word itself, as it has been often shown, proves nothing. [We maintain that it proves everything.] The verb, with its derivatives, signifies ' to dip the hand into a dish ' (Matt. xxvi. 23) [The verb hajitizo does not here occur]; 'to stain a vesture with blood' (Rev. xix. 13); 'to wet the body with dew' (Dan. iv. 33) [In neither of these passages does the disputed word occur] ; ' to paint or smear the face with colours;' 'to stain the hand by pressing a substance ' [No passage is referred to in proof of these meanings, nor do we believe there is a particle of truth in his assertions]; 'to be over- whelmed in the waters, as a sunken ship;' 'to be drowned by falling into water' [We deny not that haptizo, when used figui-atively, signifies to overwhelm, and that drowning may be a consequence of baptizing, although this is not the import of the term itself] ; ' to sink ' in the neuter sense; 'to immerse totally;' 'to plunge up to the neck;' 'to be immersed xip to the middle;' 'to be drunken with wine;' 'to be dyed, tinged, or imbiied;' 'to wash by effusion in water;' 'to pour water on the hands,' or any other part of the body; 'to sprinkle' " (pp. 449, 450). How far we agree with and differ from the last eight or ten pretended imports of baptizo, we have stated elsewhere. Well might this be called an "accommodating woi'd," and well might a plea for sprinkling be urged if there were a tenth of a tithe of truth in the tissue of glaring blunders and falsehoods just quoted. To quote, analyse, and expose the ;-ross assumptions and erroneous inferences of good and learned men, whom prejudice on this subject has blinded, and whom God may have left to their blindness on account of their love of this error, is a most TUipleasant employment. We cannot justify their course, whilst we do not deny their piety. We presume it is .such folly as the above which has aided the prejudices and fallacies of our Independent brother at Winchester. Dr. W. K. Tweedie, who teaches his readers the kind and gracious intention of the Saviour in " every lesson that He taught, and every commandment that He gave, and eveiy rite that He appointed " (pp. 74-77), also assures them that baptizo "is confessedl}^ ambiguous, — meaning, as some allege, to immerse ; as others argue, only to sprinkle " (pp. 74-77), and that contention on immersing and sprinkling "is one of the logomachies which Scripture repeatedly condemns" (pp. 74-77). Christ's wisdom and love, in the appointment of a rite to be observed by every disciple, have chosen an ambiguous word ! and He has condemned disputes in regard to its import ! VI. — 0)1 haptizo as meaning ^^ coining ujmn," '•'•poured out^' ^'resting upon" ^'put upon," "given to," "-put ivithin," d-c. The Rev. J. Campbell, D.D., Avho has edited a "Banner," and who now edits a " Standard," and who has long edited The Christian Witness, has an article in the last (pp. 177-180. 1855) on "spirit and water" baptism, which he designates "An Essay on a subject of the highest 174 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. moment," and which is a portion of "instruction on the subject of Christian ordinances," which he gives "in compliance with an oft- repeated wish." He says: "We start with the incontrovertible principle that tlie outpouiing of the Holy Spii'it is really and truly baptism. It is plainly and repeatedly called so in the Sacred Scriptui'es." We say that the simple and ordiuary outpouring of the Holy Spii-it is never in God's Word designated a baptism. On two occasions, on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 1-4), and on the jn-eaching of the Gospel to the centurion and them that were with him (Acts x.), this outpouiing was so sjiecial and abundant, that "in the Sacred Scriptures" we learn that "the baptism of the Holy Ghost " took place. And though here the baptism of the Spirit and the pouring out of the Spirit ai'e associated, we maintain that they arc as distinct as that the baptism of the Spirit is the result of the pouring out of the Sjiirit. Dr. C. says : " It is inconceiA^able, that the baptism of the Spirit should be by pouring on the people, and that of water plunging them into it, seeing that the word is the same in both cases." We say that pouring is always designated by another word than that which designates baptism, although the poiiring, as in the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit, may be so abundant as to effect a baptism. If by sjirinkling we defile a person, do we say that defiling is a word of the same import with sprinkling ? And do we regard the result, defilement, as incontrovertibly pi-oving the truth of such assertion ? Dr. C. says : " The baptism of the Spirit, and that of water, are so blended in the predictions, promises, declarations, and histories of the Old and New Testaments, as to fm-nisli a very strong ])resumption that both were administered in the same manner." "The declarations of the Old Testament first deserve our notice. These are universally such as to support pouring, and to overthrow the doctrine of immersion. In the following samples from Scripture the Holy Spirit is represented as — " 1. Coming upon men. Num. xiv. 10; Judges iii. 10; vi. 34; xi. 20; xiv. 6, 19; 1 Sam. xvi. 13; xix. 20, &c. " 2. Poured out ^cjjon them. Eze. xxxix. 20 ; Prov. i. 23, "3. Resting iij)on them. Num. xi. 26; 2 Kings ii, 15. "4. Fut upon them. Num. xi. 17, 29; Isa. xlii, 1. " 5, Given to them. Neh. ix. 20. "6. Put on them. Eze. xi. 19; xxxvi. 27; xxxvii. 14. All these passages refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit." If there were even any reference to the baptism of the Spirit in these passages, we might assert that the writer " confounds things that are different. Water is po\ii'ed into a vessel in oi'der to have things put into it. But the pouring out of the water, and the application of the water so poured out, are different things. Water is poured into a bath in oi-der to immerse the feet or the body, but the immersion is not the pouring." We, however, deny that there is an iota of proof from God's Word that one single passage addiiced i-efers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Besides, if these passages could be adduced as proof that the baptism of the Holy Spii'it is thus designated in God's Word, it would afford no countenance to the practice of sprinkling, unless we infeiTcd that its designation is so various that it means anything we like. We must conclude from this reasoning, that there is baptism if there is water FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 175 " coming upon men," " poured out upon them," " resting upon them," "put upon them," "given to them," or "put within them." We need not dwell on our inability to find the least allusion even to the gift of the Divine Spirit in two of the passages to which we are refeired (Num. xiv. 10; and Judges xi. 20). Dr. C. next refers us' to " The phraseology of the promises of the Old Testament," and he adduces Isa. xxxii. 15; xliv. 3; lii. 15; Eze. xxxix. 20; Joel ii. 28, 29; and Zech. xii. 10. That these "refer to the dispensation of the Spirit in Gospel times," we do not doubt ; but that they refer to the baptism of the Spirit, — excepting one in Joel, which predicts so abundant an outpoiiring of the Spirit that the room in which the disciples were assembled was filled with the same, and their immer- sion therein took place, — we maintain to be entirely destitute of proof. Elsewhere we enlarge on Acts ii., and adduce the admissions of Dr. Kitto and others that the hcq^tism of (lie Spirit, as predicted by John and our Saviour, took place on this extraordinary occasion and on the first preaching of the Gospel by Peter to the Gentiles (Acts x.; xi. 1-17). Dr. C. maintains that "the language of these promises" could never justly have led any "sound-minded man to conclude that, in order to correspond with it, water baptism must be by plunging or immersion." We do not want any such correspondence in order to prove that baptism is inunersion. We know this to be the fact, from the import of the word Divinely chosen, from apostolic pi*actice, and from other sources of proof which we have adduced. Can a supposed cori^espondence in words of promise prove any tiling when they refer to a different subject or fact 1 Or, if the same subject is spoken of, can the use of different words prove that difi"erent words have the same meaning % If con-espondence, or supposed correspondence, proved that which is desired, would it not prove that putting water within a person is the same as pouring water upon a person? &c. ; and that all these are baptism? He next requests that we " consider the analogous representations of the New Testament," and quotes Matt. iii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16; John i. 33; Acts i. 5; viii. 16; ii. 38; x. 37, 38; and xi. 15. He then inquires : " Can any man conversant with language believe that the verb 'baptize' is necessarily used in the sense of pouring in con- nexion with the Spirit, and of plunging in connexion with water, throughout these Scriptures, in the utter absence of all intimations to that effect? Nay, we appeal to simple, unpervei*ted common sense." In three of these passages quoted by Dr. C. there is no reference to the baptism of the Spirit. In the rest the baptism of the Spirit, spoken of in the way of prediction or accomplished fact, must mean immersion in the Spirit, because this is unto this period the acknowledged import of the Greek term selected by the Spirit of inspii-ation to describe the ordinance, without a single exception in all its occurrences, and because of "the utter absence of all intimation to" the efliect that the Holy Spirit used the word in a novel, opposing, peculiar, or unknown sense. As confidently as our opponent do "we appeal to simple, unperverted, common sense." Also if to baptize is to pour, because pour is used in connexion -with the Spirit, how can we avoid the conclusion that to pour is to baptize ? and that thei'efore we might properly read : " Until J7() IMPORT OF BAPTIS^r. the Spirit be baptized upon U8 from on liigh." " For I will baptize water upon him that is thirsty." " I will baptize out my Spirit upon all flesh." In further confirmation of his idea tliat because we read in God'.s Word of ])ouring or sprinkliDg in connexion with the promise or impar- tation of the Spirit, therefore the baptismal ordinance enjoined by Christ is not immersion but poui'ing or sprinkling, he says : " These views may be greatly strengthened by a consideration of the mode of Ida coming as recorded in the sacred volume. He is there represented as, 1. Poured upon the people. Acts i. 17 ; x. 45. 2. Breathed ujyon them. John xx. 22. 3. SJied on them. Acts i. 33 ; Titus iii. G. 4. Descending on them. John i. 32. 5. Falling on them. Acts viii. IG ; x. 44. 6. Anointing them. Acts x. 38. 7. Abiding itpon them. John i. 32. 8. Coming upon them. Acts i. 8 ; ix. G. 9. Resting on them. 1 Peter iv. 14. 10. /Sitting upon them. Acts ii. 13. Here we have no fewer than ten different accounts of the baptism of the Spii'it. Let these be well considered. The bajjtism of the Spirit. Can words more clearly express the mode of that baptism?" Thus the worthy doctor on this subject wanders and raves. We beg to inform him tliat the first instance on i-ecord in God's Word of the baptism of the Spirit as taking place, is in Acts ii. 1-4 ; nor is there anotlier undoubted instance of its recurrence except in the case of Cornelius and them that were Avith him (Acts x. 44-46 ; xi. 15-17). The reasoning on the above passages is as logical or fallacious as it would be to say, tliat because God has promised to ])our out his Spirit on the nations and has promised to sprinkle them, therefore to pour is to sprinkle, and either to spiinkle or to pour is to baptize ; and that when God commanded to make disciples of all nations, immersing them into the name, etc., lie meant no such thiiig, hut that sprinkling is rendering obedience to that comniand ; yea, that notwithstanding the declarations of philologists and critics of every age that immei'se is the precise and undoubted import of the Greek word, no such thing could be meant, BEOArsE immersion does not "bear any RESEMBLA^•CE " to ^'sitting upon tliem" ^^ resting upon them," &c. But surely the doctoi-'s results are worthy of "the inconti'overtible principle" with which he was pleased to "start." Not a passage quoted, excepting those Avhich refer to the Pentecostal outpouring of tlie Spirit, or its out])Ouring on Cornelius and his friends, has a reference to what God's Word designates either the baptism of the Spirit, or a baptism at all. Besides, if all these ten representations of the gift of the Spirit are " no fewer than ten different accounts of the baptism of the Spiiit," in which words cannot " more clearly express the mode of that baptism," t(^ what other conclu- sion than this can we come, that baptism is either pouring \ipon, breath- ing upon, shedding on, descending on, filling on, anointing, abiding, coming upon, resting upon, or sitting upon I or that baptism is all these imited together ] " Let this be well considered. The baptism of the Spirit." These ten passages in proof of " The Scriptui'al A'iew of spi-ink- ling." Are they not worthy of that practice which is a direct, and were it intentional, would be a daring and awful deviation from the expi'ess command of heaven, and the explicit practice of apostolic times 1 Referring to Acts xi. 15, 16, ho says ^^ that falling effected baptism FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 177 in this case is plain ; and that falling and pouring mean the same things in the above passages is proved by compai'ing Peter's account with the narrative itself of the event : ' As Peter began to speak, the Holy Ghost /ell on all them which heard the word : and they of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also Avas for^red out the gift of the Holy Ghost ' (Acts x. 44, 45)." In- stead of saying that falling, pouring, and baptism mean the same thing, and that they all mean or allow sprinkling, we should say that the use of diiferent words rather proves a difference of meaning in these words. We do not deny that in the case referred to, the descent of the Spii'it in his chosen symbol, apparent fire, was so abundant that they were bap- tized (immersed) in the same ; but that descending, or falling, or pour- ing, and baptism, are proved to be words of the same import, we firmly deny, believing it to be of all statements one of the most unfounded and preposterous. He next supposes an objection and replies to it. " But how does this argument bear upon sprinkling ] It is maintained, that sprinkling and pouring mean the same thing, on the authority of Scrip- ture : ' Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall he clean ; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you ' (Eze. xxxvi. 25)." This refers, it is maintained, and we deny it not, "to Gospel times." But what pi'oof is there in this that sprinkling and pouring, which every man knows to be distinct operations, are one and the same thing ] The endeavour to prove this absurdity and impossi- bility is a meet conclusion of this " Essay" " in compliance with the oft- repeated Avish, that instruction on the subject of Christian ordinances might be blended with the general matter of the Magazines ;" an Essay which teaches that the "substance" of baptism is "in the Old Testa- ment," and "its shadow" "in the New Testament," "the Christian Scriptures." If the laws of language may be thus set at defiance to jn-ove by the different accounts of the communication of the Divine Spirit, that pouring, sprinkling, and baptism, or that pouring and sprinkling, mean the same thing, words may be said to prove anything, and any hypothesis that any man may broach is capable of being sus- tained. We may thus easily conclude from John vii. 37, and others, that baptizing is poui'ing water down the throat till the recipient is filled therewith, and then that this and sprinkling are one and the same thing. With much regret are we obliged thus to refer to the Editor of The Christian Witness, whose energy and intelligence, when not blinded by prepossessions, have rendered him capable of so great service to the cause of virtue and Christianity. It is indeed painful to be obliged to contend with the real friends of the Lord Jesus, and esj^ecially in this manner, and on a subject in which all believers might be expected to harmonize. But Dr. C. is not alone in his foolish endeavour to make baptism synonymous with sending doion, coming, giving, &:g. He has perhaj)S taken a leaf from the misnamed Facts and Evidences of C. Taylor, to which what we have Avritten may be accepted as a reply. Dr. Gumming is equally logical and tnithful whilst he discovers from the baptism of the Spirit an additional impoi't of baptism, namely, to touch. Thus — ■ "'Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire' — if it be taken literally, without entering on a profitless controversy, would not this N 178 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. imply that baptism does not always mean immersion ? . . . the apostles were not dipped or immersed into flame ; they Avere simply sprinkled or touched with it. And, therefore, the Greek word for ' baptism ' does not always mean immersing, but only the sprinkling or the touching of a part of the body." Let sjyrinkling or touching be substituted for baptizing! Dr. \V. Cooke sees that "The mode of administering the ordinance is evidently alluded to " in the predictions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel, respecting the impartation of the Divine Spirit ; and uniting these with Acts ii. and Titus iii., he concludes that the mode is "pour- ing, sprinkling, shedding, and washing." (!) Dr. Wardlaw can say, "The Holy Spirit was poured out, and Peter called to mind the promise, which of course he considered as being then fulfilled — ^ Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' According to Peter, then, ba2)tism was effected by j^otiring out. Till better authority be produced, I desire to bow to this" (p. 144). This abundant outpour- ing which involved an immersion, is j^roof that baptism is pouring ! If we pour water into a vessel, and then immerse the hand in it, pouring is immersion! Did Dr. W. pour, or sprinkle, when he bowed to this authority? Dr. Dwight, disapproving of immerge in the Holy Ghost, says: "Siibstitute cleanse for immerge, and the impropriety vanishes." What philology this ! Let the reader substitute baptize for pour in the Old Testament and New Testament passages referred to, and then read them. VII. — On hcqytism as meaning to register, to imrify, to cleanse, to tvash, to anoint, to initiate, to consecrate, to dedicate, to discijyle, to train, to hitroduce to religious teaching, to the congregation of the Lord, d:c. The Eev.W. Thorn, Independent minister, Winchester, in his volume on Infant Baptism, speaks of " washings, purifications, or consecrations, . . . which are designated baptisms" (p. 28). We inquire, Are purifications and consecrations the same thing % Are they words of the same imjjorfc ? Is either a purification or a consecration a baptism ? Mr. T, and others speak of consecration and baptism as if they were perfectly synonymous. We admit that baptism and purification, or baptism and consecration, may be associated, whilst they are, in our judgment, as certainly distinct things as are fire and water. Yet the sameness of these is often assumed as a thing incontrovertible, and needing no proof (see p. 57). We are further taught that " baptism was a dedication to God and good things" (p. 59), that baptism is "the preliminary rite which inducts " to " religious instruction" (p. 59), and "that not only children, but xmcon verted and vingodly men partook of both " manna and water from the rock (p. 59); "and the deduction is, that similar pcojile under the Gospel might partake of both also " (p. 59). We are told that children were equally with their parents " baptized or discipled " unto Moses (}). %IS). It was a "national baptism, or the ceremonial act of a national consecration to God" (p. G4). Mr. T. adopts "the plan of discipling all who apply or are brought to receive this ordinance" (p. 87). Baptizing a child is "consecrating, dedicating, or discipling a child to the Triune God, and formally initiating it into the school, congre- gation, or TEACHINGS OF CHRISTIAN Trutii " (p. 122). These capitals arc his own. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. l79 Jolui's baptism is spoken of by Mr. T, as " a solemn put-ification of all ranks and classes" (p. 137). "As the pi-iests of old sanctified the people by baptism," " so John, by descent a priest, would certainly do the same" (p. 138). Assuredly Ave need not wonder that Christ spoke of John's baptism as being from heaven, and that the people so believed ! " John in his day did as the priests had regularly done before him. And as those priests were accustomed to j^urify men, women, and children, whenever they became ceremonially unclean, and on other remai-kable occasions, therefore the harbinger of Chiist must have done the same " (p. 138). Indeed, as Christian baptism, "a higher and an ultimate puri- fication, consecration, or initiation, was to take place, on entering the perfectly reformed, renovated, and simplified congregations of the Lord " (p. 138). Yet the congregations of the Lord to which this piirifyuig ordinance, baptism, introduced its subjects, and for which it canonically qualified them, as Mr. T. elsewhere teaches, included the converted and unconverted, all characters as well as all ages. Did any person ever read such changes of terms, and such rash and unfounded assertions from the pen of a good man ? Mr. T. represents the Baptists as not believing that immersion, or the Greek baptizo, ever means anything but the dipping of a person in water. It is true that in obeying Christ's command to immerse into the name, &c., we put the candidate into water, or over head in water ; but we believe that if a cat or a dog, or Mr. Thorn himself, were to jump into water, and by that means were to be entirely covered with the water, the same cat or dog, or Mr. Thorn himself, would have a real immersion, if not also, as long as it was recent, a " modern immersion." This is known to Mr. T. as the sentiment of at least some of the Baptists, or he has read to little purpose the works of Drs. Gale, Cox, and others. He wishes us to " regard the original in the New Testament as conveying the broad and general idea of an initiating, consecrating, or purifying rite, rather than of a specific, resti'icted, and unvaiying mode of administering it" (p. 214). If fidelity to the words of inspiration allowed its to twist them at pleasure as a nose of wax, and to leave them amid the jargon of words without any definite meaning, we might accept his advice. The reader, however, may ask. Is baptism any one of the above separately, or is it all of them unitedly 1 But baptism is also a registration of discipleship. " Baptized, that is, they were, in effect, formally registered as the disciples of the Lord " (p. 255). Speaking of "oflicial baptism," he says; "The word is intei-- changeable with that of purifying, cleansing, washing, anointing," &c. We are reminded of an et cetera oath in days of yore. We, however, advise our readers to try these words as the translation of the Greek word in the Sacred Oracles. They may then imagine Christ's coming to John to be purified, cleansed, washed, or anointed, &c., by him. They may endeavour to conceive of Christ as saying, I have a purifying to be purified with, or I have an anointing to be anointed with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished ! They may then suppose the inspired apostle of the Gentiles writing to the Christians at Rome respecting themselves and all Christians as having been purified or anointed into Christ's death, and as having been buried by purification or by anointing ! 180 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. But notwitiistandiug the assurance given us by Mr. T., that baptism is a consecration, a dedication, and an anointing, he says that " from the time of Moses to that of Christ, it was reguhirly practised under the form and in the name of purification." We will not for the present further try our own patience or that of our readers by quotations from the vagaries of our erratic brother, or by further animadversions. If we are spared to wi'ite on the subjects of baptism, he may again be brought to our remembrance. We now conclude with a quotation from Dr. J. Pai'ker, which we trust "will have the approval of every reader : " If men are at liberty to use terms which have several meanings, and to adopt the meanings in rotation, in order to meet the difficulties of every conscience, then human language has become an instrument of decejition, and the currency of words the basest counterfeit under heaven." — Ch. Ques., p. 93. VIll. — On hapto as meaning a 2>ci)'tial dipping, and on haptizo as meaning a covering px^i'tially with water. On Lev. xiv. 6, where we read, "And lie shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water," it has been said : " The word is hapsei, and the English dip, yet it cannot be understood dipping all over; for the blood of the bird in the basin could not be enough to receive the living bird and the cedar wood, and the scarlet and the hj^ssop, all into it." To this, which by one writer has been retracted, it may be replied, that the preceding verse teaches that the bird was killed over a vessel containing " running welter," water taken from a fountain or running stream, such being the purest water, and deemed most suitable in cases of pui-ification ; and that the blood being consequently mixed with the Avater in the earthen vessel, the living bird might receive not a partial but a total dipping. See the whole connexion; also vei\ 51, and Heb. ix. 19. But even supposing, which we do not admit, that here the woi'd was iised for an immersion which was partial, it argues nothing in favour of the Avord meaning to pour or to sprinkle. We speak in English of dipping a pen in ink, when we but dip the nib or point of the pen in ink. But the word dij) has not another meaning in this instance. We do not 2iour or sprinkle the pen in ink when we but partially dip it. We use the word dip in exactly the same sense in this instance as in others. We simply dip a part, and not the whole, not explaining that which Avill be understood, without the least fear that the synecdoche in regard to the pen will lead to a misunderstanding of the import of dip, and the attempted adoption of pouring or sprinkling of the pen as the substitute or supposed meaning of dii)ping. And if haptizo means a partial immersion, why do not those wlio maintain this idea pi-actise a ])artial immersion, making their own choice of hands, feet, face, head, or some other part of the human body? We might similarly say to those who advocate washing. Why do you not adopt washing, either total or partial, according to your conception of what is God's ordination ? Wlien God commanded the ])eople or tlio jn-iests to bathe themselves, tliey w^ould liave been ccrtjiinly culpable if tliey had merely s2)rinkled the face, ])0urcd water on the hands, or washed the feet. That hapto, a word never used in ajiplication to the Christian FUTILITY (W OBJECTIONS. l8l orcluiaiice, s^oinetiines has another import than to dip, we have admitted. It certainly means to dye as well as to immerse. The passage in the Septuagint (Dan. iv. 30, v. 21), "His body was Avet with the dew of heaA'en," though quoted again and again by the advocates of sprinkling, does not in the least favour pouring or sprinkling, even if haptizo had been used. The body of Nebuchadnezzar was immersed from the dew Avhich had fallen so plentifully upon him. From the abundance of the dew that had descended upon him he is said to be immersed, not from the mode in which he had become drenched with the same. Othei- occurrences of hapto answer the purposes of our opponents no better; nor should we shrink fi'om their examination but for the belief that they are as irrelevant as useless, since the word hapto is never used in the inspired original to designate the Christian ordinance. Dr. Carson does not lash Mr. Ewing and Dr. Henderson with more than deserved severity when he animadverts on the whole of the pretended meanings of hajitizo given by Mr. E., of which Dr, H. speaks as an " admirable classification of meanings." In exposing Mr. E.'s secoud meaning of haptizo, "I cover partially with water," Dr. C, among other things, says : "I shall enable the unlearned reader to ajipreciate the merit of this part of the classification, b^^ an example of the \ise of the English word immerse, taken from the Londonderry Sentinel. ' On Tuesday morning, about ten o'clock, as his Roj^al Highness Prince Albert was skating on the spacious water in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, his Eoyal Highness imfortimately passed over some rotten ice, whicli immediately broke under him, aud he ims immersed to the cliin in water. ' Now, does not every child know that the word immersed here has exactly the same signification as if the jirince had l)een immersed over the head ? That he was only partially immei'sed is known, not from the word immersed, but from the words ' up to the chin.' What an admirable classification, then, is it, that would have given a different meaning to the word immersed had the water been a little deeper, and covered his Koyal Highness over the head ! I had scai'cely copied the last extract, when I read in the next Sentinel that his Eoyal Highness ' was immersed over head and ears in the water.' Now, would any one who speaks English, think that the word immei'sed has a different meaning in these two extracts? Surely the word immerse has nothing to do with the extent of the immersion. Indeed, according to the jjhilology of Mr. E. and Dr. H. , every line in the length of the prince's body, and he is said to be five feet eleven inches, woiUd give a different meaning to the word immerse, according to the depth of the immersion " (p. 208). We have read from a Pjedobaptist brother, of just celebrity, the following: "I believe that, as it is, I have practically covered with water quite as much of the person as some of my Baptist brethren usually dip." As the candidate for immersion himself goes down into the water, and immerses the lower part of the person, does he who sprinkles the face partially immerse, and practically cover with water quite as much of the person as some Baptists usually dip ? Let our brethren beware that their excvises for the neglect of immersion do not resemble the excuses of those invited to the man-iage-feast. IX. — Oil haptizo in classic authors as sometimes meaning more than to immerse. Mr. Ewing asserts that some instances " are not those of voluntary plunging, but of fatal sinking." Prof J. H. Godwin, speaking of its classical signification, says : " Baptize denotes to put or keep imder J 82 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. water for a considerable time, in any way, and would be inappropriate to a ti'ansient dipjiing" {Cltr. Bop., p. 25). " If then it were necessaiy," says he, after adducing some occurrences of haptizo, " to abide by the common classic signification of the word, none need be dipped in baptism; but all would probably be drowned" (p. 34). He says: "If the subject were left for a while in the water, then the effect would be rightly called an immersion" (]). 90). It woiild appear from this, that death, the effect of being in the water, might properly be designated an immersion ! " To immerse," says he, " commonly denotes a continued subjection to a liquid, and in this agi'ees with the classic sense of haptizo'' (p. 132). Again : " In the course of our investigation, it has appeared that the common classic sense of hcqMzo is to sink or overwhelm ; in any way to produce some continued submersion" (p. 195). And so intent has God been to have all men drowned, or so unconcerned has the Divine Spirit been in regard to our understanding what we are Divinely enjoined to practise, that He has chosen this very word to describe this ordinance, whilst of all occuri'ences of this word " there is not a single one in which a dipping or overwhelming of that which was baptized can be proved ; not one in which it can be shown to be probable " ! (p. 196). And Dr. Henderson, Avho supports the meanings to pour, to sprinkle, to purify, and to stand, referring to the occurrences of baj)tizo in both inspired and classical authors, says : '' We are free to confess that we have not yet fallen in with a single instance in which it can be satisfactorily proved that it signifies a submersion of the whole body, without at the same time conveying the idea that the submersion was permanent, that is, that the body thus submerged sunk to rise no more." To these we may reply, that if the baptized body sunk to rise no more, baptism could not be less than immersion. But whether the i:»erson rises again, or sinks fatally, we maintain to be no part of the meaning of the word, and are willing that any occurrence of the word be compared with this assertion. The permanent or the temporary remaining under water, — the vohuitary or the compulsory character of the action, and its being performed by others upon us, or by xis upon ourselves, — are indicated, not by the term ha2)tizo, but by other words with which it is associated. Immersion is immersion, and not pouiing or sprinkling, whether a person rises again or sinks fatally. Whether Christian immersion is to be voluntary or invohmtary, to be temporaxy, or to be j)ermanent and fatal, to be per- formed on us by ourselves or by others, is not obscure or dubious to the candid student of God's oracles. X. — On baptizo as receiving a new and important element of meaning lohen it was once regularly applied to the ordinance of Christ. We think that ifc is sufficient to reply to the above objection, first, that the burden of proof, as admitted by Dr. Halley, rests on those who maintain tliat the won] was used with an altered meaning; secondly, as Dr. H. also adndts, that the supposed difficulties might be removed by fur- ther acquaintance with Eastern customs, and facts not recorded in Holy Writ; thirdly, as Mr. Bickersteth, who advocates this, expressly "admits, that probably, if not certainly, in sonic of the Scripture instances, and possibly in ALL, immersion was practised ;" and fourthly, as Dr. Halley says FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 183 respecting tlie Fathers, " their j)ractice of immersion forbids us to account for their language by supposing that a conventional use of the term had grown uj) in accordance witli the customs of the church " (p. 340). The idea of a new import being attached to this common word immediately on its being used by the inspired penmen, is deserving of severe reproba- tion, being destitute of all evidence, and, consequently, involving a principle that would obscure, yea, that would render void, all God's pi-ecepts and all God's promises. We may admit the following from Mr. Trollope, without admitting the least authority to suppose an altered import of haptizo when this word was iised by the apostles. "It is now very generally acknowledged that the basis of the New Testament language is the popular Greek speech which prevailed after the Macedonian con- quest, combined with such Hebrew idioms and forms of construction, as the character and position of the sacred writers would naturally lead them to employ." "But with relation to religious matters more especially, it would frequently be impossible to express themselves in genuine Greek. Consequently, they were led either to coin new words or employ those already at hand in new significations." "To this class belong the technical significations affixed to such words as pisHs, (rga, dlkaiousthai, eklektoi, Metoi, agioi," &c. {Gr. Gram., p. 8.) Who will maintain that a word denoting a common physical action is parallel to siich words as faith, justification, &c. ? Mr. D. Macallan, in especial reply to Dr. Wardlaw, who says that Peedobaptists "do not deny that the verbs hcqyto and haptizo signify to dip or immerse, but they do deny that this is their only signification, and that this is theii- signification when used by the sacred writers" (pp. 152, 153), having referred to the Greek louo as meaning to wash, kathairo and agnizo to cleanse and purify, cheo to pour, rhaino and rhantizo to sprinkle, and to Christ's choice of haptizo, which signifies to immerse, asks, " Did He intend immersion?" And on the reasoning which opposes this, he remarks : — " (1.) That there is not a single hint in the Scriptures that the word baptize is used in any other than its proper and universally-understood sense. (2. ) That, on the principle involved in this mode of interpretation, the Bible would be no revela- tion to us, nor woixld it be possible for us to know the will of God ; for however plain the words emjiloyed might be, we should be at a loss to know what meaning was intended to be attached to them. (3. ) That a more unreasonable canon of criticism was never adopted than that which some men employ with respect to the meaning of the word baptize, viz. , that if there are uot circumstances connected with the use of any word that fix its meaning, we are at bberty to attach a plausible meaning to it, though it cannot be 2»'oved to have that meaning anyiohere else. Thus, it is argued, that because a great number of passages are found in which the word baptize occurs, without any circumstances to fix on it the sense of immerse, there- fore it admits of any other plausible meaning, such as sjmnkle or 2^our. On this princix>le we might ask, What word is there that might not be made to mean any- thing we please ? A thousand instances could be produced of the uses of the most common words of any langiiage, in which there is no evidence of the meaning but in the ivords themselves. Thus, for instance, in the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi. 26), v/e are told that, ' as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, and said, Drink ye all of it.' Here no one can doubt that to eat and drink, in the ordinary acceptation of these terms, in remembrance of Christ, is the duty enjoined ; but it is only from the 2vords themselves that we can ascertain it. There are no circum- stances that fix the common meaning on the woi-ds eat and drink." — On Bcqy., pp. 19, 20. 184) IMPORT OF BAPTISM. He ]>roceccls to state that, with as inucli ]>h\usi1)ility as that to jjour 01- sprinkle is the moaning of hapi'no, we might argue that oiir Saviour's command is, not that we eat the bi-eacl, Lut tliat we ^^ meditate upon it, as representative of tlie broken body of Clirist;" and not tliat we drink of the wine, but "gaze upon it, and contemplate the truths wliicli it id fitted to bring to remembrance." Previously, in reply to Dr. Wardlaw on our having to do with the acceptation of haptizo in Scripture, Dr. W. having said, " I have never yet seen an instance established [from the New Testament] of the word baptize necessarily or certainly signifying immersion," Mr. M. has said : — "A more unreasonable position, as noticed above, it is scarcely possible to con- ceive. It is comparatively a rare thing to be able to establish the sense of a vvonl from its connexion alone, witlioiit reference to its settled meaning. We shall just take one other example — the word sprinkle, the meaning of which every one knows is 'to bespatter iu drops.' Now wo will luidertake to produce ten imftsages iu whicli this word occurs, in different M^ritiugs, for every one iu which the word baptize occurs in the New Testament; and Avill defy any one to prove from these passages alone, without reference to the settled meaning of the M'ord, that it means anything like sprinkling; and we might do the same with any word that might be named. Take the following instances of this word:— Heb. ix. 21, 'Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.' Suppose we were to insist that the word sprinkled here means to smear or stain, Avonld it be possible for Dr. W. to prove, from the passage and its connexion alone, that it does not? Isa. lii. 15, 'So shall he sprinkle many nations.' Who could prove from this passage and its connexion alone that the word sprtnlle does not mean to piuiish, or destroy, or the reverse? 1 Peter i. 2, 'And sprinl-lin;/ of the blood of Jesus Christ.' What would be more plausible, if we were to disregard the esta1:)lished sense of the word, than that it here means sheddin;/? Taking the connexion alone of these passages, and thousands of otliers that might be cpioted, it would be vastly more difficult to prove tliat the word sprinl-le in them means any- thing resembling its proper sense, than it is to prove that the word baptize in the Kew Testament means immerse, 1)ccause there are circumstances connected with the use of the word in the latter case that do not exist in the former. But we maintain that, when the signilication of a word is settled by usage, the icord itself indicates the meaning of the writer, and is unicersalli/ admitted as evidence of his meaning, irres2)ective of corroboi'ating circiimstances, else language would, in most cases, be a jumble of useless sounds. Hence we maintain that since the settled meaning of baptize is to iinmerse or overwhelm, the employment of that word alone is all that is necessary to indicate immersion, so long as usage continues to sujiport that sense. But no change of usage that might have occurred subsequently to the apostolic age could have had any effect upon its meaning in the New Testament : that was settled by previous usage. Dr. W. most unaccoiuitably remarks, that ' the attempt made to determine tlie sense of baptism in favour of immersion, by usage, from the New Testament, has appeared to him to be a complete failure.' If any one ever made such an attempt, it was a very foolish one. That baptism signifies immersion, was 'determined' liefore the existence of the New Testament; and the only question is, whether it has the same sense in the New Testament that it has evcrywliere else. To argue without the shadow of authority that it has not, involves a principle that is pregnant with the most dangerous consequences." "On this point we adopt the )>rincii)lc of an eminent Piedobaptist critic, Prof. Stuart: ' t cannot hesitate to declare (says he) that nothing is clearer to my apprehension than that ecially as the Greek langnage has woixls to express with precision any of the senses contended for" (pp. 15-17). The New Testament writers are supposed by some of our opponents to have used the common word meaning to immerse in a different sense from that in which it had ever been used before, and yet no explanation of this is given in Scrij^ture, aud there is no record of any one inquiring in amazement or contempt, Is this baptism? Do they call poui'ing or sprinkling immersion 1 No, no more record of these queries than of the question, What does baptism mean 1 every pei'son knowing what it meant. It has been ostentatiously said, " In Homer a child imports a child: but in N^ew Testament Greek, no such thing: no I it imports a MAN !" — C. Taylor's Facts and Evi., 3rd Let., pp. 2, 3. Baj)tizo meant ever, before its adoption by the sacred writers, to immerse. This was its meaning immediately after with the universal chiirch, and with the Greeks and Greek church has ever been its meaning; but we are to believe, without a particle of existing evidence, that immediately on being toiiched by the pen of inspiration, it popped into the meaning of pouring and sprinkling, and any application of water, as suddenly as by magic, and almost as suddenly reverted back to its temporarily abandoned import. Dr. McCrie is anxious to make for haptizo "a ritual meaning." But it alters not the imjioi-t of the word that it refers to a Christian rite. Who will say that perilome, or circumcision, has a ritual meaning " without any reference to tlie mode of its administration " 1 The doctor says: "The mode in whatever way it is practised is symbolical of a complete ablution of the whole person." Sprinkling symbolical of bathing or of immersion ! Baptism, as believed, symbolical of baptism ! Fiu-ther : " We may be wrong in making a few drops of water .stand for a literal or complete ablvition of the person, but this is at least Avhat we mean by the action." Why not have the thing itself instead of some- thing else to mean it 1 Can such substituting be acceptable to God 1 To what straits and absurdities are good and learned men reduced in attempting to justify a departure from Divine appointment ! XI. — Oil haptizo as meaning to stand. The as-sertion of a few of our opponents is, that amad, the Syriac word for bajJtizo in the Syriac translation, signifies to stand, to stand uj), or to stand erect, which Dr. Henderson believes to have been the very word used by our Saviour when He gave the commission. But who does not see that if Christ, when giving the commission to the apostles, used a Syriac w^ord which signifies to stand, and if the Scriptures give a Greek word which signifies either to immerse, to purify, to sprinkle, to pour, or to wash, instead of being an inspired, they are an unfaithful record of what Christ commanded? This, in Dr. Carson's estimation, is massacring the witnesses of God's truth. But that amad is used more than ten times in the Syriac Bible in the sense of immersing, when the 186 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. ordinance of baptism is not refen-ed to, and when, therefore, it must be used in its ordinary and non-ecclesiastical sense, is sufficient to clothe with shame those who adduce this Syriac woi*d as an argument against immersion. See more on this at pp. 70-72. XII. — 0)1 haptlzo as meaning to infect, imbue, stain, wet, d&c, and as being a generic, open, equivocal, and obscure term. We liave already referred to some of these ideas. And to do justice to our opponents on them we regaixl as impossible, "without using much stronger condemnatory language than we like to adopt. Mr. Thorn says: "Baptism, like many other matters mentioned in the New Testa- ment, cannot be clearly understood, except by calliiig in the assistance of Moses and the holy projihets of old " {In/. Bap., p. 402). How much more truly says Mr. J. H. Hinton: " Light always rests on His [God's] preceptive will. There is no mystery resting on the path of duty. . . . Were it not so, our path would be difficult indeed; it would be not only inscrutable, but impracticable" {Acq. with God, p. 208). Dr. Williams is much dissatisfied with the sentiment of the celebrated Yossius, that bapto and baptizo are rendered by merge, and mergito, and tingo; yet that they properly signify viergo, to pluuge luider water, and tingo, to dye, only by a metalepsis; for dyeing follows immersion, and is that which takes place when the thing is dipped. However favourable to our "siews the decision of Vossius clearly is, we cannot say that the mixing of bapto with baptizo is satisfactoiy to ourselves. But Dr. Williams affii'ms, " that the word tingo, which corresponds with the prbnary meaning of baptize, is a generic term, that is, the radical, primary, and proper meaning of it is, not any specific act, as to immerse, to sprinkle, or the like, but to effect the purpose, or to produce a state of being dyed, stained, wetted, &.C., by any way whatever, as may best answer the end in view." To support this assertion he translates tingo from some of the Latin poets, "infected; sparingly imbue; anointed; to stain; being wetted or touched; to cool; dyed in, or tinged with," &c. Thus he endeavours to establish the h5rpothesis that bajAizo is a term so general, equivocal, and obscure, that it has puzzled and perplexed the wise and the learned in eveiy age to find out its true meaning. Nor have there been wanting those who have dared to adopt the doctor's sentiment, although it is opposed to historic fact, to sound logic, and the honour of oui' Divine LawgiA'er. The argument is based on assumption and fallacy. It begins with the improved assertion that tingo corresponds with the primary meaning of baptize. It reasons upon the pretence that tingo, in its radical, jirimaiy, and proper meaning is generic, not sjjecific. It concludes as if all that has been asserted respecting tingo were true of bajitizo. Because two words in some connexions are interchangeable, are they, therefoi'e, synonymous ? It would be similarly consistent with logic, fact, and the honour of Christ, to jump to the conclusion that the apostles went forth under the authox'ity of theii- Lord, infecting, sparingli/ imbuing, anoint- ing, staining, touching, ivetting, or cooling the converts they were appointed to baptize, adopting amidst " the glorious uncertainty of the law " of Clu-ist, any one of these ceremonies, as the means of effecting the purpose, of best answering the end in view. If what our opponents say respecting FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 187 the obscurity and uncertainty of import which are supposed to characterize baptizo, were true of God's revelation as a whole, how applicable even to the Oracles of God would be the words of the poet, " The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed." Suppose the Jews in later ages had reasoned respecting circumcision as Dr. W. respecting baptism, and had said that circumcido and excido are correlatives of the Hebrew terms used for cii'cumcision, and that these Latin words signify to cut, to make an incision, to chop, to break; to cut, chop, or break off; to cut off entii-ely, to pluck up by the roots, to rase or destroy; to divide or break in pieces, and to pare anything all round, as a tree is barked ! Whether did the Jews shew more sagacity in discovering, or more fidelity in obser\dng, a Di\dne law, than many Christians of recent ages 1 " They considered the enacting term in the law of cii'cumcision as expressing a specific act, and understood it agi'ee- ably to its most obvious and current signification," " It shoidd be well obseiwed that when our Lord, after His resiuu-ection, says. Go — baptize, He does not mention baptism by way of allusion, or incidentally. No, He speaks the language of legislation: He delivers Divine Law. He mentions and appoints baptism as an ordinance of God, and as a branch of human duty. Where, then, must we expect precision in the iise of terms, if not on such an occasion ? Can it be supposed, without impeach- ing the wisdom or the goodness of Clirist, that He enacted a law relating to His own worship, the 2^'>'i^cipal tei^m in which is obscure and ambiguous ?" Baptizo, the word chosen by the Spirit of inspii-ation to designate an act to be administered by His servants, to be submitted to by every convert unto the end of the world, yet %\'ithout a definite import ! "V\Tiat should we think of the man who might assert that the English woi-d dip has no definite import, that it signifies sprinkling, or any kind of wetting, because no meaner authority than Dr. Johnson gives the signification of the active verb thus: "L To immerge. 2. To moisten, to wet:"* and because he quotes the following fi'om Milton in proof of the latter meaning: — ' ' And tliough uot mortal, yet a cold shuddering dew Dips me all o'er !" Were we thus to deny the plain meaning of words, or to throw doubts on their import, the force of every command might soon be completely destroyed. A Divine law equivocal and obscure ! A Divine law we conceive to be a rule of action which God has made known. We are unable to deny the correctness of what Sir W. Blackstone says in defining law : " A bare resolution, confined in the breast of the legislator, without manifest- ing itself by some external sign, can never be properly a law. It is requisite that this resolution be notified to the people who are to obey it" {Com., vol. 1,, intro., § ii.). Yet we have a Divine law not definitely * Dr. Johnson gives foui- meanings : "1. To immerge ; to put into any liquor. 2. To moisten ; to wet. 3. To be engaged in any affair. 4. To engage as a pledge, or generally used for the first mortgas;e," 188 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. intelligible either from the terms used, or the recoivled obedience ren- dered ! Onr Lord gave a command to Ijaptize, by wliich it is universally undei'stood that he designed the performance of a single action ; for no one su2)poses that sprinkling, ])ouring, and plunging, must all be united to constitute baptism. But the particular action meant by the Greek verb, is about as luicertain as what the Psalmist meant by the Hebrew term, Selah ! a word supposed to direct that the music be per- formed in some way or other ; as water is, say our opponents, to be employed " in some form or other." Was the Divine law delivered by Moses thus equivocal and obscure ? We read there of sprinkling, pour- ing, dipping, washing, and bathing ? Did one obscure equivocal word denote all these 1 Was the Hebrew language superior to the Greek in copiousness and precision 1 Or is there one word in Greek that can be proved to have according to our own option any one or all of the above meanings 1 " We Lave been used to think," says Mr. Booth, "that the law-'i of Christ were equally determinate, tixed, and plain, with the (jonpel of Christ, and Paid informs us that the Gospel which he preached ircw not yea and nay, but always affirmative and always the same. Not so the law of baptism, if our opposers be right, for it is this, that, and the other, but nothing determinate, nothing certain." To admit the necessity of using the powers of reason on the baptismal statute, and the pro- priety of considering apostolic practice as illustrating the import of the Divine statute, is very different from resorting to analogical reasoning from other Scrip- tures where baptism is not mentioned, in order to ascertain the action and subjects of baptism, and from maintaining that the law is equivocal and obscure. "Ad- mitting," says Mr. Booth,* "this representation of our Loi-d's conduct in his legis- lative capacity to be just and fair, mankind may think themselves happy that He has not in this respect had more imitators among the petty sovereigns of the earth. Britons, at least, would quickly be disposed to execrate the measures of Parlia- ment, were tlie three estates to adopt the idea and act upon it. How often and how justly have the canons and deci-ees of the Council of Ti-ent been severely cen- sured for then- studied ambiguity ! Thus Bp. Stillingfleet, concerning that matter : ' This was one of the gi'eat arts of that council, to draw up their decrees in such terms as would leave room enough for eternal wranglings among themselves ; pro- vided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the heretics, as they were pleased to call them' (Prf.svr. agalnnt Po., vol. ii. , Appendix, p. 103). Thus Werenfelsius : ' Integrity was wanting in the fathers of the Trent Synod, when they studiously left ambiguity and obscurity in a great part of their canons and decrees.' . . . Baptizo an equivocal, open, general term; a term which with equal facility admits the idea of plunging in Jordan, of jwiu-iug from the palm of the hand, and of sprinkling from the ends of the fingers ! Our author might as well have asserted * Mr. Booth is replying to the assertions of Mr. Horsey, that baptism is "an equivo- cal, open, general term," tliat "sprinkling, pouring, and plunging ai'e perfectly equiva- lent, equally valid;" and of Dr. William.s, that "as the most eminent critics, commen- tators and lexicographers are divided in their verdict respecting the acceptation of the term haptizo, and consequently the intention of our Saviour's command to baptize ; and as the jiractice of the disciples, whence we should gather in what sense they understood it, is attended with considerable difficulty, when reduced to any one invariable method — we should vary it according to circumstances, and in proportion as demonstrable evi- dence is wanting, refer the mode to the private judgment of the person or persons con- cerned." In Booth's J'a'd. Ex., vol. i., i>p. 'J'A, 94. Dr. W. does not here teach that those who maintain tliat baptizo has in some places a sccondarj' meaning are bound to prove the same. Clu'ist's command is undoubtedly obscure, because commentators and lexi- cographers are not agreed ! This supposed obscurity is not traceable to any faidt of lexicographers and commentators ! It is in Christ's words ! The ascertaining of apos- tolic practice in obeying the Divine command is attended with considerable difficulty ! Eryo, as obedience to Christ's injunction, let anything be called baptism if it accords with "the private judgment of the person or persons concerned" ! FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 18D that its derivative bapthterion equally signifies a batli, large as King Solomon's brazen sea ; a font, small as those in oiu- modern-built parish churches ; and a basin precisely of the same dimensions with those he commonly uses when sprinkling infants. But what would learning, what would impartiality have said, had he made such an assertion? "A capital irord in positive Divine law, an equivocal term — a term so amhiguous and so obscure, that the most learned and upright do 7iot with certainty know what it means ! Then we have need of an infallible judge ; and were there one at Rome, it M'ould be worth our Avhile to visit his holiness, that we might liave the obscurity all removed. For while the Legislator considers himself as having fairly promidged his law, whether we view its enacting terms as equivocal or univocal, it will prove a serious fact, that they who neglect or transgress it will not be held innocent. With the idea of ambiguity, however, some of our brethren seem delighted. But so were not the ancient Athenians : for Archb. Potter informs us, that it was con- sidered as criminal for any person among them to propose a law in ambiguous terms {Antiq. of Greece, \o\.\.,c\\.y.x.v.). . . . Were they [our oi)ponents] disput- ing -w-ith Eoman Catholics, or discussing almost any subject of a theological kind, except that of infant sprinkling, they woidd laljour to establish against every opposer the certainty, the precision, and the sufliciency of Divine law and apos- tolic example. This at least has been the common practice of Protestants. For instance : Turretinus {de haptismo) speaks to the following effect : It is not lawful to suppose that Christ, in a very important affair of Christianitj', would so express himself that he could not be understood by any mortal (Insti., loc. xix., quaes. xviii.,§4)." (VoL i., pp. 97-99). Turretine also says : " That whatever of impor- tance the Scrij)tures deliver concei'ning the sacraments, may be included in a few pages, nay, perhaps, in a few lines ; and that so as a little child may understand it." — Coqi. and Diss., tom. i., pp. 18, 19. Dr. Owen, speaking of the apostle's using the word surety, says: "The sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among men in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it. It is not for us to charge the apostle with such obscurity, and expressing his mind in such uncoiith terms" (On Heb. vii. 22, 26). Mr. B. Bennett says: "It is a re})roach to the Lawgivei-, blasphemy against Him, to suppose that any of His upright, sincere subjects, cannot find out the meaning of His laws, with all their care and diligence, even in the necessary essential points of their faith and obe- dience."— Irenicum, p. 60. If our opponents liad stated simply that the meaning of baptizo is to use ivater in any way, or to make any convenient and desired applica- tion of loater, our com]ilaints of the charge of ambiguity against our Lord's enactments atouUI not have been made. We think, however, that such a A-iew of the import of baptizo is as erroneous as the supposi- tion that it is equivocal and ambiguous, although it does not invoh'e the same reflection on the Divine Legislator. If Christ has failed to express himself intelligibly even in regard to a practice solemnly required, who on earth, yea, who in heaven, can succeed ? Christ has given us a word that even they who vmderstand Greek cannot tell what is its meaning ! For more than a thousand years it was not denied that immersion was the irapoi-t of the word, but a part of the Church sanctioned pouring or sprinkling as allowable and valid in certain cases, although an acknow- ledged deviation from the Divine command and the original practice ; but now the Divine term is equivocal and obscure ! Does it not look as if the practice of the " convenient " sprinkling had begotten the belief of its being Divinely permitted? as if prepossessions, along with a natural disinclination to the change of a practice or the admission of default, had blinded the minds of good men to a perception of their unsci-iptural conduct I Can we judge more charitably than that this ordi- nance of the blessed, bright, and glorious Gospel, is become obscure and 190 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. unintelligible through prepossessions? We are the servants of Jesus Christ, ha^Ting no other master, yet His o^vn words neither to the leai-ned nor the illiterate explain what He means ! Would that our opponents could be induced to make an application of the following from the volume of insjoiration : " Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken 1 for ye shall speak into the aii-." "If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. xiv., 9, 11). Do not those who maintain the obscurity of Christ's command, make Christ into a barbarian, a fool, and a tyrant ? Mr. Booth says : "I do not indeed recollect so much as one learned writer in the whole coiu-se of my reading, who denies that the primary sense of the term is to dq?." And we have in substance before asserted, that if we grant the liberty of taking the principal words of a law, of a narrative, or of a doctrine, in a secondary or remote sense, where meta- phor and allusion are out of the question, a person of genius might safely engage, or at least with few exceptions, to evade any law, to subvert any doctrine, and essentially to misrepresent any fact. It is possible to pro- duce perplexity in regai'd to what is most plain, and even for good men through prepossessions not to undei'stand what is most explicit. The Jesuit, Simon, -wdth a view to establish the necessity of tradition, insists respecting the Old Testament, that " the greater part of the Hebrew words are equivocal, and their signification entu-ely uncertain." He says respecting a translation, "There is always ground to doubt whether the sense which [it] gives to the Hebrew words, be the true sense, because there are othei' meanings which are equally probable." To which, among other things, Di\ G. Campbell replies : "As to multiplicity of meanings sometimes affixed to single words, one would be at a loss to say what tongixe, ancient or modern, is most chargeable with this blemish. Any person accustomed to consult lexicons will readily assent to what I say. In regard to English (in which we know it is not impossible to write both unambiguously and perspicuously), if we recur to Johnson's valuable dictionary for the signification of the most common terms, both nouns and verbs, and overlook, for a moment, our acquaintance with the tongue, confirmed by long and uninter- rupted habit, we shall be sm-prised that peoiile can write intelligibly in it, and be apt to imagine that, in every j^eriod, nay, in every line, a reader will be perplexed in selecting the proper, out of such an immense variety of meanings as are given to the different words. In this view of things, the explanation of a simple sentence will appear like the solution of a riddle" {Four Gofipels, vol. i., diss, iii., § 1). He adds, in a note, "To the noun word, Johnson assigns twelve significations; to poiver, thirteen ; to /oof, sixteen. The verb to make has, according to him, sixty- six meanings; to pat, eighty; and to take, which is both neuter and active, has a hundred and thirty-foiir. This is but a small si)ecimen in noims and verbs; the observation may be as amply illustrated in other parts of speech." Without applying to our oi>])()neuts the disposition imjjlied in the following extract, by Dr. Waterlaud, from Le Clei'c, we may assert our belief in the truth of the assertion, that if men " be governed by their passions, and conceited of their prejudices, the most evident things in the world are obscured ; and that there is no law so clear, but a wrangler may raise a thousand difficulties about it " {Imx>or. of Doc. of Trin., p. 461, edi. 2nd). The defence of obscui-ity we believe to be as ill FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 191 supported as the "plea for liberty" to apply water in any way. After examining both, we remain equally unconvinced that anything less than immersion is baptism ; or that it is immaterial whether we immerse the whole body, or only pour or sprinkle water on the head or face, a hand or a foot, a finger or a toe, or merely touch any of these with water. XIII. — O71 the Greek word as never having been properly analyzed. This Avas Mr. E wing's 2^67'suasio7i, and he substituted the word pop, maintaining that this is the root of the word, and that poptism will account for all the acceptations of the word. Let the reader once substi- tute pop for baptize in all the occurrences of the word in the Sacred Scriptures, and we think that further analysis will be unnecessary for the establislinient of poptism. The following may gratify some who have not had access to Mr. Ewing's work or Dr. Cox's : — Mr. Ewing : " Discard the terminations, and yon have the syllable bap; cliange the intermediate vowel a into 0, and the labial consonant b into the labial consonant p, and you have the term ^;o/?, which is the root reqviired " (p. 22). Dr. Cox: "Is it 2^02)2nng in, or into, or under, or iqyon? Oh, says Mr. Ewing, it is popping upon and tqyon the face. I assure you that j^optizo signifies, I pop water upon the turned uj) face' of the person peptized : I have considted Johnson's Dictionary, and he quotes once from Addison, and once from L' Estrange, to show that the vei*b to pop in certain cases means to j^op upon; and this English sense is the nndoubted radical notion of the Greek syllable pop, which has, moreover, the very sound of our own native word; and, believe me, ^ it is not alioays that the analysis is of so easy and satisfactory a nature ' ! " (pp. 33, 34). How far another conception of this deeply prejudiced man agreed with his own analysis of the Greek word, we will not determine. He says: "We are led to conceive of baptism as the pouring out of water from a cup on the turned np face of the baptized; and whether he be adult or in infancy, the water may thus not only wet the surface, as a figure of washing, but be drunk into the mouth, as the emblem of a principle of new life." We will leave this good man to "the amenities of Dr. Cox," although we shall be sorry if any, like-minded with Mr. E., should be unable to peruse Dr. C.'s analysis of popjnng. What we have previously advanced on the Greek word baptizo, we deem a suflS.cient analysis thereof for those who are truly open to conviction. XIV. — On Tertxdlian's emp)loying tingo and mergo for baptism, hut never submergo. " Tertullian," says Dr. J. Bennett, " usually employing tingo, to tinge, for baptism, uses also mergo, to merge, but never submergo " (Cong. Lee, p. 200). The two former, we maintain, are amply sufiicient, tingo mean- ing either to immerse or to dye, and mergo meaning to immerse; but neither of them being ever used for the act of sprinkling or pouring. "Tingo," says Grotius, "properly and generally signifies the same as merso." We have before recorded the meanings of mergo given by Ainsworth : and we hesitate not to reply to Dr. Bemiett, that it would be as untrue and as preposterous to say that immersion may be sprinkling 192 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. or pouring, because it is not designated submersion ! That TertuUian meant by baptism anything less than immersion, whetlier speaking of the feet or of the whole person, we have as yet seen no evidence. Nothing needs to be clearer than that he uses tingo as meaning to immerse when he is recording the commission of Matt, xxviii. 19, and the language of Paul in Rom. vi. The same word TertuUian uses when speaking of those {quos Joannes in Jordane tinxit) Avhom John immersed in Jordan, and when he is referring to the baptism of the eunuch and of Paul. *' Si Fhilippus tain facile tinxit eunuclmm,^' itc. ^' Faulus revera cito tinctus est." In using such a word he is as certainly speaking of their being dyed as of their being sjirinkled or poured. So also of Christ's com- mand, and of the reference to baptism in Rom. vi. So also when this word is used by Cyj^rian and others in application to the Christian rite. For the import of tingo and intingo, see Latin Dictionaries, and Stephen's I'hesawus, under bapto and haptizo. XV. — On the testimony from the Fathers as being obscure resjyecting tJie action of baptism. Dr. J. Bennett says " that the mode of baptism adopted by the early Christians is not easily ascertained" {Cong. Lee, p. 199). He admits that Justin says: "We bring the candidate where there is water," and that this "shews that they did not bring the water to him;" although this is not in itself, as we admit, pi'oof that baptism is immersion. The proof is in the word they used by which to describe the action; which proof by this record may be regarded as being corroborated, inasmuch as we have never heard of a person being led to a place where there is water, for the purpose of being sprinkled or 2>oured. Further, mode in connexion with this ordinance is given when superstition had made its additions of oil, itc, to the Divine and simple requirement of immersion. The doctor also most sagely infers, that want of particulars in the Fathers respecting the mode " will naturally be deemed a proof of the small importance they attached to tiiat question to which some now ascribe so much"! {Cong. Lee, \^. 199). Dr. Halley more truly says: " They did immerse, for they seem as if they could not have made too much of the holy water. With one immersion not content, they observed the ti'ine immersion as the sacramental emblem of the Trinity " (p. 340). No foct is more clear than that the early Christians " did immerse." We do not say that on some subjects the Fathers are not ambiguous and contradictory. We do not deny, in regard to many subjects, the truth of the assertions by Di's. Bogue and Bennett, that "to consult what are called the Fathers, is to ask counsel at an oracle Avhose response is usually of ambiguous import" {llis. of Diss., vol. i., p. 14:4). But with Dr. Halley, and many of the most eminent Predobaptists, we deny the applicability of this to the action included in bajjtism. We agree with Dr. Bennett in this : " The individual or society that woxild find a resting-place, must retreat, througli ages of alterations, to build, as the earliest Fathers ])rofessed to do, on ' the foundation of prophets and apostles, Jesus (.■hrist himself being the chief corner-stone'" (p. 281). Our a])peal to the Fathers, to Josei)luis, or to the lieathen — to any but inspired writers, has been, and is, exclusively i)hil<)logical or historical: FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 193 and concerniag the inspired writers we can say, with Whately : "We cannot suppose that the sacred writers were not aware in what sense they would be understood by those they addressed, or that they would knowingly leave them in error on any point of practical importance." XVI. — On the assertion that hajytizo means to wash. Mr. Stacey, who claims "the right of election in the manner of administering baptism," .says that " the tei'm is not specific, as to dip, or to sprinkle ; but generic, as to cleanse, or to wash." And " as the requirement of the vex'b to wash may be met by more than one kind of ablution, so the sense of the verb to baptize may be realized by more than one form of observance." The term " leaves the choice to be determined by the varying circumstances of convenience and propriety " (p. 179). We have already endeavom-ed to prove, from the meaning of this word as given in lexicons, and from use, &c., that the word Divinely chosen is not of such a character, and, consequently, that no such choice is left to us. Dr. Watts speaks similarly to Mr. S., but more hesitatingly, when he says, "The Greek word bajJtizo signifies to wash anything properl]/ by water coming over it: now there are several ways of such washing, namely, S2)rinkling water on it in a small quantity, pouring water on it in a larger quantity, or clipping it under water, either in part or in whole : and since this seems to be left undeter-mined in Scripture to one particular mode, therefore any of these ways of washing may be sufficient to answer the jiurpose of this ordinance." How sprinkling is one of the " several ways " of " such washing," that is, of washing " by water coming over it," we will leave to be explained by those who in casuistiy are our superiors. The j^hnises, " seems to be left undetermined," and " may be sufiicient," are possibly less comforting to those who practise sprinkling. They are, however, as we think, much beyond what our only Legislator has sanctioned. If those of our opponents who reason in favour of any application of water from the word loash meaning to moisten, to wet, wex'e to convince us that the moistening of a pill, or the wetting of lime, is a washing of the same, we should still want proof tliat the English wash and the Greek ba2)tizo are synonymous.* We do not at present feel disjjosed fui'ther to analyze these three modes of washing, nor further to animadvert on the word as leaving us at liberty to choose our own action in accordance with " the vaiying circumstances of convenience and j^'i'ojiriety." It has been written by one: "We are * On washing or wetting as the import of haptizo, Jlr. D. Wallace remarks : " ' Wash ' and 'wet,' being generics, may be used wherever baptizo occurs. We shall sec how they do. Christ says, respecting His sufferings, ' I have a washing or wetting to be washed or loetted with.' ' Ye shall be washed or tvetted with the Holy Ghost.' ' He shall wash or wet you with fire.' So much for New Testament Greek. Let us now take a few examples from other Greek. 'If a man goes into the lake he cannot be immersed (ivashcd or wetted), but is forcibly kept above.' ' When midnight had immersed (washed or wetted) the city in sleep.' 'Many of the Jews of distinction left the city, as people swim away from a sinking (washimj or VMttimj) ship.' 'Inmiersed [imshed or wetted) with sins.' ' He immersed (washed or ^vetted) the sword up to the hilt in his o^^^l bowels.' . . . People wash to clean ; but do they always wet to clean?"— Fi'nc;., pp. 13, 14. D. Macallan. — "If, for instance, the Saviour, when He instituted the ordinance, had intended simply washing, without special reference to mode, Louo would have exj)ressed that meaning, as Isa. i. 16, ' Wash ye (lousasthe), make you clean.' If He O 194 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. not at liberty to make tlie substitution;" and in reference to a certain rendering, " To propose this is all but to i^efute it." Yea, there was a time when the apostle of the Gentiles said, " But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant" (1 Cor. xiv. 38). On Naaman's wasliing or im- mersion, and on Origen's immersion of the intended sacrifice, see pp. 48- 52, 61, 62. § 2. — FtTTILITY or OBJECTIONS FROM CHRIST'S BAPTISM IK SUFFERINGS. C. Tayxor, — "One decisive instance" of what baptism is "is as good as a thousand." — Facts and Evi., p. 26. 2nd Letter. H. DowsoN. — " SVhat can be compared to truth? Wliat is property or reputation ? What is life itself compared with the truth of Oiod? The whole company of martjTS wearing their crowns, and bearing their palms before their Redeemer's throne, were ready to shed their blood for the truth. Let us prize it more ; let us love it more. The merchandize of it is better than the merchandize of silver, and the gain thereof than of fine gold. Better far to bear the aociuniilated scorn of universal being than to be in the position of that man who is ashamed of the truth of Jesus." Dr. W. K. TwEEDiE. — " There are many opinions which pass current for solid truth among men, which yet, when examined, are found to be superficial or untrue. . . . Every member of Christ's church is interested in every ordinance of His appointment. . . . What He was pleased to institute, we should carefully study, and carefully use as He designed." — On Bap., pp. 73, 74. To the corroboration of immersion as the import of baptism from the figurative use and application of the word, several distuiguished Psedobaptist writei's strongly object. "We have such a use of the word in application to the sufierings of Christ. He said (according to the English version of the inspired original) : "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished !" (Luke xii. 50.) "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with '? " (Matt. xx. 22. See also Mark x. 38.) Less has been said in objection to Christ'.s sufferings being figiu'atively denominated an immei\siou, than to the word baptism as having the import of immersion when elsewhere figuratively or literally used. Most Pjedobaptist writers appear to deem silence in regard to our Savioui''s sufferings as the most politic course; but when they have cited a number of passages, and have maintained that they all favour sprinkling or j^ouring as equally valid with immer- sion; and when they conclude by telling us that "it is unnecessary to extend the discussion by adding other instances, especially as those which remain furnish similar evidence, and support the same conclusion," we are bound to consider this j^assage as claimed in sui^port of sprink- ling or pouring. Indeed, our ojiponents, — whicli the reader may frequently notice, and on which we may again animadvert, — generally argue as if any passage that can be believed to favour pouring, equally favours sprink- ling, and as if any passage that can be believed to favour sprinkling, equally f\xvours pouring. Yet what but prejudice could so marvellously blind an intelligent man as to lead him to say that it is more accordant intended .siniplj' 2^i'^'iJ'<"a(lon, another word (Icathmvo), akin to one in the same verse, would have expressed his meaning. _ '■^Vash ye, tnakc you clean {katharni peyicsthc) ;' or AGNizo, Acts xxi. 24, 'Take and purify thyself {agnisthetc).' If He intended 2^ouring, CHEO or ENCHEO would have expressed that meaning, as Ezc. xxiv. 3, ' Set on the pot, and pour (encheon) water into it;' or had He intended sprinkling, rAai?w or rhantizo would have expressed that meaning, as Ezc. xxxvi. 25, 'Then -will I sprinkle (rhano) clean water upon yo\i, and ye shall be clean.' But He did not employ any of these words; He employed baptizo, which signifies immerse." — On Bap., pp. 16, 17. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 195 wifcli sense and with usual pliraseology to speak of a man under the heaviest afflictions as being sprinkled or poiu'ed with trovible, than to speak of him as being immersed in trouble ? Who does not know that beino- immersed in grief or suffex'ings is a common expression which commends itself to common sense,* and which accords with those facts in reo^ard to our Saviour and His apostles to which He refers; whilst the other expressions, — one of which is positively asserted, if baptism is pouring or sprinkling, — are a bui-lesque on all the facts of the case. But Dr. Ewing, in whose Dictionary is given as the first and primary meaning of the word baptizo, " I cover with water, or some other flixid ; I plunge into, or completely under water," Dr. E., — who discovered that the true meaning of the word was to 2^02), and who wrote a pamphlet to acquaint the world with this discovery, to which pamphlet Dr. Cox, with his usu.al learning and courtesy, replied, — thus explains the language of Christ in relation to His sufferings : " I have a cup to drink of, and how am I straitened until it be finished!" (Liike xii. 50;) and he refers to Matt. xxvi. 39, in support of this explanation. That Christ, in Matt, xxvi. 39, speaks of His sufferings as of a cup from which he had to drink, is admitted; but that He calls baptism a cup, is emphatically denied. His sufferings are represented both by drinking from a cup and by baptism. God is said in Psalm Ixxxiv., to be a sun and a sliield; are a sun and a shield, therefore, the same thing, and synonymous words, because God is likened to both 1 Christ says in one place, " I am the door," and in another place, " I am the vine." According to the fallacy of Dr. E., we might say that a door is a vine. But according to liis definition of baptism elsewhere given, our Savioitr's words would be correctly rendered : " I have a pojiping according to which to be popped, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" " Ai-e ye able to be popped according to the popping according to which I am popped, &c. 1 " So warped and blinded by prejudice was Dr. E., that we are unable to treat his fallacious reasoning otherwise than with merited contempt, although we hope in his perfect sincerity in all that he mistakingly and foolishly asserted. Let the reader re-peruse the figiu'ative impoi-t of ba2)tizo given by lexicographers quoted at pp. 37-41, and listen to the following Pa^dobaptists, who, in our judgment, have done greater justice than some of theii' brethren to the words of our adoi-able Redeemer when He is referring to the inexpressible agony that lay before Him. Beza. — "I refer the name of baptism to a familiar metaphor in the ScriptTires, and especially of David, by which afflictions are compared to whirlpools of water, _ * The _Eev. G. W. Conder, speaking of some of SIi-. Glyde's trials, says : "A twofold trial was in store for him : a baptism of suffering and of sorrow, from which he was to emerge with a new and gi-ander purpose of life distinctly formed " {Memoirs, p. 15). What other idea than immersion in suffering does the Eev. Harvey Goodwin attach to a baptism of suffering when he says : "The Lord gives some hint of what the real burden of then- prayer was, by asking them whether they were able to driak of the same cup as liiniself," i.e., to bear the same troubles as might come upon him whatever they should be? "Both were willing martyrs for their Master's cause, and, therefore, the two were equally accoimted as having been baptized ^vith His baptism" {Com., on Matt. ; xx. 22, 23). The phrase baptism in suffering, has in it nothing irregular, obscure, or encou- raging to sprinkling, more than the word plimge as used l^y the Rev. G. Gilfillan, when he speaks of the eunuch being "about to plunge into the dreary wildernesses which lead to his native home." — Alpha and Omega, vol, ii., p. 312, 196 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. in which they who are vexed with miseries aud calamities arc as if submerged." — Com., oil INIatt. xx. 22. WiTSius says : " Immersion into the water is to be considered liy us as exhibiting that dreadful abyss of Divine justice, in which Christ for our sins, which He took on himself, was for a time, as it were, absorbed ; as in David, His type, He com- plains (Psalm Ixix. 2), ' I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.'"— Z)(.' (Econ. Feed., 1. iv., c. xvi., § 2G. Archb. Newcome observes, on Luke xii. 50, that "such as were overwhelmed with great temporal evils, might be said to be baptized;" and he illustrates the remark by several classical allusions. — Obs. on our LorcVs Con. an a Di. Ins., part i., u. iii., § 1. li. Wynne. — " ' To be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized wnth,' i.e., to be, as it were, plunged into the dee]) waters, and be overwhelmed for a short time with sufferings." — TIte N. T. ; on Mark x. 38. Sir Harry Trelawney, on Luke xii. 50, said in substance as follows: "Here I must acknowledge that oiu- Bai)tist brethren have the advantage ; for our Redeemer's sufTerings must not be compared to a few drops of water sprinkled on the face, for He was plunged into distress, aud His soid was environed with sorrows." — In Dore's Ser. on Bap. , pp. 28, 29. A. H. Frankius. — "The baptism of Christ represented His sufferings (Matt. XX. 22), and His coming up out of the water, His resurrection from the dead." — Program. ; progr, xiv., \\]). 343, 344. John Trapp. — "And to he hapthed ivitJt the haptlsm. Or plunged overhead and ears in the deep waters of afHictiou." — Com., on Matt. xx. 22. Assembly of Dr'ines. — "With the haptinm. A comparison taken from the manner of baptizing them, by dipi)ing them over head and ears in the water." — Annota., on Matt. xx. 22. Tiios. Wilson.- — " To baptize. To dip into water, or to plunge one into water. 2. To plunge into afflictions or dangers (as it were into deep waters). Matt. xx. 22." — Chr. Die. Art. Bap. M. Martindale. — "The word baptism is frequently taken for suffering (Mark X. 38; Luke xii. 50; Matt. xx. 22, 23). Of expressions like these we find some traces in the Old Testament also, Avliere waters often denote tribulations (Psalms Ixix. 1, 15; cxxiv. 4, 5), and wliere to be swallowed up by the waters, and to jass through the great waters, signify to be overwhelmed M'itli miseries and calamities " (Z)(7). Die. Art. Bap.). Nevertheless, this Wesleyan divine teaches, in conclusion, that immersion "carries with it too much of the apj'carance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; that it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance;" yea, more, that "in many eases the immersion of the body would, in all probability, be instant death," &c. Was it decent and proper for Christ to be immersed in tlic Jordan or in His sufferings? Does not the Divine Spirit use the same word, wliether speaking of Christ's baptism or Christian baptism ? The People's Dictionary of the Bible. — " 'To baptize,' or 'to be baptized,' from its root-meaning of to immerse, came to signify, figuratively, to be altogether in either good or evil, and hence to denote deep sufferings (Matt. xx. 22, 23)." Beausobre.- — "Concerning the metaphor of the cup, see Psalms xi. 0, and Ixxv. 9; and that of baptism or d)p>ping, see Psalms xhi. 8; Ixix. 3." — (Jam., on Matt. XX. 22. Poole. — -"Afllictions are ordinarily compared in Scripture to waters. To be baptized is to be dipped m water: metaphorically, to be plunged in afllictions." — Com., on Matt. xx. 23. Whitby.— "The metaphor of baptism, or immersion in waters, or being j)ut under iloods, is also familiar in Serii)tiu'e to signify a pei'sou overwhelmed with calamities." — Com., on Matt. xx. 22. Doddridge. — "I have iiuleed a most dreadful bai)tism to be bajitized with ; and I know that I shall shortly be liath<hor from the word baptizomai, to be plunged or immerged in water." — Anno., on Matt. xx. 23. Scott. — " Our Lord might indeed by a strong figiire of speech be said to have been immerged in sufferings, when He endured the wi'ath of God as the pi'opitiation for our sins." — Com., on Matt. xx. 20-23. J. CoBBiN. — "Baptized; a term expressing overwhelming calamities; compare Psalms xlii. 7; Ixix. 2, &e."—Pock. Com., on Matt. xx. 22. Bengel. — "Baptism, . . . among the Jews, . . . the whole body was dipped in a stream. . , , He was covered over, as a person baptized is with water, with His passion. " — Com. , on Mark x. 38. Knapp. — " 5cr^jach of them " like fiery tongues. That Avhich filled all the Ikjusc was that Avliich fidtilh'd the ])romise. Had they the ju-omise of a sound, or of the Spirit ? Were they baptized in or Avith the sound? Was it the glory of the Pentecost that a sound, or that the Holy Spirit filled all the house, and sat on each of the assembled disciples'? In interpreting Holy Writ, we are not to exalt grammar FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 213 aiid hermeneutics at the expense of common sense. What would be thought of such an exaltation of what we much love to honour, in the following? "The graves are ready for me" (Job xvii. 1). "He went up into a mountain" (Matt. v. 1; xiv. 23, kc). "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain" (Matt, xxviii. IG). Does not custom justify this mode of expression by the inspired writers, and also this rendering of eis? Again: "Thy King cometh unto tliee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. . . . And brought the ass and tlie colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set Him thereon " (Matt. xxi. 5, 7). Shall we also reject common sense, refuse all consideration to the usus loquendi, and adhere to literal gram- mar, when we interpret Christ's words to Pilate, " Thou sayest" ] Does not Bp. Watson properly ask, " Are you ignorant that the Jews used the phrase three days and three nights to denote what we understand by three daj^s?" (A pal., p. 13.) Who would so exalt grammar as to main- tain that literally the ark rested "upon the mountains of Ararat"] (Gen. viii. 4.) And who will deny the truthfulness of such a declaration, regarding the sacred writers as using phrases and idioms in accordance with human speech and writing 1 Who could not manifest a jierverse ingenuity in objecting to Christ's being alone, and having the twelve and others about Him ? (INIark iv. 10.) If we must be literally and grammatically precise, even at the expense of common sense, what shall we make of the declaration : " Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan"? (Matt. iii. 5.) Adhering to such an interpretation, what is the imj^ort of John xiii. 29? "Some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him. Buy those things that we have need of against the feast, or that he should give something to the poor." Could they think that Jesus had literally said, ifec.? Again: " What is this that He saith, A little while? We cannot tell what He saith'''' (Jolm xvi. 18). So in Acts v. 21, we read: "But the high-priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the piison to have them brought." Here the noun for which "them" stands is not in this verse or sentence, but iu a preceding one. It might be maintained according to certain reasoning on Acts ii. 1-4, that senate is the word to which " them " refers ; but common sense and the whole connexion teach plainly that it is "the apostles," who are explicitly mentioned in ver. 18. We admit that in some of these Scriptures it is a literal adherence to the phi'aseology rather than to the grammar to which w-e should object. We believe, with Pirie, that fire alone " was the external sign or symbol of the Divine Spirit." " With the Holy Ghost," says Bp. Hinds, " whose emblem and attesting sign shall be fire " {Rise and Ear. Prog, of Chr., p. 132). This writer maintains that there have been three instances of the baptism of the Spirit (Acts ii. 1-4; iv. 31; x. 45). "On all other occasions the descent of the Holy Ghost was such as our Lord alluded to when He said to Mcodemus, ' The wind bloweth,' itc." (pp. 76, 77). '' -Diamerizomai," says Alford, "must refer to something char- acteristic, not of the manner of apportionment, biit of the appearance itself." " There appeared to them," says E. Wynne, " divided tongues " 214 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. {N.T., on Acts ii. 1-3). Some critics prefer one and some the other of these "words. The import of diamerizo is to distribute or to divide. The following lexicons thus speak of its import : — LiDDELL AND ScoTT. — " To distribute." Dr. E. EoBiNSON. — "To dispai-t; to seimrate into parts; to divide up." H. Stephanus. — " Partior, diatribuo.'" J. F. ScHLEUSNER. — " 1. 1)1 2'>artes div'ido et divisa diatnbuo, partlor, distribuo." "2. Dispergo, dlssipo, disjicio." Parkhuest. — "To divide, jiart. ' ' ScHREVELius. — " PurtioT, distribuo, dlscrrpo. " W. Greenfield. — "To divide into parts and distribute, part; to separate by dividing (Acts ii. 3)." Leigh. — " Partior, dlssideo, often." Webster and WiLiaNSON's Greek Testament gives " distnbuted, or disjjersed among them." They and others teach that the common acceptation of cloven is not the import of the Greek, 2:>omted flames being called in Hebrew tongues of fire. "Fire was the symbol of the Divine presence with Abraham (Gen. xv. 17), Moses (Ex. iii, 2, 3), at the delivery of the law (Ex. xix. lG-20)." Humphry says: " Diamerizomenai. Not that each tongue was 'cloven,' but from a common source or root they parted asunder, one to each person." Dr. Hackett, a Baptist, says : ' ' Distributed, that is, among them. So Beng. , Olsh. , De Wet. , Bmg. , Humph. , Rob. , and most of the later critics, as well as some of the older (Meyer comes over to this view in his last edition). According to this view, the firelike appearance presented itself at first, as it were, in a single body " [in which of necessity they were enveloped, hnmersed] "and then suddenly parted in this direction and that, so that a portion of it rested on each of those present. It could be called a tongue, in that case, from its shape, as extended, pointed ; and may have assumed such an appearance as a symbol of the miraculous gift which accompanied the wonder. For the use of the same verb, see ver. 45 ; Matt, xxvii. 35; Luke xxiii. 34." — Com., on Acts ii. 3. If this is correct, we learn from '^ it filled," that that which came, the coming of which was betokened by the sound as of a nishiug, mighty wind, filled all the house. And in ver. 3 we learn that being divided and distributed, " it sat upon each of them." Who will deny that each " it " has the same antecedent ? Who will affirm that the sound " sat upon each of them"? The rendering, "one sat," has been given in preference to, "it sat;" the objections to which are, that one is not in the oi-iginal, and that evidence is not in existence that more pointed flames than one did not rest on the same individual. But it is objected still further that they were not "immersed into" (Dr. H.) this emblem, not "put into the wind" (Mr. S.), or the fire; that "if they were bajitized in the strict sense of immersion, the emblems of tlie Holy Ghost must have been in the room before they entered" (Dr. H.).* And the inference is deduced more or less expressly that this baptism was an affiision, a word that is frequently, and we doubt not for wise reasons, preferred to the word poui-ing. The veiy fact that this event was predicted as a baptism of the Spirit, sliows that it was something more than a pouring out of the Spirit. It included the latter, and the latter is often predicted and promised, and, l)lessed be God, is often taking place; but the giving to this of a different name by the Spirit of inspiration is a proof that it is some tiling different fi-om, or * If on a mountain we become suddenly enveloped in mist, do we show our ignorance of the English language by speaking of being immersed in it ? Is there no immersion iu mist unless it is first ou tlic mouut.nin, and we Kre ^mt into it? FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 215 more than, a pouring ont of tlie Spirit. Jolm the Baptist did not say, I baptize in water, but He shall pour out the Spii'it upon you (Matt. iii. 11, (fee, and the parallel passages). Our Savioiu' did not, a few days previously, say, John tnily baptized with water, but ye shall have the Holy Spii'it poured upon you not many days hence. The promise was, that they should be immersed in the Spirit, if the words are literally rendered, even according to the admission of Dr. Halley, if in is the Uteral rendering of the Greek en, which we believe that he will admit, and that no Greek scholar can deny. We should accept assistance, were it needed, from his admission that the literal rendering of Matt, xxviii. 19, and 1 Cor. x. 2, is, "immersing them into the name," and were all " immersed into Moses." But is it not too bad on the part of our brethren that they should so determinately confine the English word immersion to what they regard as its primary and usual meaning, but to what we all know is not its only meaning, and yet be so intent on rejecting what they admit to be the primaiy meaning of haptizo? If we knew not the character of our opponents, we might think the demand of j^utting into arose from ignorance that it would be a real immersion if the room became filled after their entrance; or from ignorance that immersing into is neither accordant with the original, nor with the rendering of any passage by the Baptists, wherever the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of; or we might suppose that this disreputable course is adopted in order to hold up the Baptists to contempt. We ai'e more astonished with Dr. Halley than with Mr. Stacey and several others in this instance, because he does not dogmati- cally assert, notwithstanding what might l)e said respecting the gram- matical consti-uction of the sentence, that the sound filled the house, but appears to take it for granted as the obvious import of the whole record, that the emblems of the Spii'it entered and filled the house; and because Dr. H., from one or more passages in the classics where hcqAizo occurs, and the object baptized, — as the land by the tide coming upon it, — is not put into the water, but is brought under the water, and thus is thoroughly covered with it, has not at once leaped to the conclusion that to baptize is to apply water in whatever way you like, but to the conclusion that baptism is covering or mersion in whatever way effected. Why object, therefore, to ha2)tizo being here used in the sense of mersion, if he prefers that word to immersion, the Spirit's emblems having entered the house after the apostles, and filled it? It is a baptism still, according to the classical use oi haptizo, and according to Dr. H.'s o-wn confessions. We need not conjecture or assume that the Holy Spirit invented or attached a new meaning to the word. What but confusion could result from sucli a course ] Where is the parallel in regard to such a word ? Why then assert or insinuate a syllable in objection to immersion, and in favour of pouring or sprinkling, to which sense classic use, and, so far as we have yet seen, Scriptural use, gives not an iota of encoui'agementi How ridiculous it would appear if two Englishmen were to carry on a lengthened dispute respecting a man that was bathing: one of them asserting that he was immersed by a huge wave that came over him, and the other denying that it was an immersion, because he neither put himself into the wave, nor was he put into it by another? Dr. H. admits 216 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. that any of these is baptism, but maintains that only the latter of the supposed cases is immersion. We maintain that the first also is immer- sion, but admit that the word may not be so fi-equently thus used. We practise what Dr. H. maintains is baptism, and we wish him to do like- wise. In regard to the baptism of tlie Spirit, we affirm the impossibility of its perfect imitation by man, water being the element instead of the Spirit. But why say, " If the water is put first into the bath, and the feet afterwards, there is immersion ; if the feet are there first, and the water is poured afterwards, there is no immersion"'? (p. 371.) "VVe believe that Dr. Johnson, if not also every lexicographer, admits this to be immersion. Mr. Stacey and many other learned Ptedobaptists speak of the Egyptians as being immersed in the Red Sea when the Israelites had passed ovei", "and Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea," and "the watei-s returned and covered the chai-iots and the hoi'se- men and all the host of Pharaoh " (Ex. xiv. 26-28). Wei'e the Egyptians put into the waters of the Red Sea, or did these waters come upon them ? Resides, we wonder more at Dr. H. than at Mr. S., because the latter is so enamoured with the works of Drs. Wardlaw, Beecher, Halley, Wilson, and Godwin, that he says : " No writer coming after them would omit to read their works" (p. iii.). Does oxxv having read all these writers save one account for our ignorance 1 Our omission does not accord with his expression or expectation. And it does not appear from his work that he lias read any Baptist i)ublication on this subject, or that he deems it desirable that anybody else should : but Dr. H. appears to have read Drs. Carson, Gale, and Cox, on baptism. And Dr. Gale we again quote as saying: "The word bajjtizo, pei-haps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting imder water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it; though, indeed, to jiut it into the water is the most natural way and the most common, and is therefore usually and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily, implied" (pp. 96, 97). And Dr. Cox says : "A person may be immersed by means of pouring, but immersion is the being plunged into water or overwhelmed by it ; and no one of the terms employed to represent the mode of imparting the Spirit can desciibe the effect of the communication. Were the water to ascend from the earth, it would still be baptism, were the person wholly covered with it. Both the literal and figurative uses of the word immersion ai-e precisely similar in the English language" (On Bajj., p. 94). The same sentiment is in Pengilly's Guide to Baptism. In whatever way, therefore, the Spirit entered the house, and filled it, the apostles were necessarily immersed in the same. Instead of any encour- agement being aftbrded to pouring or sprinkling as the import of baptism, we claim this passage as a corroboration of the fact that baptism is immersion. Thei-e was not merely an outwai'd immersion in the Spirit, or the emblems of the Spirit, but there was an inwaid and abiindaut reception of the Spirit : a being, so to speak, penetrated and filled, as to their souls, with the Holy Ghost, spiritually immersed in the Spirit, filled with His miraculous influences, which was immediately manifested by their speaking with tongues, and which had been indicated to them by the distribution of the fire when as cloven tongues it sat \ipon each. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 217 How inconsistent is every part of this record with the fancy that sprinkling is baptism, every candid reader must see. That pouring is not baptism, every candid reader 7nay see. If the abundant mdwelling by the impartation of the Holy Spirit had been the only thing recorded, which we emphatically deny, the passage would have been as incongruous with the supposition that baptism is a sprinkling as are the prayei"s of Pffidobaptists now offered for the baptism of the SjDirit. We have, perhaps, been more lengthened here than we should have been, but for Dr. H.'s remark before leaving this passage. He says, in reference to the baptism of the Si^irit and that of the Red Sea : "To these texts I appeal ; and throiigh the rest of the lecture, in attempting to show that some passages may be best explained, and some pressing diflficulties may be avoided, by supposing the word baptism did not imply immersion in designating the religious rite, I must be understood as continually leaning upon these instances" (p. 294). These two passages, to apply the words of Prof. Godwin, " are the two pillars " which sup- port the fabric of sprinkling, " and it must fall if these are found to yield it no support" (C/w. JSaj)., p. 339). And inasmuch as nothing can be more reasonable than that " whoever assigns to a disputed word a secondary sense is bound to the proof of it" (Dx\ H., p. 343); and since to the challenge of Dr. Carson, " I give my opponents the whole range of Greek literature, till the institution of the ordinance of baptism," Dr. H. says: " Nothing can be more unfair. A secondary sense is foimd, as we maintain, in connexion with tlie religious ordinance. . . . As soon as this rite obtained its name, we contend for a secondary signification of the word" (p. 372); we are fully authorized to expect proof of a secondary meaning above all places in Acts ii. 1-4, and 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. The poor doctor we Ijoth admire and pity, travelling from place to place in God's Word, but never daring to relinquish either of these two crutches. We should admire the policy of any man venturing into what might prove a quagmire, if he was resolved not to abandon what he believed would save him from sinking; bvit we should be very hard- hearted if we did not pity the man wlien we saw him clinging to that which instead of being able to support him, could only contribute to his sinking lower and sinking inextricably. It is, however, tme, after all the inconsistency, contradiction, improbability, and impossibility, which distinguish the assertions and reasonings of Dr. H. and other Ptedobap- tists on these Scriptures, that tliey are regarded as the grand support of something else than immersion being valid as Christian baptism. The Presbyterian professor, Dr. Wilson, is as confident on this passage as our Wesleyan and Independent brethren. He says : " There is not, and there cannot be, an immersion into the poured out emblems of the Spirit, simply because these emblems are poured out upon the parties who receive the Spirit's baptism" (pp. 251, 252). This is in substance what we have previously encountered. A man is not immersed in the sea by the wave covering over him ! He must be put into the wave if he is immersed ! The Egyptians were not immersed in the Red Sea, because the sea came upon them, and they were not put into the sea ! But our learned brother, commenting on the figurative use of haptizo by Chrysostom, can say: "The waves sweeping on successively administer 218 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. the destructive baptism, and themselves constitute tlie baptizing element" (p. 267). Yea, "baptism in the sense of ovci'whelming forms the literal basis of sundiy figurative applications" (Do.). He says that "the emblematical outjiouring of the Spu'it upon the subject is the Spirit's baptism; why not, on the same principle, recognize the outpouring of water upon the subject as water baptism V (p. 252.) Why does not Dr. W. remember in connexion with the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit, "It filled all the house where they were sitting"? Let "the outpoui'lng of water " resemble the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit, and tve will not deny that there will be a baptism. No other outpouring than this Pentecostal one, and that of Acts x. 44:— 46, is in God's Word designated a baptism. We accept from him that the Pentecostal baptism is "an example furnish mg the rare combination of the proper with the tropical" (p, 270); and that "Dr. Campbell's rendering [I indeed bap- tize you in water; . . . He will baj^tize you in the Holy Spiiit and fire] exhibits no violation of Greek syntax" (p. 243). We deny "with an iinfalteiing negative " that tvith can claim " an equal correspondence with the laws of the Greek language." " Feebleness personified "' is an inadequate expression by which to designate such an assertion. Of more than what has been written by Dr. W., it may in his own words be said, " It bristles with inconsistencies, which we defy mortal ingenuity to reconcile" (p. 276). This baptism of the Spirit could not be a baptism literally in the Di\TJiity; but as it is said that "suddenly there came a sound as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting," it has been judged by some Baj^tists, as well as P^edobaptists, that emble- matic wind filled the house as the token of the Divine Spirit's pi-esence : an assertion which we dare not make, an idea which is not, we believe, in God's Word. We will now, however, quote the remai-ks first of some Baptist and then of several Psedobaj)tist writer-s on this subject, which may perhaps assist in convincing the reader that pouring or sprinkling, rather than immersion, is the thing "incredible" as liaptism; and that Dr. H.'s crutch is a broken reed, if not a spear whose sharp point will pierce the person leaning thereon. Dr. Carson, from whom we strongly dissent as to the wind entering the house, in reply to Dr. Ewing, who had said "that ' the sound' of the wind was heard descending from heaven, and filling the house," says : — "Yes, but tlie descending is not the baptism. The wind descended to fill the house, that when the hoiise was filled with the wind the disciples might be baptized in it. Their baptism consisted in being totally surrounded with the wind, not in the manner in which the wind came" (p. 110). "Is it possible that iliere is any one who has so little of the powers of discrimination as not to be able to distinguish between bringing water from a foiuitain, and the use of that •water when it is brought; between pouring water into a liath, and bathing in the bath? Yet every one who concludes from the pouring of the Sjiirit that baptism must be ])ouring, either wants this discrimination, or is unwilling to use it" (p. 111). Again, in reply to Dr. Ewing on the descent of the Spirit upon Christ after His baptism : "But was the Aove poured out of lieaveu? Is not the Spirit said to descend from heaven, in conformity to the dove, the emblem? This shows that the descent of the Spirit is sjjohen of in language always suited to the emblem under which lie is repre- sen ted. When water is the emblem, the descent is spoken of as pouring, or aa falling like dew, &c. When the dove is the emblem, the descent is spoken of, not FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 219 as poiiring, but as the descent of a bird. Such varied language is suited to the various emblems, and not to any reality in the manner of the communication of the Spirit. Let any Christian attend to this observation, and he will be ashamed of the childish, or rather heathenish, explanation of this language, that implies that the Godhead is matter. Pouring is most frequently used for the sending of the gifts of the Spirit ; but I have shown that the same thing is spoken of with refer- ence to a foimtain springing up, — a running stream, — the rain that is said to fall, — or the dew that distils. And here the same thing is exhibited as the descent of a bird, in conformity to the dove, which is the emblem employed. Let us hear no more, then, of baptism as 2^oii'ring, in order to represent the x>ourin{) of the Spirit. We may as well make baptism a flying, to repi-esent the descent of a dove ; or a hloioing, and a blazing, to represent the wind and fire on the day of Pentecost ; or a stream, to represent the river that supplies the city of God ; or a jet, to represent the springing of a fountain ; or a distillation, to represent the gentle falling of the dew; or a shoirer-bath, to represent the falling of the rain" (p. 112). "It is absurd to suppose an ordinance to l^e appomted to represent the mode of the Spirit's communication ; and as it is spoken of under all these modes, each of them might claim an ordinance as well as pouring " (p. 106). " The Spirit is said to hepowed out, not because there is any actual pom'ing, which is represented by 2')ouring out water in baptism, but from the resemblance between the effects of the influences of the Spirit and those of tvater. Between the Spirit itself and water there is no resem- blance, more than between an eye or a circle and the Divine nature. Nor is there any resemblance between the mode of the operations of the Spirit, and that of the influences of water. The Holy Sjnrit is said to be poured, because His influences or effects are like those of watei", and because He is supposed to dwell above. The Holy Spirit is represented as poured out, on the same principle on which God is said to have come down from heaven, or to have hands and arms. It is in accom- modation to our ways of thinking and speaking, -not as expressive of reality " (pp. 105, 106). Again: "That which is immersed in a liquid, is completely sub- jected to its influence, and imbued with its virtues; so to be immersed in the Spirit represents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit to His influence" (p. 104). Dr. Cox does not object to sound as the antecedent of "it" in ver. 2. He says : "In translating this passage, Mr. Ewing has marked emphatically the phrase, 'a flame sat down upon every one of them.' This, however, is far from aff"ording any assistance to his general argument ; for it would be extremely difficult to discover any analogy het-ween 2^oiiring or sprinkling and sitting doion; or, perhaps, it will be said, between sitting down and immersing. True, but we neither require nor plead for such an illustration. ... It wiU be alleged that in adducing the prophecy of Joel, Peter uses the words ehcheo apo tou pneumatos nnou, ' I will pour out of my Spirit;' and afterwards, exechee touto, 'he hath shed forth (or poured out) this;' and that this was the accomplishment of the promise of baptism with the Spirit. But what was the accompUshment of the promise? And what do the words touto esti to eiremenon dia toil piroiyhetou loel, — ' this is the very thing spoken of by the prophet Joel,^ — signify? The jiromise refers to the ivhole of the communication and its results, not to the mode of that communication. I might as well affirm that the baptisrn with the Holy Si)irit refers to the sound of the wind, or the appearance of the cloven tongues, as that it refers to the j}ouring out of the Spirit, or His descend- ing from above. The promise was not to the circumstance of the j)ouring out, or to the circumstance of the descent of the Holy Spirit, but to their being replenished, imbued, extraordinarily possessed, with this Divine energy. Perfectly coincident with this idea is the phraseology in Matthew ; which is not ' he shall jjour water upon you, and pour fire tipon you, but autos humas baptisei en pneumati hagio kai ^M9v:, He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire'" (On Bu])., pp. 91-93). "It is not declared, 'Ye shall be 2^oured upon, fallen upon, come iqwn,' but (the inspired writer using a different word) ' Ye shall be baptized.'"— Z)o., p. 94. Mr. L _T. HiNTON says: "If we may speak with strict propriety of the over- 2vhehning influence of a torrent of eloquence, of how much more overwhelming a character was this wondrous communication of the gift of tongues ! And what term could be more appropriate than that of baptism ? If a figurative expression must be further dissected to search after sprinkling or pouring, the idea is clearly not that each apostle was filled by an individual pouring, but that, as the sound (as of a mighty wind) filled the room, so was the room filled ^vith the Spirit, so tliat all 220 IMPOllT OF BAPTISM. the disciples were immersed iu it, as \vc are constantly inmicrsed in the air which we breathe." In a note, he quotes Cyril of Jenisalem as saying, "for as he that goes down into the water is surrounded on all sides by the water,* so the apostles were baptized all over by the Spirit ; the water surroiuids tlie body externally, but the Spirit incomprehensiljly baptizes the interior soul." Thus speaks €3011 respecting that baptism which Dr. Halley professes liumhly to imUate, Dr. A. Campbell says: "The whole argument, from the baptism of the Holy Spii'it to 'water bajitism,' is predicated upon the following sophism: — Suppose a controversy should arise about the present ' mode ' of marriage a thousand yeai"S hence ; and he that espoused the mistaken side should argue thus, ' A man in those days was said to be wedded to virtue; now this was an emblem of a literal wedding, therefore, as we all understand how a man is wedded to virtue, we have only to inquire into this mode of wedding to \'irtue, and then we shall understand a literal wedding. Now we know that a man is said to be wedded to virtue who simply chooses virtue, and pursues a virtuous coiu-se, without any formality; there- fore he that chooses a wife, and lives with her, is wedded without any formality, and was a thousand years ago said to be mai-ried.' This is precisely the Psedo- bajjtist sophism, with this small difference, which makes the sophism more gross — that the Paxlobaptists confess they do not understand the mode of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and yet argue from it as though they did." — Debate with Mac, p. 309. Mr. A. Booth says: "There is no more literal projiriety iu speaking of the Holy Spirit being "poured or sprhikled upon those first disciples of our ascended Lord, than in representing them as immersed iu the Holy Spirit. Must we then expomid the principal terra of a Divine law, which is to be literally understood, by a merely cdlusive expression; so expound it as to depart from its native, primarj^ and obvio\is meaning ? It has been common for learned men to examine the propriety of metaphorical and allusive terms, upon the foimdation of their literal and primary meaning; but never, that I have observed, to consider an allusive application of them as the standard of their litei'al sense. Yet this is the case here. . . , This, we think, is very extraordinary. For if the command to baj^tize need any explanation from subsequent facts, it seems natural for us to have recoui'se, not to the language of metaphor, nor to any expression that is merely allusive, but to aj)ostolic pi'actice in the administration of ba2>tism; because, by making allusive expressions the rule of interpreting literal commands, any Divine law may soon be exi:ilaiued away. For instance, had the mode of interpi-etatiou adopted by our opponents been approved and ajiplied by the ancient Hebrews to the command of circumcision, they might have evaded the painful rite. ... I cannot help thinking, therefore, that when our brethren, in the case before us, make such appeals to miraculous agency and metaphorical expressions, they tacithj confess that the ohvicus meaning of the xuord hax)tism, and j^rimitive practice, afford their cause but little assistance.^' "Again, as it is not uncommon for us to speak of being immersed in debt, in Imsiness, or in care ; and of being })lunged in grief or in ruin ; so we are never considered as using these metaphorical expressions with elegance, or with projiriety, except so far as the analogical sense in which we employ them jioints to their literal and primary meaning. The following ndes, among various others, have iu this case been given: — 'It ought to be remembered that all figurative ways of using words or phrases supjwse a natural and literal meaning.' f 'The figm-ative sense must have a relation to that which is 2)roi>er; and the more intimate the relation, the figure is the more happy. The proper sense of the word ought to bear some proportion to the figurative sense, and not soar much above it, nor sink much below it. To draw consequences from a figure of speech, as if the word were to be under- stood literally, is a gross absurdity.':}; Pei-tinent on this occasion is the language of Chrysostom, who speaks of ' being baptized, or immersed, in cares innumei-able ' (muriais baplizomenos pltrontisin) : and again, to the same effect, upo 2^lethos phronti- * The "Library of the Fathers " gives this translation : "For as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized, is encompassed on all sides by the water, so," &c. ■f Dr. Keid's E-iaai/.i on the Intellectual Pcnvers of Man, p. 74. X Enni. J5ri<., under FIOURE of Speecli. See also Dr. Ward's Si/xtem of Oratory, vol. i., p. ;i8«. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 221 don ton noun hehaptismenon echontts. So Basil the Great, clescribing a person avIio stands immovably against the storms of temptation and persecution, calls him o?)«^>osed secondary meaning that can be imagined." — VoLi.,p. 93. The attentive and candid reader cannot avoid being reminded liow * Apud Schelhornium, Biblioth. Brem., class vii., p. 638. Vide Suiceri Thcsau. Ecclc, torn, i., p. 623. "f" Ut supra, p. 404. t Matt. iii. 11 : Mark i. 8 ; John i. 26, 31, 33. So Moutanus ; so the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic veisions ; and so Le Clerc, Simon, and others, in their French ver.sions, together with Wetham's Enghsh translation, published at Douay, render Matt. iii. 11, with whom Tindal's translation, Cranmer's Bible, and the Bishops' Bible, as they are usually called, agree. 222 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. our opponents, in holding up Baptist sentiments to contempt, have per- verted the unerring instruction given to a depraA^ed and benighted world in the preposition Divinely chosen. Instead of citing the other Baptists whom we had marked for quota- tion, we shall adduce the sentiments of a few Piedobaptists in regard to the baptism of the Spiiit. To the approval of every expression or sentiment that may be quoted from Ptedobaptists, or from Baptists, we do not pledge ourselves. Our own sentiments have been already given. These are adduced to strengthen conviction that the baptism of the Spirit, instead of favouring sj)rinklLng or pouring, is confimiatory of immersion. Cyril, of Jerusalem, who wrote in the Greek language, and evidently regarded immerse as the import of baptho, says : " For the Lord saith, ' Ye shall be immer- sed (baptMhesestke) in (en) the Holy Spirit not many days after this.' Not in part the grace; but all-sufficing power! For as he who sinks douTi in the waters {endunon en tois hudasi), and is immersed [haptizomenos), is surroimded on all sides by the waters [pantachothen upo ton hiulaton periballetai), so also they were com- pletely immersed (ebaptisthesan) by [upo) the SiJirit." — Ins. viii. On the Holy Spirit^ ii. 14. WiTSius. — "A very great communication of the fiery or purifying Spirit ia called baptism, because of its abundance." — Miscel. Sac, tom. ii., jj. 535. Le Clerc. — " ' He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.' As I phmge you in water, He shall plunge you, so to speak, in the Holy Spirit." — Remarques sur Nouv. Test., a Matt. iii. 1. Grotius. — "To be baptized here, is not to be slightly siwinkled, but to have the Holy Spirit abundantly poured upon them " (In Poole's Synop., on Acts i. 5). That Grotius regarded apostolic baptism as immersion, is evident from his saying "that this rite was wont to be performed by immersion, and not by perfusion," &c., which v/e may sixbseriuently quote. Leneant. — "With ivater; with the Hohi Ghost. Greek, in water; in the Holy Ghost. These words do very well express the ceremony of baptism, which was at first performed by plunging the whole body in water, as also the copious effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost." — Note on Matt. iii. 11, Eng. Tran. GuRTLERUS. — "Baptism in the Holy Si)hit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit ; or a rich and abundant communication of His gifts. For he on w^hom the Holy Siiirit is poured out is, as it were, immersed into Him." — Inst. TAeoZ.,c. xxxiii.,§ 108. Casaubon. — " Baptizein is to immerse; and in this sense the apostles are truly said to be baptized ; for the house in which this was done was filled A^-ith the Holy Ghost, so that the a^wstles seemed to be plunged into it as into afishpool." — In Dr. Gill's Ancient Mode of Baptizing, pp. 22, 23. Ikenius. — "The Greek word bajjtismos denotes the immersion of a thing, or a person, into something. . . . Here also (Matt. iii. II, compared ^^^th Luke iii. 16) the baptism of fire, or that which is performed in fire, must signify, according to the same simplicity of the letter, an immissiou or immersion into fire ; and this the rather, because here, to baptize in the Si)irit and in tire, are not only connected, but also opposed to being baptized in uxiler." — Disscr. Phil. Thcol. Diss, xix., p. 325. Leigh. — "Baptized; that is, drown you all over, dip you into the ocean of His grace; opposite to the sprinkling which was in the law." — Anno., on Matt. iii. 11. H. DouwELL. — "The words of our Saviour wei-e made good, 'Ye shall be bap- tized (plunged or covered) with the Holy Spirit,' as John baptized with water, without it." — Qen. Delu. of Christians, &c., part ii., c. iv., § 7. Bp. Hopkins. — "Those that are baptized with the Spirit, are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame whose searching energy devours all their dross, tin, and base alloy." — Works, p. 519. Bp. Reykolds. — "The Spirit, under the Gospel, is compared to water; and that not a little measure, to sprinkle or bedew, but to baptize the faithful in." — Works, p. 226. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 22S Doddridge. — "He sliall ba^jtize you with a most plentiful effasiou of tlie Holy Spirit,"— Pon, on Matt. iii. 11. Archb. TiLLOTSON. — "/i filled all the house. This is that which (ver. 5 of this chapter) our Saviour calls hcvptizing the apostles loith the Holy Ghost, as they who sat iu the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost; as they who were baptized with water were overwhelmed and covered all over with water, which is the proper notion of baptism." — On Acts ii. 1-4. Ser. 197. It is a pleasure to iis that there are some Pseclobaptists who do not teach that, because the Spii'it in HLs gracious and abundant influences is said to be poured out, or because there has been according to promise a baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, therefore the command to immei'se means to sprinkle, to poui", to immerse, or to use water in any way ! A few quotations will next be given in which is special reference to the distribution of the emblematic fij"e. Baitmgaeten. — "The tilling of the whole house with this mighty sign is an intimation that the persons for whose sake the token had taken the direction of this particular house, were themselves to be fiUed with the Holy Ghost " (On Acts ii. 1-13). He also, as follows, quotes Piossteuscher : "The one power, which at first was merely audible to the disciples (ver. 1), and then sensibly blew around them (ver. 2), divides itself ; since its invisible substance, which had been diffused around, is suddenly concentrated into %asible tongues of fire, which settled, licking, on the head of each one of the hundred and twenty." — Do. Clark's Edition. Teollope. — "The word diamerizomenai, in ver. 3, does not signify cloven, as the E. T. renders it, but distributed among them.^' — Gr. Tes., on Acts ii. 3. Dr. J. A. Alexander, — "The form of the original is passive, and means strictly, ivere seen by them. Cloven should rather be distributed." " Like as of fire, or more exactly, as if of fire." "It sat upon each of them. The singular number has been variously explained, as referring to Spirit in the next verse, or to fire in this, or to the whole apj^earauce viewed as one, or to the distribixtion previously mentioned, which implied that one of the tongues sat on each" {Com., on Acts ii. 3). So the translation of G. Wakefield and others teaches plainly that the distribution of what had the appearance of fire into flames like tongues, was subsequent to the filling of the room. Dr. Bloomfield, having on Acts i. 5, said, "The sense of the passage may therefore be thxis expressed, 'John only dipped men in water, in order; . , . but ye shall be imbued with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and thereby fitted for your apostolic ofiice" (Crit. Dig.), says, on Acts ii. 3: "Not 'cloven,' which would require dieschismenoi, nor ' distributed,' which is not agreeable to the context, but 'distributing,' 'dividing themselves' as lambent flames of fire, of a tongue-like shape, , . . Thus the full sense will be, ' And there were seen, as it were, tongues of fire, distributing themselves, and settling upon them, one on each.' " — Gr. Tes. A. Cameron. — "The Spu-it was specially poured out, not only in His more visible eflects (speaking with tongues, &c.), but, as we cannot but believe, in His invisible or inward operations too. This was implied in the baptism of the Holy Ghost which had been promised, and was now vouchsafed. The hearts of the com- pany woiild be bathed in repentance, faith, love, and hohness," "The outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles was precisely similar to His outpouring on the Jews."— i?V(?tt, Trea., pp. 380, .381. Dr. Stier. — "Concerning the baptizing with the Holy Ghost, Theophylact rightly said, 'It signifies the outpouring and abundance of the bestowment.' " " They should now be immersed into the full flood of the Spirit of God. "— TForcfo, &c. , vol. viii. , pp. 419, 420. Knapp. — "-ffaiJ^Jsma, from ftctp^ijeirt, which properly signifies to immerse, . . . is often used tropically. 1. For what flows, or is communicated to any one in full measure, as in Latin, perf under e, imbuere, to pour aU over, to imbue, e.a.. Acts i. 5." —Chr. TheoL, p. 425. Neander. — "He it was that should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and ivith fire; that is to say, that as John's followers were entirely immersed in the water, so the Messiah would immerse the souls of behevers in the Holy Ghost, imparted 224 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. by himself ; so that it should thorouglily peuotrate their being, and form withiu them a new princijile of life" {Life of Cln-ht, p. 25). Again : "The baptism of the Holy Spirit which He administers, is no other than the immersion of human nature in the Divine life communicated by Him, so that it becomes comj)letely imbued with it." — His. of Plan, of Chris., vol. i., p. 495. Let any reader judge from those vei'.se,s in wliich the common word haptizo occurs in rehition to the baptism of the Spirit (Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 33; Acts i. 5; xi. 16), which in every instance is contrasted mth the baptism of John, whether, without any intimation here or in any part of tlie sacred volume, this haptizo, whose explicit and well-known meaning was to immerse, is so evidently used with another and widely different imjiort, that we have here proof that the pen of inspiration gave a new sense to the Greek word. Yet this passage, with 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, is the stronghold of our opponents for the pretence that the common word haptizo, which had the specific and well- known meaning to immerse until dictated by the Spirit of God, then suddenly underwent the most unaccountable transmutation of import, actually meaning, adopting water as the element, to pour, to sprinkle, to immerse, to wash, or to use the water in any way you like ! Whether the reader concludes that sound, and sound alone, filled the house, and, consequently, that nothing emblematical filled it, or whether he con- cludes that wind, or fii-c as the Spiiit's chosen emblem, filled the house, or Avhether he concludes that the baptism had exclusive reference to the souls of those that were present, wo will ask any reader for the least amount of evidence that haptizo here means anything less than to immerse. In our judgment, the j^assage requires that the acknowledged meaning be here attached to the word, and is, consequently, confirmatoiy of immerse as its import in the Oracles of God. The Spirit was a1)un- dantly poured out, and the disciples Avere immersed in the Holy Spirit. How some of our Pjcdobaptist brethren can believe that the baptism of the Spirit was general, and is continued; how they can pray again and again for a fresh baptism of the Spirit, and yet continue infant sprink- ling as baptism, and believe in the Divine record (Acts ii. 1-4) which we have been consideiing, and in the Divine record which assures us that there is "one baptism" (Eph. iv. 5), we can only conceive, while remembering the blinding natui'e of prepossessions, and of listening only to arguments on one side of the question. § 4. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM THE BAPTISM OF THE CHILDKEN OF ISRAEL. Dr. Cogswell. — " Take no opinion, piireue no coiu-.se of conduct, on tru.st; be biassed neither by passion nor prejudice in faith or practice, but believe and act on substantial evidence and sound principles ; and in such a course be inflexible." J. A. Haldank. — " It has been observed that, although the theorems of Euclid are luiiversally admitted, if they liad any reference to subjects in wliieh the interests and passions of men were concerned, they would undoubtedly have been controverted." — Noc. Wor., p. 177. J. A. Jame.s.— "There is no truth, however evident and certain it maybe, against which the ingenious and dexterous sophist may not advance some plausible objections, and in connexion with which its mcst assured believers may not sec some ditliculties they may not be able to explain." "Do not allow yourselves to be driven from your convictions because yoii cannot refute all the arguments, nr remove all the difficulties, or meet all the objections wliich may be brought against them." " It may be well sometimes, when startled and i)ei-plexed with difticulty on one side of a (question, to look at the diflicultics on the other side." — Yoioig Man's Giiidc, pp. 129, 130. Dr. Hallev. — "To baptize, nlthough used sometimes figuratively in reference to the mind, ought to be understood, unless there be some reason to the contrary, like every other word, in its ordinary acceptation." Dr. Carson. — "The word in its Uteral sense must guide all its figurative applications. The FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 225 explanation of the figure must conform to the literal meaning, but t)ie latter can never bend to the figurative. The latter, indeed, may assist us in ascertaining the former ; but when the former is ascertained, the latter must be explained in accordance with it " (p. 104\ Prof. AViLSON. — "We enter on this part of the inquiry with the fullest admission, that, in ascertaining the meaning of a term, it would be culpably unsafe to elevate mere figure into a standard, to which the literal sense is to be bent or accommodated. Tropical applications cannot legitimately lie at the basis of interpretation, much less supersede a meaning which is grammati- cally and historically established. This admission, however, does not warrant the inference that the province of figurative language is entirely subordinate and servile. A figure may serve to confirm the literal acceptation, where its evidence is defective ; and it is even competent to preserve and prove that acceptation " (pp. 264, 2(35). That part of God's Woi-d where the children of Israel are said to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, is 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. The passage we claim as confirmatory of our views of the action included in baptism. It is claimed by our opponents as strongly sujjporting sprink- ling or pouring, or rather sprinkling and pouring; for, not to speak scornfully, but gravely, according to their logic, that Avhich supports one supports the other; and if there is any difficulty in conceiving whether an hypothesis encourages sprinkling or pouring, it equally encourages both. Whether our friends, as the first step towaixls immersion, will unite sprinkling and pouring, and make them together "one baptism," we will not venture to predict. We are quite certain that, however generally one is abandoned in practice, they will very reluctantly abandon either in argument. As we feel strongly on what our Pa^dobaptist friends have written on St. Paul's words, and are likely to express ourselves strongly, we shall, after a brief quotation from Dr. Watts, Dr. A. Clarke, and Dr. Woods, with a word or two from ourselves, give the whole of what our Wesleyan and Independent brethren. Mi-. Stacey and Dr. Halley, have written on this baptism, excepting only the animadversions of Dr. H. on Dr. Carson, which are given in his Ap^jendix, to which we shall simply refer. Some of our remai-ks on Mr. S.'a assertions we shall defer till we have quoted from Dr. H. what we regard as a similar caricature and perversion of Divine truth. What we, then, may say in reply to one will be in reply to the other. Dr. Watts says: "The childrea of 'Israel were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; ' not they were dipped in the water, but they were sprinkled by the clouds over their heads, and perhaps by the water Avhich stood up in heaps as they passed by" (Berry St. Lcc, vol. ii., p. IS4). To such a conjecture is the amiable and learned Watts obliged to resort in opposing inunersion ! Dr. A. Clarke says of the cloud wliicli symbolized God's presence : " It is manifest from Scripture that the miraculous cloud in the wilderness performed a threefold office to the Israelites. I. It was a cloud in the form of a^xVtor to direct their journey by day. 2. It was a jiillar of Jire to give light to the camp hy n'xjlit. 3. It was a covering for them during the day, and ]jreserved them from the scorching rays of the sun ; and supplied them with a sufficiency of aqueous particles, not oidy to cool that burning atmosphere, but to give refreshment to themselves and their cattle ; and its huinidity was so abundant that the apostle here represents the ])eople as thoroughly sprinkled and enveloped in its aqueous vai)Our" {Com., on 1 Cor. x. 1). Did any one ever write suppositious more unfounded and monstrous than those contained in Dr. C.'s third declaration, and yet speak of the same as "manifest from Scripture"! Dr. L. Woods says: " 'Were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' Tliis does not mean that tliey were plunged or immersed in the cloud or the sea; for they went through 'on dry ground.' The most that can be intended by the expression is, that they Avere sprinkled or wet from the cloud, or from the spray of the sea as tliey passed through." — Works, vol. iii., p. 4-i,'5. Mr. Stacey says: " The term Ijaptize is used in several instances, — as Q 226 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. in the relation of historic facts, and the promise of spiritual operations, — in respect to wliicli tlie idea of immersion is inconceivable. One of these is the following: 'Moreover, brethren, I Avould not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers Avere under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea.' Let the common version be displaced by the Bai)tist rendering, and we have then the curious announcement that all the fathei's were dip- ped into Moses. To i)ropose this is all but to refute it" (p. 202. The italics are ours). We have before given both the Baptist and tlie Pfedobaptist rendering, using, howevei", immerse instead of dip. (See pp. 116-122.) But we will alloAv any reader to give his verdict whether sprinkled into Moses, or poured, or washed, or cleansed into Moses, be an exjoression equally allowable. Dip or immerse is a word which is well known to receive after it the preposition in or into. We dip or immerse a person in water, or into water. And Mr. S. has said, "There is a positive command to baptize, eis, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and obedience to this command seems possible only as the three distinctions of the unsearchable Essence are severally pronounced. To be baptized info the name of any one, is to be devoted to him, by some appropriate ceremony, as a religious teacher and guide. This may not exhaust the whole contents of the expression, but it suggests the general idea. The Israelites were thus 'baptized unto Moses'" (p. 172). The reason for his saying unto, after he has so clearly taught that it was into, we may most charitably suppose arose from his quoting the authorized translation. Again, at page 199, he says: "To express the idea of immersion strictly and fully, the preposi- tion eis, into, shoxild precede the substantive hudor, watei\" The 2>repo- sition eis here precedes Moses, and is preceded by a word which means to immerse, according to the most abundant testimony. The phrase, immersed into Moses, is not only an admissible "phrase, it is a ceremony apjiro'priately significant of devotedness to him "as a religious teacher and guide : " but sjyrinkled into Moses is an inadmissible phrase, and a nonsensical expression; whilst to propose, poured into Moses, or cleansed into Moses, " is all but to refute it," or even something more than this. He proceeds : — "That the baptism of the Israelites was not by imruersion, the history of the transaction sufficiently evinces. The Egyptians were inunersed, or overwhelmed, but the people of God were not. The essence of the miracle consisted in this : One Bank as lead in the mighty waters ; the other passed over on dry ground. ' With the blast of Thy nostrils,' says Moses, 'the waters were gathered together, the floods stood iipright as a heap, the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry gi'ound.' As there was no immersion in the sea, so there was none in the cloud. Had, in fact, the one gone over the Israelites, or the other covered them, there woxild not strictly have been a dijiping. But the uarrati^•c directly informs us, that the cloud went before to guide, and stood behind to protect them. Nothing can be plainer than the following: 'And the pillar of the clo\id went from before their face, and stood behind them: and it came between the camp of the Eg3qitians and the camp of Israel ; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light 1>y night to these : so that the one came not near the other all the night. ' True the apostle says they 'were under the cloud ;' but while this, literally understood, would not have been a nebulous innnersiou, the obvious meaning is, that they were under the protection of the cloud, as the symbol of the Di\ine presence. It is thus Isaiah FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 227 refei'S to and explains the plienomeuou: 'Then shall Jehovah create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion and upon her assemblies, a cloud of day and a smoke, and the brightness of a Haming fire by night : for over all that is glorious shall be a iDrotectiou;' Isaiah iv. 5." (pp. 202, 203). In reply to the above, we admit that the Egyptians were immersed, and more than immersed ; they were drowned ; but the Israelites were simply baptized. We have before seen, as in the case of Aristobuliis, that a person may be baptized, and baptized by those who are enjoined thus to terminate his life, that he may be baptized until he is dro^vned. This is one amongst many evidences that to baptize is to immerse. We have not yet heard of a person being drowned by sprinkling. But that immersion does not mean drowning, and does not necessarily lead to drowning, Mr. S. well knows. Nor was the immersion of the children of Israel an ordinary immersion, a literal immersion in water, an immer- sion exactly the same as the Christian ordinance. They were immersed (baptized), says the Spirit of inspiration, " in the cloud and in the sea." Who that did not wish to ridicule the inspired record woiild demand exact correspondence with the Christian ordinance in connexion with a baptism which the Di^dne Word says was in the cloud and in the sea? The propriety of the appellation given by the Spirit of inspiration is indubitable. The position of the children of Israel when passing throiigh the Red Sea on dry ground must have been such, that it could properly be said that they ivere cdl baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Is it justice to the Spirit of inspiration to say, " As there was no immer- sion in the sea, so there was none in the cloud." Wliether this baptism Avas immersion or not, it was not in the cloud, or in the sea, separately, but "in the cloud and in the sea." Again, if we understand what he means, it is injustice to the Baptists to say, " Had, in fact, the one gone over the IsraeKtes, or the other covered them, there would not strictly have been a dipping." From other remarks on the strict sense of dipping, Ave dovibt not he means that there Avould not have been a 2^uttinff into. But not to mention the determination to confine the Baptists to a single and partial signification of the English dip, and the determination to depai't from the proper, the acknowledged, and, as we think, the only, meaning of baptizo, — not now to reproduce what has been advanced by Drs. Gale and Cox, — Avho can find a more appropriate word than immer- sion by which to designate the condition of the children of Israel in the circumstances referred to by the apostle of the Gentiles 1 But before we proceed further, we will thank ]\Ir. S., — although we believe that he had another design in what he penned, — for bearing testimony to the correct- ness of what we have previously and repeatedly intimated, that the English word immerse, as it is commonly used (like the Greek baptizo), does not invariably have the exclusive sense of putting into. Mr. S. has said : " Tlie Egy^Mans were immersed, or overwhelmed." Also, Dr. J. H. GodAvin, in the Congregational Magazine, says that "the Egyptians Avere immersed." Did they go into the Avater] Were they p>ut into the water \ Did not they, Like the children of Israel whom they followed, go into the sea on dry groimd? And did not the waters remain as a heap, as a wall on their right hand and on their left, until the children of Israel had all passed through, until "the Lord said unto Moses, 228 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Stretch out tliinu liand over the sea, that the waters may come again, upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen " ? (Ex. xiv. 26.) And yet " the Egyptians were wimersed, or overwhelmed." Is not this a use of imuicise which we have constantly maintained, and which every Englishman having the most common education knows to bo perfectly legitimate] Should we have had an ol ejection to the word immerse, as tlie translation of haptizo into English, in any one instance whei-e the word is not used figuratively, if the ahaudonment of sijrinkliug in the Christian ordinance had not haunted our friends as a spectre? But to return to the children of Israel. The apostle says they " were under the cloud and all i)assed through the sea;" and Mr. Stacey quotes the passage in Ex. xiv. 19, 20, where Moses informs us tha,t the cloud which was before them, came behind them. Think of their being all under the cloxid, and all passing through the sea ; this the apostle states, and then he immediately adds, and were all immersed (baptized) into Moses in the, cloud and in the sea. In such a position, could they be said to have been all sprinkled into Moses in the cloud and in the sea? or all poured into Moses in the cloud and in the sea? This i-ecord so clearly represents the propi-iety of immersion as a word to describe their condition, that to prevent this it is necessary for our opponent to hide the import of another phrase. " Under the cloud " does not mean " imder the cloudy" but " the obvious meaning is, that they wore under the ■protection o/ihe cloud, as the symbol of the Divine presence;" ■•■ and no less important a ])erson than the prophet Isaiah is said to ha"\e i-eferred to, and to have explained, this plienomenon ! Isaiah's testimony would without doubt be demonstrative. But two things forcibly stiike our- selves : one of which is, that St. Paid does not say. All our fathei's were imder the 2^^'otection of the cloud; nor can Ave see any cause for this addition except the exigencies of sj)rinkling. Again, it is not in proof that the prophet Isaiah is referring to the condition of the Israelites in the Red Sea. God by this symbolic cloud both protected and guided them from the time of leaving Egypt unto their enti-ance into the yn-omiscd land. Hence we read: "And the Lord went before tliem by day in a pillar of a cloiid, to lead them in the way; and by night in a })iilar of lire, to give them light; to go by day and night: Jle took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of lire by night, from before the people" (Ex. xiii. 21, 22). Admitting, therefore, that the cloud, as tlie symbol of God's pi-esence, or that God, synd)olically present in the cloiul, ])i'otectcd them, we have no evidence that the i)r()})het is denying or o]»i>osing the idea that the children of Israel, in passing tlu'ough the lied Sea, were literally under the cloud; nor have we the least evidence that the a[)0stle in this place is s] leaking cither of their guidance or protection i'rom the cloud, ).)ut only of their position in reference to the cloud. This is confirmed as the obvious meaning of the * Dr. Oauson. — "It is alway.s a suspicious thing in a controversialist to be obliged on all occasions to translate for liiniself, and form liis version for serving his purpose. The best version may occasionally admit iniinovcniont ; l)nt . . . in rendering tlie phrase, midrr the cloud, by loidcr the (/uir/inirc nj the cloud, where does the iranslator find the supplement? It is not inipliccl in the loxt; it is not M'arrantod by any siqiposable ellipsis" (p. ;>'i8). FUTILITV OF OBJECTIONS. 229 apostle by what immediately follows: "And all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." liow potent is the influence of prejudice, and to what a lack of arguments arc the opponents of immersion reduced, when intelligent and pious men are pleading Isaiah iv. 5 for an addition to 1 Cor. x. 1 ; and, not to illusti'ate its import, but (although avc do not believe that this is intended) to give it another meaning ! That the a])ostle Paul is referring in this place to the protection of the cloiul, is neither in evidence, nor, as Ave think, in probability. Everything followiug the expression "were under the cloud," fa^'ours the conclusion that to understand him to mean anything more than is asserted relative to their peculiar position, is adding to the Word of God. Mr. S. proceeds : — "Bat thougli no immersiDii, there was a baptism. How were the fathei's of the Jewish nation baptized ? Figuratively, say some ; but if in figiu-e, the cloud and the sea were visibly instrumental to it, and their service in the operation needs to be defined. By the spray of the sea, and rain from heaven, others have suggested. This o[)inion is not destitute of foundation. The former might be occasioned by the ' strong east wind ' which all night swept over the waters, and laid bare their depths ; the latter by the storm of thunder and rain which mingled together heaveu and earth. 'Thou hast,' says the psalmist, in his beautiful alhision to tlie deliverance of Israel, ' Thou liast with Tliine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. The waters saw Thee, O Cxod, tlie waters saw Thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled: the clouds poured out water' (Psalm Ixxvii. 15-17). J/hy either or both these the baptism in tlie sea was effected, spriulding would be the mode in one case, affusion in the other" (pp. 203, 204). The last italics are ours. Some of the hypotheses suggested as possible or probable, we may notice in rejjly to Dr. H., who, along with many others, had obliquely hinted them. But let the reader liei-e observe, that Mx*. S. supposes that " the ' strong east wind,' which all night swept over the waters, and laid bare their depths," might sprinkle the children of Israel with " the spray of the sea." Dr. Carson, to a Mr. Hall, has said: "Not only is the spray a creation of the imagination, it is a creation unsuitable to the occasion. It would have been an annoyance; and the wind that blew the water from them could not blow the spray on them. Yes, and the very tempest that God sent on their enemies for their destruction, Mr. H. employs for the baptism of the host of Israel; Psalm Ixxvii." (p. 413.) Is there foundation for the belief that the same wind which " caused the sea to go " from them, shoidd bring the spray upon them, blowing with such fury against itself as to dash the s})ray for miles ] Who is not reminded by this of the credulity of those wdio believe not in the Divine revelation] God's Word says: "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord ca^^sed the sea to go back by a sti'ong 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 upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left" (Ex. xiv. 21, 22). And what hint is there in any part of Divine revelation of a storni during the time that the children of Israel were passing through tlie sea? But if the first hypothesis of Mr. S. does not satisfy the reader in favour of sprinkling, he supplies him with another equally blessed with a " foundation," and in support of pouring. He quotes two verses of 230 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. tlie psalmist, and the formei* part of the 17th verse, connecting thia clause of the 17th verse with the preceding by a semicolon, and seiiaratrng it from the remaining part of the verse, which he does not quote, and then leaves the reader to apply this clause of the 1 1th verse to Israel's passing through the Red Sea, just the same as the former verses. That the IGth verse is a poetic and grand description of the diying up of the Red Sea, we admit; but that the two subsequent verses apply to the Red Sea during Israel's passage through it, we maintain to be utterly destitute of foundation, and opposed to all ]irobability. Imagme a "storm of thunder and rain which mingled together heaven and earth," whilst the people, through the kind interjiosition of the Omnipotent Jehovah, were going through the midst of the sea ^i})on the dry ground I If these are not satisfactoiy to the intelligent reader, Mr. S. has another hypothesis, which he can recommend even more than either of the preceding. Indeed, it is a fovourite supposition with Mr. S. and some others, though not adopted by Dr. H., in application to passages where to the Pa^dobaptists generally the idea of pouring or sprinkling is felt to be equally inadmissible (as Rom. vi., &c.). By this hyjiothesis, baptism, as a "fonn," as an action, either so entirely evaporates, or we must wait for another edition to know how much is left, to know with how much or how little of the action we have to deal. Wlaat we maintain is, that the position of the children of Israel, relative to the cloud and the sea, was such that they may traly be said, as by an inspired apostle they are said, to have been baptized (immersed) in the cloud and in the sea. Mr. S. says: — "It seems, however, probable that, iu the passage under consideration, the word baptize has less to do with the mere accidents of baptism than with its nature and design. The apostle regards Moses as the type of Christ, and Christian baptism, spiritually understood, as the antitype of the national baptism which took place at the lied Sea. As, then, by the former, meu are delivered from the power of Satan, and consecrated to Christ; so, by the latter, the Israelites were redeemed from the tyraiuiy of Pharaoh, and set apart to Moses. This appears the more likely to 1)6 the meaning, as the preposition (■», which is often used in the sense of instru- mentality, is connected in the dative with ' the cloud and the sea,' intimating that these were the means by which the baptism was effected. But as there is nothing to show that the people were in immediate contact with cither, the cloud and the sea must be viewed as answering the end of baptism, — expressing its substance rather than giving its form. And then a l)eautifully consistent and satisfactory interpretation is given to the entire passage. The apostle is understood to say, — what perfectly agrees with the facts of the case, — that by means of the chiud and the sea, the fathers were separated from Egyx)tian bondage and sui)erstition, and dedicated unto Moses as their Divinely-appointed teaclier and guide. According to this supposition, as indeed according to every legitimate one, tlie idea of immer- sion becomes impossible. There was a baptism, but no dipping " (pp. 204, 205).* We might here ask Mr. S. how he can show it "probable" that "the word haptize,'" either here or iu any part of Divine revelation, refers rather to the design of baptism than to the action in baptism. Even if design were pro^-ed from tlie connexion to be the special siibject of inspired teacliing, it would not jirove that "the word baptize" is not * Some Avriters speak as if apostoUc language was both litei'al and figurative at the same time, as if they would claim the words in both applications, or in either, as may best suit tlieir favourite docliine. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 231 used in refei'ence to the action itself. We believe that wherever the word baptize is used literally, it distiuctly refers to an action, yea, to immersion; and that when it is used figuratively, it always describes an operation or condition in perfect accordance with the literal baptism. But whilst many wi-iters have gone so far as to say that this baptism of the children of Israel was typical of the Christian ordinance, ]\Ir. S. goes further, and says that this national baptism was typical of" Christian bap- tism, spiritually tmclerstood." Surely the action is as much mentioned in the word ^^ baptized" as the design in the words "into Moses." By what logic in connexion with these words can we have the design typified, and j^et no action referred to by the term baptized? But he says further, that "this appears the more likely to be the meaning, as the preposition en, which is often used in the sense of instrumentality [we say, not often, compared with its use in the primary import of wt], is connected in the dative with 'the cloud and the sea,' intimating that these were the means by which the baptism was effected." Indeed ! this spiritual baptism, by which the fathers were separated from Egyptian bondage and supersti- tion, is effected " by means of the cloud and the sea " ! We never read of holy loater operating more effectually and more gloriously upon the soul of any infant or adult, when administei-ed by any priest in the world. " What must be the strength of e\T.dence on our side, when men are driven to suppositions so extravagant, to explanations so forced, in order to evade it? Ought not this to rouse Paedobaptists to inquiry 1 Can it be truth that requii'es such a defence?" "According to this supposition" of Mr. S., in which " the end of baptism " is answered, and its substance expressed rather than its form given, but yet in which " there was a baptism," "the idea of immersion becomes impossible" ! Maintain the existence of baptism and take away its substance, what is it of which it will consist or not consist 1 Dr. W. Cooke admits that " they are all said by the apostle to be 'under the cloud' {upo ten nep)helen)." But he immediately adds: "If, therefore, they were imder the cloud, they must have been baptized by its dews or drops falling upon them, while it was spread like a canopy over their heads." He admits inspired testimony that they were covered by the cloud, whilst they had the sea as a wall on theii" right and left; but he denies their immersion. A few lines lower than this fancy that baptism was certainly from " the dews or drops " of the miraculous cloud, the symbol of God's presence, falling upon them, he says : " They were doubtless sprinkled by the spray which the v/ind raised from the surface of the crested waves" {Inf. Bap. Def., p. 19). As one falsehood, so one groundless fancy leads to another. Reject God's testimony, and we have absurd and contradictory liypotheses withoiit end. We now quote Dr. Halley on this indispensable support of sprinkling or pouring. "'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed tliroiigh the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' This passage, notwithstanding all the attempts to explain or evade it, from the beginning of the controversy to this day, remains a clear, unexceptionable, incontrovertible instance of baptism without immersion" (p. 290). If, instead of "instance," &c., he had said, proof 232 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. that baptism is immersion, we sliould more nearly have agreed with him. He proceeds : " Two facts are ascertained on tlie authority of inspiration, which no Christian can impeach : the one declared by St. Paul, the fathers were all baptized in the sea; the other taught by Moses, not one of them was immersed in the sea." Here the doctor represents God's Word as saying what is merely his own infeience from what is recorded in God's Word, He also, on this passage, in one instance gives the signs of quotation, and yet omits the woi-ds "in the cloud and," which, according to St. Paul, are betwixt " baptized " and " in the sea." If God's Word is thus treated, we may from one part and another make it to give "clear, unexceptionable, incontrovertible" evidence of Avhat- ever we like. Further, it is sufficient for us, if St. Paul says that the fathers wei'e immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, even though Moses does not make this assertion. Nor does Dr. H.'s language fairly represent Moses. Moses has not expressly said that any one of the fathers was immersed, was poured, or was sprinkled in the cloud or in the sea, or in the cloud and in the sea; but he has recorded those facts from which an inspired apostle can say that all were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Dr. H. says: "For the hundredth time the Baptists say this verse has been protruded before them, as it probably will be protruded before them to the end of the controversy, should it unhappily continiie until the millenium," The Baptists have no objection to this Scripture being brought before them the thousandth time, that we are aware of : our objection is simply to the perversion of that testimony which it beai's on behalf of immersion. Further : "Every moment we loiter upon this vei'se seems time misspent, for in its own simplicity, without the verbiage of commentators, it is most clear, forcible, and impressive." Very good. But again: " There was the baptism of a nation into Moses, and not a man w^as immersed." This is the language of him who, two pages before, has admitted, unless we do not understand him, that if this passage was "literally translated," it would read "im- mersed into Moses;" and who, at page 324, says, "admitting, as I do, that baptizein, construed with the preposition eis, is to immerse into." The doctor does not so far contradict and stultify himself as to say that this passage, — which withoxxt the verbiage of commentators is beautifully simple, — "most clear, forcible, and impi-essive," asserts that they Avere sprinkled or poured into Moses. The ajiostle says they " were all baptized;" and Dr. H. adds: "How, then, were they baptized? I do NOT KNOW." He knows that the words, literally translated, affirm that they were all immersed; and he knows that tliere was oio immersion ! But he does not know what there was ! And yet the very reason for believing tliat bajyiho, which invariably meant immerse before it was used by tlie insi)ir(;d jienmen, moans sjirinkle or pour when used in God's Word, is, with Dr. Halley, that the difficulties which immex'se involves are so effecluaUy i-emoved by supposing it to be used with a latitude of meaning that will include sprinkle or pour as its impox't. This passage is simple, "most cleax", foicible, and impx'essive;" yea, this passage is " a cleai', unexceptionable, iixcoixtxovei-tible iixstance of baptism without ixnmei'sioix." But to liis own qxxery, " How, then, were they baptized," — and we know Avhat is tlie idea attached by Dr. H. and othei"s to the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 233 mode of baptism, — the answer is, "I do not know." And this is the pas- sage which "in its own simplicity, without the verbiage of commentators," " is most c'L'EAii., forcible, and impressive'''' ! He knows, in his judgment, what was possible, if not probable, although he dare not say that this took jilace ; for he next says : " It might have been by the spi-ay of the sea; it might have been by the rain sent dowii from tlie cloud. The psalmist may, or may not, supply the exposition. ' The waters saw Thee, O God, the waters saw Thee; they were afraid; the depths also wei-e troubled; the clouds poured out water.' Whether the Israelites were, or were not, baptized in that water, I do not assert ; but I am quite sure they were in some mode baptized in the sea; and I am quite sure they were in no mode immersed in the sea, because I believe both Paul and Moses." This is the logic, these are the kicubrations of Dr. H. on that passage, which he takes with him to whatever part of God's Word he goes where baptism is named, except where the baptism of the Spirit is mentioned, as one of his necessary 2Jro2)s, without which he would actually get immersed, but with which he rejoices to be saved from anything more than a sprinkling or a pouring. We have heard of the reasoning and illustration. It is so, because it is so. How they were baptized he does NOT know; yet this passage "is most clkar." He does not hnoio, but "it might have been by the spray of the sea" ! and, in his animad- versions on Dr. Carson, he says: "The reader who has seen the baptism of a believer may judge of its 'external resemblance' to the passage of a million and a half of people, on dry land, in a wide and open way, between the upright waves, at a great distance from many of them, as we infer from the numbers (probably some miles)" (p. 367). It might be that the spray of the sea was splashed more than a mile, if the wind blew in opposite directions, and if only in one direction, for "some miles;" when the miracle-working God made the floods to stand iipright, whilst "o7i dry land, in a wide and open way," He led His chosen people through the channels of the Red Sea ! Full as this passage is of inuen- does and suppositions, it is not sujiposed that God, who made the waters a wall unto His people on their right hand and on their left, was unable to complete the miracle by restraining the waves. But if the east wind which, imder God, drove away the waters from His people, drove the spray upon them all when the opening of the sea caused "a wide and open way" "on dry land" "between the upright waves" for " probablj^ some miles," what is the ivetting which those going on "dry land" must have received that were nearest the sea, when " the waters were gathei-ed together, the floods stood upright as a heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea" ! (Ex. xv. 8.) It is true that we might suppose, there being no end to suppositions, that God miraculously prevented the drenching of any, and caused, in His love and almightiness, the very same number of drops from the congealed sea to fall upon every man, woman, and child. Tliis supposition is not a Popish miracle : and it is not expressly said, either by Paul or Moses, that God did not do this, or covild not do this. We must leave the reader to judge whether we have a rational affection to this supposition as compared with others, or whether we but show parental fondness and weakness. But, furthei', in regard to the suppositions of the doctor. All this " might have been," 23^ IMPOIIT OF BAPTISM. where we know there was no immersion, and where we " do not know " Avhat there was ! yea, and much more than this. This is not even like what the Queen of Sheba heard respecting Solomon's glory, as compared with what she subsequently saAv: for as to this baptism, "it might have been from the cloud." This cloud is by Mr. Stacey correctly designated "the symbol of the Divine presence." It was by day "a pillar of a cloud," and by night "a pillar of fii'e" (Ex. xiii. 21). This "pillar of the cloud went from before " the face of the children of Israel, " and stood behind them," being " a cloud and darkness " to the Egyptians, but giving light to Israel (Ex. xiv. 19, 20). " By the o-ain sent down from " this " cloud," they might have been baptized ! Equally as supposable and as scriptural is it that sparks of fire fell from this cloud, which gave " light to Israel," and that these sparks baptized them ! The symbol of God's presence, which during this passage was giving them light, poured rain upon them ! No man open to conviction can read the statements of Paul and of Moses, yea, and of the psalmist also, without coming to the conclusion that the cloud spoken of by St. Paul was none other than the symbol of God's presence. And to no greater extremity can we suppose an intelligent man to be reduced, no greater absurdity can we suppose him to adopt, than to suppose that this emblematic cloud sent down its rain upon the children of Israel. "Would it not still further have encouraged pouring or sprinkling, to have suj^jiosed it either possible or probable that tliis symbol of God's presence in the tabernacle and in the temple was always there plentifully diifusing its aqueous 2^(i''>'ticles ? Neither do we, nor does the inspired aj^ostle, maintain that there was an immersion in water, but an immersion in the cloud and in the sea. But Dr. Halley adds : " The psalmist may, or may not, supply the exj^osition." Is he very candid, or adroitly cautious 1 He insinuates, but dares not to assert, that in this instance, one of his two necessary supports of sprinkling or pouring, haptizo favours the idea of sprinkling or pouring. He dares not to assert it, although he denies that tliis baptism was an immersion. But is he not, nevertheless, very dai'ing 1 May the psalmist supply the exposition % Is it iiossihle that the clouds spoken of by the psalmist, that poured out rani, are the cloud spoken of by Paul and Moses 1 If they are not the cloud to which St. Paul refers, how can they supply the exposition ? Instead, however, of their supplying the exposition, there is neither evidence nor probability that Paul referred to them, or that they refer to the event of which Paul speaks. The psalmist, in the IGth verse, clearly refers to God's opening the Bed Sea to make way for His people to pass through; and though Dr. H. takes the beginning of the 17th verse, and then leaves off, having united it with the IGth by a conmia, there is neither evidence nor pi"obability that it belongs to the event described by Moses, and declared by Paul to be a baptism. We think that Dr. H. and Mr. S. put asunder in the 17th verse what God has joined togethei'. The Pjedobaj^tist commentators, whom no one will accuse of a leaning to the Baptists, Henry and Scott, refer this to the destruction of the Egyjitians, supposing that that a-svful event was attended with a tremendous storm. It is not ilifficult to entertain such a supposition, the mai'ginal and literal rendering, instead of " the clouds poured out water," being, " the clouds were poured foith FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 235 with water." By some it is supposed that the psalmist, in the 17th and 18th verses, is referring to the terrible events on Sinai at the giving of the law. The psalmist, says Di*. H., may supply the exposition ! But the application of the psalmist's words to tlie passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea, would expressly contradict the insi^ired record. Could the clouds be poiiring down rain on the children of Israel whilst they were going " on dry ground through the midst of the sea " 1 The only cloud mentioned by Moses in connexion with the passage of Israel through the Red Sea, gave light to them, and darkness to their enemies. It was fire and light to Israel. The clouds mentioned by the psalmist were natural clouds, and they poured out rain. Did the cloud which gave light, pour rain? Besides, Moses and St. Paul speak only of a cloud, not of clouds. The psalmist, clearly referring to another fact, uses a word which is never applied to the symbol of God's presence; whilst we have no more intimation from God's Word that the cloud by which God's presence was symbolized was of a xoatery substance, than that God himself is matter. Yet Dr. H., who does not know how the children of Israel were bap*^^ized, who dares not affirm that the psalmist supplies the exposition, is "quite sure they were in some mode baptized in the sea " (he does not say in the cloud and in the sea) ; and he is "quite sure they were in no mode immersed in the sea, because" he believes " both Paul and Moses " ! Neither does Paul say, nor do the Baptists believe, that the children of Israel were baptized iu the sea, apart from the cloud : and the Baptists as firmly believe both in Paul and Moses as do Dr. H. and the Pfedobaptists. The denier of Christ's Deity might tell us that he believed both in Paul and Moses, yea, in " Moses and the prophets," and in the New Testament too. But enough. He proceeds; — " Our Baptist friends usually say this is only a figurative expression. Of what is it a figure? They say of the passing through the sea; but Paul had just stated that fact in plain terms, and his rhetoric is not of the kind which first states a fact iu plain terms, and then, as if the writer had nothing else to do than to spend his time in superfluoiis writing, repeats it in a figure, and so obscures the meaning. ' All our fathers passed through the sea. ' Wliat elucidation is afforded by repeating the thought in the words, ' And were all baptized in the sea ' ? Besides, like Aristotle with the tide, St. Paul writes here not to produce efi'ect, but to give correct information. ' Moreover, brethren, we Avoidd not have you ignorant that all our fathers were luider the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses. ' Does St. Paul mean, I would not have you ignorant of what never occurred ? I would not have you ignorant of a piece of rhetoric, that all our fathers were baptized into Moses, when not one of them was really baptized ? That there was no immersion for Israel was the glory of the passage through the sea " (p. 291). The last sentence seems to imply that there was an immersion for the Egyptians, which by Mr. Stacey and others is asserted. "What reader will nofc acknowledge the vantage ground occupied by our honoured brother for lecturing others on not understanding what the apostle has wi-itten after his solemn and affectionate preface, " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant;" i-emembering the words of our brother, " / do not know" ! " It might have been by ... it might have been by . . . The psalmist may or may not supply the exposition. . . . Whether the Israelites were or were not baptized in that water I do not 236 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. assert"? The language of the apostle, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant," plainly teaches that he expected the Corinthians would understand what he wrote; and, as he under the Spirit of inspiration wrote for others, he plainly teaches that in intelli- gible Avords he was about to give conccivaljle and important ideas for instruction unto the end of time. Is it uncliaritable to believe that Dr. H.'s acknowledged and pitiable ignorance arises ncjt from the apostle's having used a certain word in a novel sense, but from the doctor's own antecedent hypotheses, which shut out the Divine light that woiild other- wise by the apostle's words have been poured into his understanding ? " Know ye not," being the commencement of an ajtostolic sentence, is regarded by Dr. John Brown, in his Analytical Exposition of liomavs, as teaching that the ajjostle is referring to " one of the lirst principles of the Oracles of Christ," to "one of the things most surely believed among Christians" (p. 91). Further, because this baptism was not a literal immei'sion in water, we maintain that the apostle's assertion that they were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea is no repetition of the ideas which the apostle had previously conimunicated, namely, that " all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed throiigh the sea." The latter verse, if we understand it rightly, is information that, while under the cloud and passing through the water, they underwent an immersion into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Under the cloud, and having the sea standing upright on their right hand and on their left hand, even the fathers of the Israelitish nation, thus encompassed by the cloud and sea unitedly, setting out on their journey from Egypt to Canaan, gave themselves solemnly to IMoses, as under God, their leader. Moses had related the facts relative to Israel's passing thi'ougli the sea which the apostle relates, but he had not (as tlie apostle in the first vei'se had not) designated this a being bajitized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, which is done by the apostle in the 2nd vei'se. Dr. H., when speaking in another place on Jewish baptism, says : " Was the whole Jewish nation virtually baptized, as the Rabbins taught, before they entered into the Mosaic covenant? The apostle Paul determines this question, ' Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant,' &c. (1 Cor. x. 1, 2.) The ai-gument of St. Paul evidently implies that the baptism into Moses was an important religious rite," itc. (p. 117). Who does not see the propriety of tlie apostolic declaration respecting tlie children of Israel at this crisis of their history, as being immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea'? And who does not see the admonition that follows fi-om this to l)a])tized Christians, as an introduction to which it is used by tlie apostle? See tlie subsequent verses. We do not maintain that tlie simple record of Moses concerning the pillar of the cloud coming from bcfcire them unto beliind them, is in itself sutlioient to prove an immersion. We couple it with the ajiostle's declaration that they " were under the cloud," etc. Furthei', it is with grief that we here notice Dr. H. for the tliii'il time asserting respecting the Israelitish nation, that they were " all baptized in tlie sea." And here he gives the signs of quotation. He at the beginning quoted St. Paul coi-rectly, but never afterwards in regard to this not unijnportant particular. To mistakes even in quotations, — especially when access to FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 237 the original work is as difficult as to the Bible it is easy, — we are all liable: but when for the third time Ave find an important omission in stating what St. Paul said, we cannot but fear that it was to little l)urpose, as far as Dr. H, is concerned, that the apostle of the Gentiles wrote, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye shoidd be ignorant." Does it make no difference in fact and argumentation to say, "were bajitized into INIoses in the cloud and in the sea," from saying, " were baptized into Moses in the sea"? It is not a baptism in the sea, although we deplore that it should have been spoken of as such by some Baptist as well as Psedobaptist writers. The sea and the cloud U7iite to make the baptism. And what else than an immersion is it to those who were " under tlic cloud," and had the sea as a wall in all its lofty heights on their right hand and on their left ? Wc finally adduce the concluding assertions of our brother on this passage, which, excepting another, is in his judgment the only efficient support of sprinkling or pouring, of anything else than immersion as baptism, in all the Word of God. He says: — ' ' While we protest against the pi-inciple of resorting in controversy to the aid of trope and figiire in the exposition of plain passages, we are sure that such an immersion would be of all possil^le figures the most incongruous, and the least impressive; obscuring rather than ehicidating the histoiy. Besides, the baptism was into Closes, the syntax corresi)onding with the baptism into Christ; and immersion is just as nuich or as little implied in the one phrase as in the other " (pp. 291, 292). We perfectly agree with Dr. H. resj^ecting the accordance of the syntax of this verse with the syntax of Matt, xxviii. 19; and that St. Paul's language just as much assures us of the immersion of the children of Israel into Moses, as St. Matthew's language teaches that Christ has enjoined immersion into the name of the Father, &c. We must, nevertheless, acknowledge ourselves at a loss to comprehend how Dr. H. can understand that baptism in the commission is cither immer- sion, pouring, or sprinkling, just which we may choose, and yet know cei-tainly that here it is not immersion, although he docs not know \\hat it is, and yet knows that "immersion \?ijust as much or as little implied in the one phrase as in the other;" and knows also from eis being joined with bajitizo that Christ commanded the disciples to immerse into the name of the Father, (fee, and that St. Paul has recorded that the children of Israel were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea ! As Dr. H., when writing this, could not sec the propriety of immersion in reference to the children of Israel, although he has admitted that the original words literally read, " immersed into Moses," and although what is proper he did not know, it may not be uncharitable, inasmuch as he has so often quoted St, Paul's language incorrectly, to suppose that the a]iostolic idea was lost by Dr. H. through the loss of the apostolic words. The cloud is an important idea, a necessary fict, along vnth the sea, in connexion with this baptism. We would hope that, when the doctor re-considei-s the whole of what St. Paul has said, he will be satisfied that the literal is the only correct rendering: "And wei'e all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." And we shall rejoice if it leads to a more candid and correct conclusion respecting other passages in which 238 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. diificulties have been sui^posed, and if it is then used practically in support of immersion as, alas ! it has been used practically in support of sprinkling. What an evidence of the blinding infliience of prejudice we see, not simply in obscuring evidence so clear that the baptism in the cloud and in the sea can only with any projiriety be conceived of as an immersion, l:)at also in leading a scholar and a theologian to lean upon this ]iassage as one of the two pillars without the support of which sprinkling and pouring equally disappear as baptism, or as a chief testi- mony that New Testament baptism is pouring or sprinkling, as well as immersion; although he does not know what this baptism was, and he only adduces in support of the possibility of pouring or sprinkling the su2:)positions that have been already noticed, and to which we will not give the appellation which we think they deserve ! Let no reader again sarcastically say, a dry immersion. "Who believes that the children of Israel went literally into the sea, or water, on dry ground, were literally in the sea, when it was as a wall on their right and on their left ? We admit that it was a dry baptism. So was the baptism of the apostles administered by Christ on the day of Pentecost. So is that of the reader, when he is immersed in thought, &c. With the same ])ropx-iety we speak of plunging into a forest, of being immersed in a wood, in a mine, in mist, &c/" Let the reader ask himself whether the situation of the children of Israel, as desciibed by Paul and Moses, leaving out all human suppositions, can possibly be called a pouring or sprinkling. And let the reader remember the acknowledged and proved meaning of haptizo. The same word that desci'ibes John's baptizing of our Lord and of others in Jordan, that describes the ordinance enjoined by Christ, and practised \>j the apostles, describes the baptism of Israel in the cloud and in the sea. The immersion of the children of Israel is so called because of its "external resemblance" to the Christian ordinance, and probably because of also answering a similar purpose. They went down * As we see no inconsistency in the follov/ing quotations, we earnestly recommend them to candid consideration. Dr. Melson : "The disciples remain steeped in ignorance" (Ex. Hall Lcc, p. 505. 1861). Tennyson :— "Plunged in the battery smoke, Fiercely the line they broke." P. B. DU Chaillu speaks of " the superstitions, the ignorance, the idleness, and wicked- ness in which these poor heathen aic steeped " (Adv. in Er/ua. Africa, p. 6). Dr. J. Tulloch, on Baxter, says : " Here, upon the whole, he lived a peaceable life, considering the distractions in which the country was plunged" (Pari, and its Leaders, p. 310). Again, speaking of Baxter, he adoi)ts the langiiagc of Sylvester: " "NMicn ho spake of weighty soul concerns, you might find his very spirit drenched therein" (p. 387). We deny not shades of difference between the import of immersed and steeped, plunged, or (blenched, yet who does not see that immersed, or bajstized, might have been used in all the above quotations, but not poured, sprinkled, washed, or cleansed? Dr. R. Vaughan mentions the Franciscan, Bonaventura, as addressing "the provincial ministers in the following terms : ' The indolence of our liretlncn is laying open the path to evei^ vice. They are immersed in carnal rci)osc'" (Rev. in E/i>i. His., vol. i., p. 562). Tliis figurative use of immerse we believe to bo as certainly in accordance with the literal import, as is the use of baptizo when it is said respecting the songs sung at the festivals and sacrifices of Bacchus, that they were immersed (hchaptismciios) in much wantonness (Proclus's Chrcstom., xvi. ). Indeed, our opjionents might as well say that imbathe, used by Milton, means to sprinkle, when he says, " And the sweet odours of the returning Gospel imbathe his soul witli the fragi-ancy of heaven," as say that baptizo, whenever used figuratively, may mean to sprinkle. FUTILITY OF OBJr.CTIONS. 239 into the sea; they came Tincler the cloud, having the waters as if walled up on their right and left hand; they came np out of the sea on the other side, and they thus attested their faith in Moses as, under God, theu' temporal Saviour. Can this be improperly designated an immersion into Moses in the cloud and in the sea"? Nay, is it not a fact that " IMMEESION, AND NOTHING BUT IMMERSION, WILL SUIT THIS PASSAGE " l Nor would we have it forgotten, according to the rule approved by the candid and learned of all parties, tha,t it is sufficient for the Baptists to occvipy a defensive position in regard to 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. It lacing acknowledged that the literal meaning of haptizo is to immerse, proof, not supposition, was, according to Dr. H.'s admission, required from him at the very time when his climax was in the intelligible and thrilling words, " I do not know ; " and lyroof, every opponent of immersion is bound to produce. We regard Psedobaptists, with few exceptions, as having paid little attention to the baptism of the children of Israel in their passage throvigh the Red Sea, and as belie\'ing that a literal spiinkling or pouring took place, when on dry ground they passed through; some believing that the spray of the sea, but moi'e that the (symbolic) cloud, effected this. Hence the assei-tions of Messrs. Burkitt, Towgood, Drs. Ewing, Miller, &c., which we shall not quote. Dr. DwiGHT maintains that tlie baptism spoken of by Paul is not recorded at all by Moses. He supposes that the record of the baptism is only to be met with in the Psalms. We do not at all wonder at this, notwithstanding onr view of this suppo- sition as not only utterly iiuanthorized, but an outrage upon historic truth ; we do not Avonder at it, because Paiil and Moses together make out no case for pouring or sprinkling. Dr. D.'s words are, that "tliere is reason to believe," from Ps. Ixxvii. , ' ' that, when the cloud passed from the van of the Israelites to the rear, or, when in the language of the psalmist, they icere 2}0ured forth from before the Israelites to stand behind them, the rain may have descended from the cloud during this passage. Whether this be admitted or not, it is clear that this is the only accoimt of the l^aptism mentioned by St. Paul, which is contained in the Old Testament. And it is equally clear that this, baptism was a cleansing, accomplished by the sprinkhug of rain" (Ser. 159; on Acts ii. 38, 39). Yet this same doctor talks of the fancy of some of his antagonists. Dr. Wardlaw denies the contact of the Israelites with water, holds "as a conceit" the concessions of some of his brethren ; and to his dishonour speaks ' ' of the straining that is necessary to make out immersion" here, yea, " of the absolute ridiculousness of the conceit (I cannot [says he] view it in any other light) that the Israelites were baptized, by having the cloud over them, and the waters of the sea on either side of them." He also sueeringly exclaims, "a dry baptism ! without the contact at all of the baptismal element in any way !" We ,believe that this was a dry baptism, but not that the word bap- tized is iised withoiit reference to the position of the children of Israel in regard to the sea and the cloud, which was such that they might be said to be immersed in the same. R. A. Lancaster, in his work on Baptism .says, "They could be baptized in no other way than by the pouring out of water from the clouds " (p. 70). ElCHARD Watson maintains; "That there is an allusion" to sprinkling or pouring, "is made almost certain by a passage in the song of Deborah, and other expressions in the Psalms, which speak of 'rain,' and the 'jjouriug out of water,' and ' droppings ' from the ' cloud ' which directed the march of the Jews in the wilderness" (Ins. vol. iv., p. 451). To what shifts and imfoimded hj^jotheses are om- friends reduced, who vainly endeavour to make out a case in favour of sprink- ling! The Rev. W. Arthur asserts: "The sea sprinkled them as they passed." The Rev. D. Fraser, in seeking to enlighten Mr. Spurgeon and the Baptists, 240 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. desires ua "to think of Israel as having entei-ctl on the way opened uj) through the Red Sea, and as now, in order to baptism, under the cloud, the opened passage before him, the briny waters I'estrained and congealed on cither side;" also of "(iod's hour come for this grand communication and down-shedding of His grace. — First, this fact was indicated by great firmamental commotions, in which, accord- ing to Vs. Ixxvii. 18, ' The voice of Thy thunder was in the heaven : the lightnings enliglitened the world: the earth trembled and shook'! Second, fin the midst of these commotions, 'the clouds jwured out water,' Ps. Ixxvii. 17, descending upon and baptizing the children of Israel, not with briny and bitter drops, but with such as tasted of heaven." Thus was there "an outpoured baptism," which "requires that the New Testament ordinance be dispensed Ijy sprinkling." Yea, he adds, ' ' I cannot see that this evidence and authority of Israel's bai)tism, in favour of sprinkling, can l)y any fair ingenuity be set aside" (pp. 50-52). We think Bp. Butler's words applicable to the fancy of Mr. F., and of many others, "The bare unfolding this notion, and laying out thus naked and open, seems the best confutation of it." Prof. Wilson assures us "there was a real baptism," encourages the belief "That it formed a type or exhibited a figiu'e of New Testament baptism," and declares it "a solemn fact, sustained )}y Moses, that they wei'e not immersed in the cloud and in the sea," He also acknowledges himself to be of the number of those "who point out spray and rain as the probable agencies employed." "Indeed," says he, "the thunderstorm, the existence of which is in evidence, would, to a certainty, jiroduce the spray " (pp. 281-283). Does it not weU become him to sjieak of his oi^jwuents being ' ' forced to help themselves out of a difficulty by recourse to tigiu-es and fancies [yea, absurdities and impossibilities] designed to meet the exigency of the case"? (p. 285.) He subsequently says, "If in admin- istering bajjtism into Moses, sea and cloud could be used without immersion, may not water be used without immersion in administering baptism into Christ?" (p. 315.) We might as logically reason. If the children of Israel could be baptized by being encompassed by the sea and cloud, may we not administer Christian baptism by placing water above and around the candidates without its coming into contact with them? And shall we not practise and defend this as alone scrijjtural bap- tism? Mr. Bayley says, ' ' The only persons who were baptized by immersion were the Egyptians, who, like the storied Aristobulus, were baptized to perfection." The latter part of this sentence, although intended to ridicule the Baptists, does homage to tlieir sentiments on the import of baptism. It is not necessary that baptism, as in the case of Aristobulus, be designedly repeated in order to effect drowning. But will historic fact allow us to say of Aristobulus, w'honi ^Ir. B. acknowledges to have been haplLed, that he was not immersed, but that lie was sprinkled or poured unto perfection? In the former ])art of the sentence, like Mr. Staccy, he uses the English word immerse, in application to the Egyptians, in that sense which we have repeatedly maintained to be legitimate. !Mr. EoBiNsoN, the Puritan, says: " They were ' Ijaptized to ISIoses in the cloud and sea,' God not only preserving them bodily thereby from Pharaoh, but also moistening them with the cloud arising out of the sea, and showering down waters upon them, as the Lord's peculiar people, ami for their spiritual use " ( Works, vol. i., p. 426). Tiiis reminds us of Dr. Ewing, when lie says, " We arc led to ctmceive of baptism as the ]xiuriug out of water from a cu)) on the turiied-up face of the ba])tized; and whether lie be adult or in infancy, it may thus not only Avet the surface as a iigure of washing, but be drunk into the mouth, as the emblem of a principle of new life, and of continual sup])ort and rcfrcslimcnt, — of a source of •spiritual and licavenly consolation, and of a willingness given, or to be given, to the liaptized, to receive whatever may be assigned tlicm as their poition." We shall leave to Dr. Carson those readers who wisli to sec justice done to this invention of baptism as including a rece])tion of water into tlie mouth, and which is emblema- tical of such Ijle.ssings to be immediately received, or to be subsequently enjoyed ; and of the fearful loss sustained liy those who do not receive, or who may eject, tliis water so niinncntously enibli'iuatical. Dr. J. H. fioDWiiV renders St. Paul's words, " I am unwilling that you should be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under (the guidance of) the cloud, and all passed through tlie sea, and were all baptized for Moses by tlie cloud and FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 241 1)3^ the sea. " If, on the part of a merely English reader, to recite this is not ' ' all but to refute it," we will venture to express our belief that this is the case with all who can read the original with a docile and unbiassed disjjosition. Dr. Halley, Mr. Stacey, and many moi'e, honestly and lionourably read, "into Moses." And Dr. AVilson says: "It is stated by the apostle that the fathers of the Jewish church 'were all baptized (eis) into Moses {en) in the cloud and in the sea' " (]•. 314). Tlie jjosition of Israel, in regard to the cloud and the sea, by the apostle Paul is appropriately spoken of as a baptism. But according to Mr. Thorn, "it refers to the first recorded instance of water baptism as a religioiis ceremony administered on a large scale" (pp. 26, 27). More truly Dr. Halley, referring to the fancy of baptism in the time of David, asserts that this was "more than a thousand years before baptism was instituted" (p. 193). "The sea," says Mr. T., "was indeed a purifying element to the people of God" (p. 50). "The whole Hebrew nation, without exception, went through the sea, and Avere baptized in it " (p. 63). Yea, from the record it is "rendered clear aud indisputable" that "this initiatory rite of baptism" Avas administered "by watei*," and "by simply affnsing or sprinkling them with that element." Also, this "first administration of this rite, on a large scale," "may be safely viewed as the beginning of the numerous baptisms recorded in the holy Avritings" (p. 308). And, "afterwards, we know, that people of no rank, sex, or age, Avho had been heathens, could form any part of C4od's worshipping communion, without first Ijeing washed, or undergoing the rite of baptism" (p. 50). In our judgment, sub.sec[ueut bajjtisms, until the time of John, are just as clearly recorded in God's Word as that this "baptism of the Hebrews was cei'tainly with water," although Mr. T. says, "that the contrary cannot be established, is unquestionable" (p. .381). Mr. T. also asserts that this baptism "must have l^eeu effected either with the spray of the water, blown by the Avinds of heaven, or by the clouds, that poured out, at God's command, iipon them" (p. 238). "God's first administration of this ordinance Avas unquestionably by sprinkling, afii"using, or aspersing the Hebrews, old and young, Avith the spray of the sea, or the rain of heaA^en" (p. 243). This assumirtiou and absurdity being recorded as self-evident, Ave Baptists are earnestly invoked to prove a negatiA^e. The cloud, Avith Mr. Thorn, is "the natural A^ehicle," Avhilst the sea is the natural "reservoir of Avater " (p. 378). "The first great or general baj)tism CA-er adminis- tered," he says, "Avould be ever memorable in the hearts of the sons of Jacob and Joseph. The afl:righted, roaring, and rushing floods ; the clouds discharging their refreshing sliOAA^ers on the passing multitude; the heavens thundering; the light- nings flashing, and sending forth their forked arroAVS; the earth trembling and shaking," &c. What a chimera ! Not only destitvite of evidence, but diametrically opposed to the same ! Could the Israelites, in such a storm, liaA'e j^assed through on dry ground? This is Avorthy of the query on a subsequent }>age (421), if an instance of pm-ification at Sinai Avas not "called baptism by the apostle." We ask. Where ? Mr. T. supposes, in regard to Mr. Noel, respecting the immersions at Pentecost, that "in his inicKjlnation, they were surrounded Avith all proper con- A'eniences for immersion, dressing, and undressing, as in modern Ba])tist chapels" (p. 472). We believe that there was every requisite for the decent and solemn ordinance, but not that in a climate, where bathing was so common, all English arrangements were needed. * If any reader should yet think that the Baptists are l^linded as to the import of St. Paul's Avords by their prepossessions, let candid atten- tion he given to the statements of the following Pcedobcqjtists, measuring the extent of our agreement with them by what Ave ha\-e previously advanced. * In reading Mr. Thorn we are reminded of the Rev. J. C Hare's remarks on another : — " His Avork is an example of the errors Avherein theologians have so frequently involved themselves, by a practice, Avhich in other departments of kuoAvledge Avould be accounted tniAvarr an table and perverse, of picking out a feAV sentences from the Bible Avitli little, if any, regard to the context, and then spinning a theory out of them by direct logical processes" [Mission of the Conf., pp. 473, 474). It may be, however, that Mr. T. has examined the context, but through the blinding iufliieuce of prepossessions has recorded imobserved assumptions and contradictions. R 242 IMPORT or BAPTISM. ToERETiNE. — "The passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea wonderfully agrees with our baptism, and represents the grace it was designed to express. For, as in baptism, when performed in the primitive manner, by immersion and emer- sion, descending into the water and then going out of it, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the eunuch ; yea, and what is more, as by this rite, when persons are immersed in water, they are overwhelmed, and, in a manner, buried 'together with Chi-ist;' and, again, when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again wth Christ, so in the INIosaic liaptism wc have an immersion, and an emersion ; that, when they descended into the depths of the sea; this, when they went out and came to the opposite shore." — Dispu. de Bap. yiihis et Marls, § 24. Grotius.— " The cloud hung over the heads of the Israelites ; and so the Avater is over those that are baptized. The sea surrounded them on each side ; and so the Avater encompasses those that are bajjiized." — On 1 Cor. x. 2. Zanoiiv. — "Of inmiersiou, the passage of the people through the midst of the sea was a type; concerning which the apostle speaks (1 Cor. x. 2)." — Opera, torn, vi., p. 217. WiTSics. — "How were the Israelites baptized in the cloud and in the sea, seeing they were neither immersed in the sea, nor wetted by the cloud? It is to be considered that the apostle here uses the term baptism in a figurative sense. The cloud hung over their heads; and so the water is over those that are baptized. The sea surrounded them on each side; and so the water in regard to those that are baptized." — (Econ. Fted., 1. iv., c. x., § 11. fTATAKEK.— "The going down of the Israelites into the bottom and middle of the sea, and their coming up from thence to dry gi-ound, have a gi'eat agreement with the rite of Christian baptism, as it was administered in the first times : seeing the persons to be baptized went down into the water, and again came iip out of it ; of which going down and coming up express mention is made in the baptism of the Ethiopian eimuch. Nay, further, as in the Christian rite, -when persons are baptized, they are overwhelmed, and, as it were, buried in water, and seem in a manner to be bui'ied "svith Christ ; and, agaiii, when they emerge, they arise as out of a sepulchre, and are represented as risen again with Christ (Eom. vi. 4, 5; Col. ii. 12); so the Israelites might seem, when passing through the waters of the sea, that were higher than their heads, to be overwhelmed, and, as it were, buried ; and, again, to emerge and arise, when they escaped to the opi)osite shore." — Adv. Jllscel., c. iv. Dr. Ct. Stanhope. — "This covering of the cloud, and safe conduct through the sea, as they resembled the ceremonies of tlie Christian baptism (the being put under, and rising out of Avater), so did they answer the same end too. For, upon this miraculous deliverance, they entered into covenant with, and professed their faith in God" {Par., on 1 Cor. x. 2). So a Baptist %\Titer: "The waters rise up on each side, and they are under the cloud, and it hides them from the view of the Egyptians : they are enveloped, covered, the same as every object is when immer- sed."— Wallace's L'ejolnder, pj), 21, 22. Bengel. — "The cloud and the sea took the fathers out of sight, and restored them again to view, and this is what the water does to those who are baptized." — Gnoraon, on 1 Cor. x. 2. Poole. — "Others more probably think that the apostle useth this term in regard of the great analogy betwixt baptism (as it was then used), the persons going dowTi into the waters, and being clixjped in them ; and the Israelites going down into the sea, the great receptacle of water ; though the waters at that time were gathered on heaps on either side of them ; yet they seem buried in the waters, as persons in that age were when they were bajAized." — Com., on 1 Cor. x. 2. Macknight. — "/?i the cloud and in the sea. Because the Israelites, by being hid from the Egyptians under the cloud, and by passing through the Eecl Sea, were made to declare their 'belief in the Lord and in His servant Moses' (Ex. xiv. 31), the apostle very properly represents them as ' Ijaptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' " — Com., on 1 Cor. x. 2. The Ptoman Catholic Testament is more correct here than many Protestant ■writers : " Under the conduct of Moses, they received baptism in figure, by passing under the cloud and through the sea." — Dovcaj Tes., on 1 Cor. x. 2. Whitby. — "They were covered with the sea on both sides (Ex. xiv. 22). So that both the cloud and the sea had some resemblance to our being covered with FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 243 water in baptism. Their going into the sea resembled the ancient rite of going into the water; and their coming out of it, their rising up out of the water." — Com., on I Cor. X. 2. Dr. Faiebaikn. — "Tlie appearance of the Divine presence was various, but it is uniformly spoken of as itself one — a lofty column rising toward heaven. By day it would seem to have expanded as it rose, and spread itself as a kind of shade or curtain between the Israelites and the sun, as the Lord is said by means of it to have 'spread a cloud for a covering' (Psalm cv. 19), while by night it exchanged the cloudy for the iUumiued form, and diffused throughout the camp a i^leasant \ig\\V—Tiipol. of Scrip., p. 98. Webster and Wilkinson. — '^Upo, with the accusative, signifies motion or extension underneath." " The prepositions used, ujio, dia, en, are evidently intended to reduce the process imdergone by the Israelites to a greater similarity with immersion. The introduction of nephele is, probably, ■s^dth the same object. In the passage of the Eed Sea the cloud had passed over them, from front to rear (Ex, xiv. 19)."— Gr. Tes., on 1 Cor. x. 1-5. Dr. Hodge says: "They were uot immersed in the cloud nor sprinkled by the sea. There is no allusion to the mode of baptism." "Neither," sa,ys the doctor, "is the point of analogy to be sought in the fact that the cloud was vapour and the sea water. The cloud by night v\'as lire " (Com., on 1 Cor. x. 2). A literal immer- sion in water we do not maintain. The aUusion of inspired craters is never to the mode of baptizing, but to the action itself — the immersion. Dean Stanley. — " J^n te nephele Jcal . . . tlialasse, 'under the cloud,' i.e., 'over- shadowed by the cloudy pillar, as in baptism we i>ass under the cloudy veil of water;' 'thi'ough the sea,' as 'tlii'ough the waters of baptism.'" — On St, PauVn Epis. to the Cor., 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. Olshausen. — "When it is said upo ten nephele n esan, as in ver. 2, ebaptisanto en te nephele, reference is made to the relation in Ex. xiv. 19, 20, according to which the pillar of cloud concealed the Isi'aelites from the view of the Egy|)tians, surrounding them, as it were, with a veiL" "It appears necessary to add that all attempts to render the type more perfect, by means of trifling suppositions, such as that drops fell from the clouds ou the Israelites, or that they were sprinkled by the sea, must be utterly discarded." — Corn., on I Cor. x. 1, 2. Weiss (a Christian Jew). — "He says that Israel were baptized (buried as in baptism, aud brought up again) mito Moses (their leader and t3ri)ical mediator) in the cloud and in the sea." "When the floods stood upright like walls, and the dej)ths were congealed in the heart of the sea, Jehovah led His redeemed children into the depth of the waters, and buried them in baptism, in the sea and thick covering cloud. He raised them up again, and guided them by His strength into His holy habitation." — On the Old Test. Scrip. Dr. Bloomfield. — "They were, by ])assing imder the cloiid and through the sea, as it were baptized." He quotes Theophylact, who (from Chrysostom) explains it thus: "They had fellowship with Moses both in the shadow imder the cloud, and in the through-passing of the sea ; for beholding him going through first, they themselves also dared the waters; as also with us, Christ having first died and risen, we ourselves also are baptized, imitating His death through the immersion, and His resurrection through the emersion. They were baptized into Moses then thus : they had him as their leader in the type of baptism ; for the type was this, the being under the cloud, and the passing through the sea." — Crit. Dig., vol. vi., p. 478, Dean Alford. — "The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely; for neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted by the water of the sea." "They passed imder both, as the baptized passes under water." "They entered by the act of such immersion into a solemn covenant with God, and became His church under the law as given by Moses, God's servant, just as we Christians by our baptism," &c. — Gr. Tes., on 1 Cor. x. 2. Dr. A. Barnes. — "The probabUity is, that the cloud extended over the whole camp of Israel, and that to those at a distance it appeared as a pillar." In opposi- tion to the hypothesis of rain falling from this cloud, he says: "1. There is not the slightest intimation of this in the Old Testament. 2. The supposition is con- trary to the very design of the cloud. It was not a natural cloud, but was a symbol of the Divine presence aud protection. It was not to give rain on the 24)4 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Israelites, or on the land, but it was to guide, and be an emblem of the care of God. 3. It is doing violence to the Scriptures to introduce suppositions in this manner without the slightest authority." — Com., on 1 Cor. x. 1. These learned raxlobaptisls, whose candid admissions we have quoted, see no more in favour of jiouring or s})rinkling as the import of baptism in this passage tlian even Theophylact, the Greek, quoted l>y Dr. Bloom- Held. They must on this passage have been extremely ignorant, extremely inad-\-ertent, extremely generous to their opponents, and extremely unkind to their own Pa?dobaptist brethren, unhesitatingly to designate this baptism an " immersion," and to sjieak of the grounds by v/hich this passage is maintained to be a main ijillar, or any sui)port, of sprink- ling or i>ouring, as ^' trijling suppositions;" or candour and justice demanded these and similar expressions. We would hope that, not- Avithstanding the desperate straits of our opponents on this passage, some of them will not again presume that the pillar of tire scattered drops of water; or apply a passage in the Psalms to this event with as much proof that it refers to the same as that Ezekiel's waters (xlvii.) describe their l:)a])tism. If we will extract from any part of God's Word, with- out the least evidence that such portions ajiply to the subject in hand, in order to meet imagined difhculties and remove baseless objections, and apply these extraneous and ina]i}>licable quotations to maintain that they inai/ siqjport oui' views, that they afibrd some foimdation, and that from thence the Aiews of our opponents are incredible and iinpossible, and we consequently have loon the dap, and gained the philological battle, we may metamorphose all the miracles of Holy Wiit into the stale and common-place occuri-ences of every day, arid abandon everythiiig that is not in the exact latitude and longitude of the infidel lecturer. § 5. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM EOM. VI. 2-4, AND Coi>. II. 12. Dr. J. H. Godwin. — "To use the eloquent language of one of the most distinguished writers of the age, 'It would seem to be the will of the great Author of all things, that there should be a system of emblems, reflecting or shadowing forth the system of truths, wlicreby we appreliend Him and our relation to Him ; so that religion, standing forth in grand parallel to an infinite variety of things, receives their testimony and homage, and speaks with a voice that is echoed continually.'" — Lcr. on Bap. and Jiey. Dr. Kkid. — "All figurative ways of using words, or phrases, suppose a natural and literal meaning." — In Tcs. of Em. Pa:., p. r>. Dr. Carson. — "A scientittc philologist will first settle the literal meaning of a word, and then understand the figure in conformity to this." — Do., p. 5. Dr. An(!Us. — "It is obvious that while the figurative meaning of a word has generally some reference to its literal meaning, it must not be supposed to include in the figurative use all tliat is included in the literal ; similarity in some one respect, or more, being sufficient to justify the meta- phor." "More errors, probably, have arisen from pushing analogical expressions to an extreme than from any other single coiuse." — Bt. liand-Book; jip. 17.'), 17(>. T. H. HoKNE. — " An obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, or figurative text, must never be interpreted in such a sense as to make it contradict a plain one-." — Intro., vol. ii., p. 41-t. Dr. R. .Iamieson'. — "Every metaplior used in the language of ordinary life is formed either on the natural scenerv, or on the customs and prevailing notions of societv." — Ea.i. Man., N.T., pp. 363, 364. The apostle says, in Rom. vi. 3-5 : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by bajitism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead })y the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have l)een planted togetlier in th(.' lilccuess of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of FUTILITY" OF OBJECTIONS. 245 His resuirection." In Col. ii. 12, he says : " Biu-ied with Him iu baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, wlio hath raised Him from the dead." To our considering that this record of inspiration is coi'roboratory of immersion as the import of baptism, tlie objections are fourfold. 1. Prof. Godwin, a more recent advocate of purification tliau Dr. Beecher, objects here not only to the authorized rendering of baptism, but to the rendering of eis by into. He teaches that it is a "supposition, strange, low, and superstitious, that a Christian is bui'ied with his Lord by being put under water;" and he gives as the rendering of Paul's words, "Such of us as are purified for Clmst Jesus, are purified for His death. We are, then, buiied with Him through the purification for His death" (C/w. Bap., pp. 196, IGG). The rendering of eis by /o7; instead of into, is worthy of the renderings purified and purification, as well as of his remarks on burial, to some of which our reply to bis Methodist admirer and imitator will be sufficient. We equally deny that ba])tizo should be rendered purify, and that eis should be rendered /or, here or in Gal. iii. 27, Col. ii. 12, and Matt, xxviii. 19. (See proof of the meaning of haptizo and of eis previously given.) The reader may inquire, Did John pui-ify for repentance in the river Jordan 1 And, — when, as we maintain, he immersed into the Jordan, — did he purify ^/bj* tlte Jordan? When persons, under the blinding influence of prejudice, I'eject or pervert the truth expressed in the most perspicuous language possible, we never know into what absurdities they will plunge, as one after another is needed in order to hide the first from view. The mere English reader needs only to re-peruse the section in which we have inserted the occurrences of baptize and baptism in the New Testament, and to put purify and purification for these terms, especially in the places where eis is connected w4th the verb baptizo, or with the noun hoptisma or bajjtismos. 2. It is objected to there being anything in St. Paul's words confirma- tory of immersion as the meaning of baptism, because it is maintained that in the expi'ession "buried," the reference is not to the act of inter- ment, but to the " preparatory rites." These were washing, embalming, and wrapping in linen. That the manner of the Jews was thus to bury, is not denied; but that these constituted bui-ial, we emphatically deny. Assuredly, burying and jireparation for burying are two distinct things. Preparation for any solemnity or any performance is not the solemnity or the performance itself Are the taking down of Christ's body from the ci'oss, and the wrapping of it in a clean linen cloth, the laying of it in Joseph's own new tomb? (Matt, xxvii. 59, GO.) In proof of this distinction, we might quote from Herodotus, yea, from any Christian or heathen author who has referred to burying, and to embalming, or other preparatory rites; yea, from Dr. Ewing himself, when thoughts of bap- tism have not blinded his eyes. He gives the meaning of entaphiazo, " I pre2xire a corpse for burial, as by washing, anointing, swathing, &c. ; I embalm;" and yet he says that " what is said in Scripture of Christ's burial, can have no reference to interment, but must refer exclusively to preparatory rites" (p. 101). As we believe, in reference to this and some other chimei*as of Dr. E., that "to pi-opose this is all but to refute 24G IMPORT OF BAPTISM. it," enlargement we deem unnecessary. That the apostle was referring to i^i'eparatory rites we have not the least evidence, nor is there the least probability. Equally valuaWe is another lemai'k of Dr. E. : "It is our happiness to know that our blessed Sa^'iour never was finally interred." Do the Baptists believe that He did not rise from the dead on the third day '] Do the Baptists j^««^/y immerse their candidates 1 do they actually drown them 1 Do the Ppedobajitists finally sprinkle or i>our their candi- dates ? Is their bajitism an unending sprinkling or pouring '{ Thus our friends go from one extreme and from one absurdity to another, in order to escape immersion. First being buried does not refer to intej-ment at all, 1>ut to preceding things, to preparatory rites not named or hinted at; then, if it refers to interment, it is of no advantage to the Baptist, because Christ Aery temporarily occuj^ied His tomb, and believers even more temporarily are itnder the water ! There is, therefore, no resem- blance ! C. Taylor says : "■ In our English langviage, hvrial implies DEFINITIVE INTERMENT. . . . lu this sense ... I deny that Jesus was buried: I say He was not definitively interred^ Again; "Whoever was rilually united to Christ, was baptized into the profession of His death by that washing at His baptism. . . . Such a person was conformed to what had passed on Christ's body : he was not definitively interred, for Christ was not definitively interred, but He underwent the ritual preparation for definitive interment" {Facts, &c., pp. 44, 48). Tims does he, blinded by prepossessions, darken counsel by words. The italics and capitals are his own. But, 3, Dr. E. is honoured by the company of Dr. Halley and Mr, Stacey in maintaining that the Bajitists can gain no advantage from the apostolic simile, because the act of interment, according to Jewish, Roman, or English practice, bears no resemblance to the act of 2>^itting a person into water and under the water. " He (Christ) was not let doion into the earth, but placed in a chamber hewn out of the rock, the opening of which is secured by a great stone rolled against it, and sealed." Thus speaks Mr. S. (p. 229). Similarly speak Dr. H. (p. 261), and Dr. E. (p. 100). Then Mr. S. adds: "By what conceivable association of ideas could an interment of this kind call up in the mijid of the apostle the process of dipping a person in water]" Wo might ask the reader if sprinkling or pouring, as the substitute of immersion, Avould make so real and vast an improA'ement as to render tlie supposed association of ideas "conceivable" 'i As Mi-. S., hoAvcA'er, can conceive of the Baptists as exceedingly ignorant or regardless of the Jewish and Eoman customs of interment, not to mention also the English customs, we shall, first, assert that the word burial needs not be confined to tlie idea of letting down tlie body into a grave, or of th)-usting the same into a sepulchre hewn out of a rock on the side of a hill, or of burning the mortal remains and depositing the aslies in an urn. Cicero, a jierson not unknown to fame, on this siibject says: "The most ancient kind of burial appears to have been that which, according to Xenophon, was used by Cyrus. For the body is restored to the earth, and so jilaced as to be covered with its mother's veil" (De Leg., ii. 22). Herodotus, speaking of some of the Thracians, says: "When any one dies, the body is committed to the ground " (or, rather, they hide it in the ecvrth, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 247 ge kruptousi) "with clamorous joy : foi* the deceased, they say, delivered from his miseries, is then supremely happy." He also speaks of nations where the practice was for a wife to be "sacrificed by her nearest relation on tJie tomb of her husband, and aftenoards buried loith hivi " {Terp.^ iv. v.). Jahn, whose knowledge of Oriental customs is well known, says: " The sepulchres or burying-places of the common class of people were, without doubt, mere excavations in the earth, such as are commonly made at the present day in the East. Persons who held a higher rank, who were more rich, or more powerful, possessed subterranean recesses, crypts, or caverns" {Arch. Bib., c. xii., § 206). Dv. Cox says: — "The custom of raising tumuli or barrows over the dead was universal in times of the remotest antiquity; of which Homer, Xenophon, Virgil, in fact all the principal Greek and Roman authors, furnish ample evidence. It prevailed also among the German and other uncivilized nations. But such a practice is sufficiently indicative of the original and most prominent idea of burial that prevailed in remote antiquity; namely, that of committinf/ to the earth, and covering with earth. Diodonis Siculus and Herodotus, after detailing the whole process of embalming, describe the deposition of the dead in coffins, and placing them in the ground, as the subseqiient and final operations, to the latter of which the distinctive term is exclusively applied. (Comp. Diod. Sic. Biblioth., lib. i., c. 91-93.) Hei'od. Euterpe. "All the ancient nations cherished extreme horror at the thought of being unin- terred, mth reference to which the origlnnl idea is most clearly marked. When Ulysses visited the infernal regions, he thus expresses himself: — " 'There wandering through the gloom I lirst survey 'd, New to the realms of death, Eipenor's shade ; His cold remains, all naked to the sky, On distant shores, unwejit, iiiihuried he.' ' ' Tlie ghost m-gently implores the rites of sepultiu-e : — ' ' ' The tribute of a tear is all I cr.ave. And the possession of a peacefid gi'ave. ' "The Greeks and Romans entertained the firmest conviction that their souls woidd not be admitted into the Elysian fields till their bodies were buried, or com- mitted to the earth ; and if this were not the case, they were supposed to wander about for a hundred years, in a state of exclusion from tlie mansions of the blest. Travellers, therefore, who happened to find a dead body, cast dirt upon it three times ; and whoever neglected to do so drew a curse upon himself, which no sacri- fice could remove. Horace makes the shade of Archytas solicit this servdce of a passing seaman ; and iirges that it woidd not occasion any gi-eat delaj^ whatever might be his haste : — " ' At tu, natda, vagal 7ie 2Mrce maligmifi arence. ■Ossibus et capiti inhitmato Partictdam dare. . . . Quanquam festinas, non est mora longa ; Ucehit Injecto ter pidvere curras.^ — Cann., i. 28. " Similar considerations are deducible from the scriptural account of the burial- places of the ancients. On the death of Sarah, Abraham entreated the sous of Heth to give him possession of a burying-place, and he purchased of Ephron, the son of Zohar, the field of Machpelah, and the cave therein, v^-hich was m the oid of the field (Gen. xxiii. 3-20). David expresses great satisfaction when informed 'that the men of Jabesh-Gilead were they that buried Said,' having rescued then- soA'ereign's remains from the enemies' waUs, and committed them to the family sepidchre; 2 Sam. ii. 4." — On Bap., pp. 71-73. Dr. Potter says: "It woidd be needless to prove that both interring and burning were practised by the Greeks ; yet which of these customs had the best 248 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. claim to autiquity may perhaps admit of a dispute. But it seems probable that, however the later Greeks were better affected to the ■way of burning, yet the custom of the most primitive ages was to inter their dead." — Antlq. of Greece, pp. 580, 581. Dr. Boyd's Edition. J. Robinson says: "Whether interring or biu-ning the dead has the best claim to antiquitj'' may seem to admit of some doubt. It is probable, however, that, though the later Greeks were fond of burning, the custom of the primitive ages was to inter their dead {C'lc. cJeLeg.). Indeed, it is plain tliat the Athenians, Avho were afterwards addicted to burning, used intonnent in the reign of Gecrops {Cic. de Leg., 1. ii., c. 25) ; and we are positively told that interring was more ancient than burning (Schol. in Horn., H. 2), which is said to have been first introduced by Hercules." — Antlq. of Greece, pp. 448, 449. Dr. Jamieson, speaking of the death of Jacob, says : " While the common people were buried in the earth, the bodies of the rich and great were consigned to a hollow vault, or excavated tomb contiguous to the house. " "Throughout the East, the uniform practice has been, that the corpse is siinply bound with a white cloth, and being laid on a bier or board, is thus borne to the grave. " ' ' The conduct of the people of Jabesh-Gilead, however, who at midnight stole the bodies of their deceased ])riuces, and 'brought them to their own place, and burnt them,' must not be considered as exemplifying the usual manner in which the Jews of that age disposed of their dead. At no peiiod was it a Heljrew practice to consume the remains of the departed, although, in imitation of other people, they seemed to have reared funeral piles in honour of their later kings, on which they burnt large quantities of odoriferous spices ; and in the few instances which are on record of their having burnt the liodies themselves, they were obviously iutlueneed by par- ticular circumstances " {Eaf. Manners, O. T., pp. 167, 170, 290). Again, on Joseph's burying the body of Jesus, he says : " He deposited it in a tomb, which, according to Jewish and Eastern manners, he had excavated for his family iise in his own garden." He also refers to "the minute desci'iptiou Di-. Clarke has given of some cemeteries he examined in Asia Minor. 'They were all of one kind, exhibiting a series of subterranean chambers, hewn out with marvellous art, each containing one or more repositories for the dead, like cisterns carved in the rock upon the sides of these chambers.'" — Do., N. T., p. 261. Coleman says: "It was universally customary with Christians to deposit the corpse in a grave." — Chr. Antiq., p. 181. Dr. KiTTO seems to have no idea that 1:)urning, and not interring the dead body, was an ancient practice with the .Jews or Arabians. Speaking of the death of Sarah, the Avife of Abraham, he says: " It has been an ancient custom among the Bedouin tribes not to bury their dead just AA'here they happen to die, but to have a burial-place within their respective territories, to which they bring the bodies of such of the tribe as happen to die within its district. In conformity with this custom, Abraham now wanted a suitable burial-ground, appropriated to the special iise of his family, and in which the remains of all of that family who died in the land of Canaan might be laid." — Pic. ///>. of Pal., ji. 64. Prof. Paxton says : "The ancient Greeks were accustomed to lay o\it the body after it was shrouded in its grave-clothes; sometimes upon a bier, which they bedecked with various sorts of flowers. The place whei-e the bodies were laid out was near the door of the house. . . . The liody, after being exposed at the door of the house, or in some open apartment, the iisual number of days, was laid in a coffin. This, however, seems to have been an honour commonly reserved for per- sons of better condition. . . . The meaner sort of people seem to have been interred in their grave-clothes without a coffin. In this manner was the sacred body of our Lord committed to the tomb." "The Isi-aelites committed their dead to their native ilust ; and from the Egyptians, pro]>ably, borrowed the practice of l)urning many spices at their funerals." — Jl/ns. of Scrip., vol. ii., pj). 101-106. Dr. W. Smith. — "The Rabbis (pu)te the doctrine, 'dust thou ai't, and unto dust shalt thou return,' as a I'eason for preferring to entomb or inter their dead; but that preferential practice is older than the INIosaic i-ecord, as traceable iu patriarchal examples, and continued unaltej-ed by any Gentile influence ; so Tacitus {Hist., V. 5) notices that it was a point of JeMush custom, corpora coiulere quam cremare.'' — Bil>. Die. Art. Burial, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 249 Independently of these extracts, every one familiar witli Holy Writ must know that the practice of the Jews in all ages has been to bury, and not to burn their dead. Also, as says the Baptist Magazine, " In Christian baptism the reference is to the burial of Christ himself (Rom. vi. 4; Col. iii. 12). The heathen customs of burning the dead and in- urning the ashes are, therefoi-e, excluded from considei'ation " (p. 43. 1859). What idea, therefore, can any one, Jew, Roman, or Greek, attach to the word "buried," when used literally, but that of being committed to the earth, and covered over with the same ? If the word, then, is used in reference to baptism, in which the acknowledged element is water, what idea can be suggested to justify the declaration that we are buried by baptism, but that in baptism there is a being covered with water as a jierson who is buried is covered with the earth 1 We admit that there was often a difference in Judea, as in England, and most other places, betwixt the graves of the wealthy and of the poor; and we have no objection again to quote from Dr. Cox: — "The most ancient modes and places of burial appear to have been infields, gardens, caves, and mountains. Calmet mentions that Ezekiel intimates graves were diig imder the mountain upon which the temple stood ; since God sa3's that in future His holy mountain should not ]je polluted with the dead bodies of their kings. Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, and Joshua wei-e buried in mountains ; Said and Deborah under the shade of trees ; Sarah, in a cave. Mr. Ewing's own account of the proceeding with regard to our Saviour is correct; He was carried into the new toml3 of Joseph, in the side of the mount, or sohd rock — in the side of which a tomb was 'hewed out.' The sepidchres of distinguished iudi\dduals were frequently in very elevated situations; not in valleys, but in the sides of hills, the entrance by a door. "The tombs at Napolese, the ancient Sichem, where Joseph, Joshua, and others were buried, are hewn out of the solid rock, and are durable as the hills in which they are excavated ; constituting integral parts of mountains, and chiselled with inconceivable labour. The tombs of Telmissus, described by Dr. Clarke, are of two kinds: the one, the true Grecian soros, and the Eomau sarcophaijus ; the otliei-, 'sepidchres hewn in the face of per])endicular rocks.' One quotation from this celebrated traveller with regard to Jerusalem wdl suffice : ' Having quitted the city by what is called "Sion Gate," we descended into a dingle or trench, called Tophet or Gehinnon, by Sandys. As we reached the bottom of this narrow dale, sloping towards the valley of Jehosaphat, we observed upon the sides of the oppo- site mountain, facing Mount Sion, a number of excavations in the rock, similar to those already described among the ruins of Telmissus. We rode towards them. Wlien we arrived, we instantly recognized the sort of sepulchi'es which had so much interested us in Asia Minor. . . . They were all of the same kind of workmanship, exliibiting a series of subterraneous cliamhers. The doors were so low, that to look into any one of them it was necessary to stoop, and, in some instances, to creep upon our bands and knees: these doors were also grooved for the recejition of immense stones, once squared and fitted to the grooves, by way of closing the entrances. Of such a nature were undisputably the tombs of the sons of Heth, of the kings of Israel, of Lazarus, and of Christ.' — Travels, part, ii., vol. 4. "It appears that ancient sepiilchi'es, and those especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, were excavations in the sides of rocks or mountains, con-esponding wth what we usually term caves or cells, or ' rjloomy caverns ; ' and, consequently, to be laid in a sepulchre was to be deposited in one of these recejitacles of the dead ; that is, to be placed in one of these hollows, cut in the side of the solid rock, some at one elevation, some at another, — all below the s^nnmif, and, of course, far under- ground, or in a subterraneous situation. Whether a body, therefore, were lowered down perpendicularly, or put in horizontally, it was, in being buried, introduced into a subterraneous vault "' (pp. 73-75). If what we have quoted is correct respecting the practice of Asiatics 250 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. and Europeans, of the most ancient, and of more recent times, and if such was the practice of the Jews in the time of our Saviour, where is the impropriety of saying in regard to the Christian ordinance, " We are buried with Him by immersion " ? Do we not say of a man in a buikling which has fallen upon him, and by the ruins of wliich he is covered over, — do we not say of him previoiis to his extrication, to his being uncovered, that he is buried in its ruins 1 And does any one hold up this expression to contempt because the poor man is not "let down into the" ruins; not "lowered into" them; nor "carried into" them 1 Let P?edobaptists reply. If persons working in a qixai-iy or in a deep sewei", by an unexpected fall of earth are covered with the same, do we never say they are buried in the earth ? or if we do, do we speak most ignorantly and ridiculously? Let any reader reply. Perhaps some one will say that this is a proper use of the word buried; but that it does not prove the propriety of the phrase "buried by immersion." We liave quoted this use of the word buried, to show the unfairness of the Peedobaptists in restricting it when used even iia the passive sense to a thrusting or carrying of the dead body into the sepulchre, or a lowering of it into its grave; and to prove that the correct idea belonging to the word buried, when it is used figuratiA'ely, is covered over, and is never, that we are aware of, necessarily more or other than that of l^eing covered over. Of course, being covered over with earth, involves con- finement, and to the living would induce speedy death; whilst being- covered with water, if continued, would soon lead to drowning. Even in regai'd to baptism, Dr. Halley has the intelligence and candour to assert that "a body put in the svirrounding eai-th of a grave, or a man covered with the rviins of a house, is baptized" (p. 275). And yet we are told in substance by Mr. S. that being buried by immersion involves an association of ideas to him not conceivable! that its accordance with cidtivated taste and Divine 'inspiration is not to be thought of ! and that by forgetting the Jewish and remembering the Roman method of bury- ing, the difficulty is not lessened! (p. 229.) This is the way in which our friends treat the Avord buried, and save themselves from being- immersed. The objections of many to immersion being designated a burial, are as sage as if they were to say that persons cannot properly be said to be l)uried unless into the grave persons can enter as Peter and John both went into the tomb of Joseph in which Jesus was interretl (John XX.), Nor let it be supposed that we approve of all that some Baptists have said, or of all that Dr. Carson has Avi-itten on this part of Divine revelation. Our view of the passage is not that the apostle is here treating, or that he or any other inspired Aniter anywhere directly treats, of the mode of baptism (of immersion); nor do we affirm that the words "baptized" and "baptism" are in these verses used figuratively. We regard the apostle as exhorting the Roman believei-s to holiness of life, and as reminding them that nothing short of this is consistent with their professed character. Whether we look at the verses which have already been quoted, or at those immediately preceding or succeeding them, we regard this design of the apostle as most evident. He says : " Shall we continiie in sin, that grace may abound 1 God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live anv longer therein 1 " Clearly he is FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 251 liere dissuading in tlie most forcible and earnest manner from the practice of sin, and is supposing that Christians are dead to sin, and cannot, therefore, live in the practice of it. He immediately reminds them that this is involved in the profession which they have all made : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death f To be baptized into Jesus Christ, accepting the explanation of this by INIr. Stacey, is "to be devoted to Him, by some appropriate ceremony, as a religious teacher and guide;" in other words, to which we tnist that on reflection he will not object, it is to declare in baptism our acceptance of Him and our consecration to Him as oxir Saviour, Teacher, and Sovereign. This is to be "bajitized into His death," as to our professed belief therein, and professed conformity to its design, the believing sinner experiencing the pardon of sin and deliverance from the consequences and dominion of sin. Thus the baptized believer declares, in attending to the ordinance of his Redeemer's appointment, his faith in Jesus who died for him and rose again; and that he, bought with a price, even the precious blood of Christ, is no longer his ow^n, that he is dead to sin, and that henceforth he vnll live to his Di^dne, beloved, and only Sa^dour. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." Burial follows death. "We bury the dead; not the living. But the baptized professes and is supposed to have died to sin. For this reason it is God's arrangement that we are buried with Him through baptism, by means of baptism into death. We are not merely baptized into the death of Christ, as to our professed belief of this interesting fact, and as to the design of this momentous event, but by means of this, and in accordance -with the propriety of burj'ing the dead, and after the example of the litei'al fact in our Saviour, who, after He died, was bui'ied, we are also buried with Christ : we have not only as professed Christians died to sin, Jesus having died for sin, the i^rofession of which is involved in our baptism, but also with the same pi'opriety and tnithfiilness, and as the proper sequence of death, it may be said that we have been buried with Christ. As Jesus, after His death for sin, was biiried in the tomb of Joseph, so we, therefore, after our death to sin, were buried by bap- tism. We are buried tvith Christ. The preposition s?m, rendered with, is a part of the verb, the compound verb sunetaphemen, which is here used liguratively. The word hiried, rather than the word baptism, is here used figvu-atively (although there may be said to be a figurative apj)lication of baptism, it being spoken of as a burial), the Chi'istian by baptism being said to be buried, to be buried with Christ, that is (at least), in like manner to Christ. In vindication of this meaning of the expression "we are buried with Christ," we give, in addition to other extracts, the words of the New Testament lexicographer. Dr. Robinson, on the tropical import of sun, and the Scriptures to which he refers; although we think that he might have inserted Eom. vi. 4, 6, and have omitted hei-e Rora. viii. 32. " Trop. of connexion, consort, as arising from likeness of doing or suffering, from a common lot or event, idth, the same as in like manner wit/i, like, Eom. vi. 8, viii. 32; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; Gal. iii. 9, eulogountai sun to jAsto Abraam, that is, with and like Abraham, by the same acts and in the same manner (Col. ii. 13, 20). So im, Sept. meta. Psalm cvi. 6; Ecc. ii. 16." _ Ftve Clergymen. — "According to the A. V., sumplmtoi would mean 'planted with one another.' But the juxtaposition of the words seems to reqiiire that to omoiomati should be considered to be under the regimen of the sun in sumphutoi. 252 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Moreover, siiniphato'i docs not so properly mcau 'planted' as 'grown together.' ' Grown to the likeness ' might be a good rendering, except that by this we should give an active sense to an expression which in this passage is certainly' passive in its meaning" (Vcr. of Eomani^, p. xiii. ). Their rendering is, "For if we have become united to the likeness of His death," &c. Dr. Bloomfield. — "£"< (lar sumphutoi — emmetha. 'For if we have become closely united with, or assimilated to, Him in His death, so we shall also be (assimi- lated to Him) in the likeness of His resurrection.' In sumphutul there is a meta- phor taken from drafting ; the literal sense of the expression ))eing 'grown together into one. ' " — Gi: Tes. , on Rom. vi. 5. Dr. Robinson. — " SiunpJmfos. . . . In N.T., grown together, sc, into one; trop., conjoined, united, one with," sumphutoi ger/onamen to omoiomati ton tlianatou anton, that is, one with Christ in the likeness of His death (Comp. vers. 4, 8)." M. Wright.^ — " Samphutoii, grown together, native, inherent, congenial." — Lex. DoNNEGAN.- — "SumpJnio, to join into one body ; to incorporate ; to amalgamate ; to connect." — Lex. LiDDELL AND ScoTT. — " Sumphuo, to make to grow together. Pass., to grow together, be naturally or necessarily connected" (Lex.). They say of sun in com- pos, and metaph., any kind "of agreement or unity, like Lat. con" (Lex.). If the reader judges that in this expression there is a reference to the literal planting of seeds in the ground, there is nothing in that idea militating against immersion and in favour of pouring or sprinkling. It is wholly against the latter, and in favour of immersion, as is the whole passage, and as, we think, is every part of God's Word. G. Wakefield. — ^^ Humphutas here is merely par-similis, and has nothing to do with jjlanting, as it is rendered in our version. "^ — N.T. Dr. D. Brown. — "For if we have been planted together— lit. , 'have become formed together, ' " — C'o^n. , on Rom. J. Hewlett. — "For if we have been planted, &c. Rather, for if we have been united to Him." — Co7n., on Rom. vi. 3. Dr. Wordsworth renders sumphutoi, connate. In scriptural baptism there is a literal going down into the water; there is literally a being covered with the water, which condition of the baptized is denominated by the apostle a Ijeing buried; and there is a literal rising up from the water. The literal action involved in baptism, according to inspired reasoning, represents spiritual and important truths. This is the Divine arrangement and purpose in connexion wuth this ordinance, as it is also with the breaking of bread, &c., in the Lord's Supper. " Therefore we are buried with "' Christ by this baptism into His death: "that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also," who have been raised up from our burial, which took place in our baptism, " should walk in newness of life," after the example of one who has risen from the dead. " For if we have been planted together," united, made one with Christ " in the likeness of His death," having died to sin as He died for sin, " we shall be also" one with Him "in the likeness of His resurrection;" Ave shall also rise from a state of death in sin to a condition of life in faith and obedience : " knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Nothing can be clcai-er than that the apostle is exhorting to holiness of life : and we think that nothing can be clearer than that he adduces the fact of their baptism, and the s])iritual significance of that ordinance, as a powerful incentive to holiness. No burial supposes no death, and no resuiTection. The Christian's baptism being a burial, supposes both; FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 253 a death to siii, aud a resurrection to holiness, to newness of life. Yet, amidst reasoning on these verses which space will not allow us to insert, we are gravely asked, after a reference to the death of the Son of God : "What ijoints of correspondence can be discovered, by the most suscep- tible aud delicate fancy, between immersion and crucifixion 1 " (Stacey, J). 226.) The apostle Paul says not that in baptism we ax*e put to death with Christ, nor that iu baptism there is a symbolic likeness to the death or the crucifixion of Christ. That immersion represents the Redeemer's sufi:"erings, and that by sprinkling, these sufferings, however unintention- ally, are continually caricatured, we maintain; but that is not the present subject (See Matt. xx. 22); nor is it the manner of Christ's death, but the /act of Christ's death, of Christ's burial, and of Christ's resui'rection, to which the apostle refers. Baptism is so associated with death, burial, and resurrection, as to teach the unprejudiced and docile that its subjects are not infants or the unregenerate, that its action is immersion, and that all ungodliness is inconsistent with the solemn profession of the baptized. We are reminded, further, by Dr. H., and then by Mr. S., that in modern baptisteries there may be a resemblance to English gi-aves, but, says Mr. S., "he must be gifted with an extraordinaiy imagination who can discover a likeness between a grave and Jordan, or ^non.* And what is there in the momentaiy act of dipping the living into water to sixggest the solemn act of committing the dead to the earth ? " (pp. 228, 229.) We would remind Mr. S., and eveiy Paedobaptist, that we do not ask permission of any of them to speak of Christians as being buried by baptism, that it is the inspired Paul who has said "we are buried loith Him by baptism;" and that the idea in being buried is being covered over, being hid from view; and that this, though perfectly accordant with immei-sion, is utterly inapplicable to spi'inkling or poui-ing, as not only the Baptists, but Pjedobaptists themselves, not excepting Mr. Stacey, affirm. A goodly number of these Pa^dobaptists it is oiir intention subseqxiently to quote. Mr. S.'s belief is not that being buried with Christ by baptism applies to immersion and not to sprinkling or pouring, but that it is inconsistent ^vith any of the three. Instead of tJie idea of immersion giving us no conception of the apostles meaning, but darkening and confusing the lohole subject of Ids discoicrse (p. 231), we maintain that the idea is absolutely necessary, and that by the words which tlie apostle uses (baptizo and baptisma) it is explicitly and necessarily given. We do not maintain that "the mode of baptism," according to the meanmg of this expression when used by Mr. S., is "the question under consideration" with the apostle, but that it may "be legitimately infer- red," as, indeed, by many Psedobaptists it has been, that baptism in the apostle's days was immersion. But under a consciousness of the utter insufl[iciency of pouring or sprinklmg, cleansing or washing, as the certain meaning of baptism and the redoubtable substitute of immersion, all these meanings are throAvn overboard together, and w^e have a fourth expedient of somewhat recent invention, which effectually saves any of our Ptedobaptist fiiends from immersion. * The caricaturing of Divine truth is ever deserving of severe reinehension. This is the course pursued by those wlio ^vrite not to oppose immersion as one proper "mode of baptism," nor to make a single convert to sprinkling ! 254 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. 4. It is maintained that the apostle's words have no reference to the external ordinance, and, consequently, have no reference to either immei'- sion, pouring, or sprinkling. This is not affirmed by Dr. H., and yet he gives to this a very benign look, and sjieaks of it some veiy kind words, although, as we think, very inconsistently, when he humbly and heggingly says: "Do we not satisfy all the legitimate reqiiirements of the figure, in mamtainiug that all who have the spii'itual blessings ];)roposed in the emblem of baptism, have obtained them through tlie death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus ? " (p. 260.) This humble begging of the question we dismiss -with the reply, By no means : because there is something in immersion, the generally acknowledged and the proved import of baptism, which may be termed a burial, and which, consequently, supposes a death, and there is a rising up, which may be termed a resurrection; but the terms burial and resurrection, or risen, are inadmissible in appli- cation to sprinkling or pouring, because in these actions there is nothing implying death, or re2:)resenting in any way either a burial or a resuiTec- tion. In the language of a Psedobaptist, we say: "The allusions here emplo3^ed are not ovei-shadowing b\it illustrative allusions, introduced for the sake of clearness and precision; and, as we shall see, the subsequent statements of the apostle go directly to justify the exposition we have given of them." * Yet Dr. Wardlaw, on " buried witli Him," says : " The simple meaning of this expi-ession CAddently is, that by being bap- tized into the faith of His death, as the death of our sui-ety and substitute, we become -partakers vnth Him m it " (Inf. Bap., p. 137). We agree with Dr. W. that to be baptized into Christ's death, is to be baptized into tlie faith of His death: and we maintain that an ordinance of such a charac- ter ought not to be administered to those incapable of faith, or to those giving no evidence of faith ; but we demur to his affirmation that buried with Christ means simply, " we become partakers with Him." AVe will admit " that the argument of the apostle has not the remotest comiexion with the mode of" immersion; but we will maintain that it has with the action, Avith the immersion mentioned. We now^ hasten to Mr. S., who enters into this hypothesis with his whole soul. He unhesitatingly assures us : — "The believer is one with Him (Christ) in His de.ath, being dead unto sin; in His burial, being separated from this present evil world ; in His resurrection, being quickened with Him, and made to walk with Hira in newness of life. The natural is the typo of the spiritual ; what took place really iu the Saviour, is employed to represent what took place spiritually in the Christian. Chi'ist died, was buried, and rose again in the flesh ; the believer dies, is buried, and rises again //; the Spirit " (p. 232). These are not "the flowers of fa/ioj, but the fruits of love — piety kindled into ])oetry" — in the veritable apostle. Yea, "the only baptism by which wc can be buried and raised again with Him (Christ) is the bajitiion of (he Sjyirit, of which baptism with water is but the outward symbol. Identiflcation with Christ in His death viuat be spiritual, as in no other sense is it conceivable. In the passage iu Colossiaus, resun-ection with Christ is expressly described as such : ' wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God.' But if deatli and resurrection are spiritual, burial cannot be otherwise. Now, a spiritual change demands a sjjiritual process, and a spiritual process a spiritual power. If baptism, therefore, is the process or the power, it must be the imvard baptism of the Holy Spirit " (p. 233). Dr. D. Young's Ant. Ch, Tract, p. 50. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 265 And tMs he makes more certain still by the fact that the expression, *' so many of us," is a restrictive clause ! We believe this to be restrictive in the sense of referring to the baptized and not to the world ; but not as referring to a select portion of the baptized. The very opposite of this Ave maintain to be the obvious and necessary import of the inspired words, "so many of us as," &c. Hence, in the version o^ Romans by the " Five Clergymen," the rendering, " All we who," is preferred to " So many of ns," because the latter " suggests the idea of a residue more forcibly than the Greek osoi does" (p. xiii.). We are again told by Mr. tS. : "It cannot surely be the outward baptism of water, but the inward baptism of the Spirit." " Thus understood, the argument is clear and forcible" (p. 235). In reply to these assertions, yw's^, we express our unwavering conviction that neither Mr. S. nor any other person can prove that the word baptize or baptism, either here or in any part of Divine revelation, refers to the baptism of the Spirit, where there is not express mention of the Spirit, rendering it indubitably e^adent that not the external ordinance, but the baptism of the Spii-it, is meant. Secondly, we wish to know definitely, as the word baptized occurs twice in the third verse, and the word baptism occurs once in the fourth verse of Rom. vi., whether the baptism of the Spirit is referred to on each of the three occurrences of the word; or, if tliis is not the case, when a transi- tion takes place from the external ordinance to the baptism of the Spirit, or from the baptism of the Spirit to the external ordinance. AVe could understand a person, though we might not agree with liim, who could say respecting Matt. iii. 11, that the meaning of the former part of the verse is, I immerse yoK, in watei", and of the latter, I sp>rinkle you with the Holy Ghost and fire. Thus in regard to Rom. vi, 3, 4, as our friends in their reasoning lay greater stress on the 4th verse than on the 3rd, as pi'oving, in their judgment, that the apostle is speaking of the baptism of the Spii'it, and yet speak of the baptism of the Spirit as in the whole passage the only truth taught by the apostle, we wish not to combat a figment of our own imagination, biit definitely to know the following : — Does Paul, when vindicating "the doctrine of gi*atuitous justification from the possible charge of licentiousness " (p. 232), and when he says, " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ," refer to the baptism of the Spirit, or to the external ordinance enjoined by Jesus Christ 1 Mr. Stacey's sentiments on the import of this phrase are given in the following words : " The restrictive clause in Romans, ' so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Chi'ist were baptized into His death,' implies for the internal baptism a reference mvich Avithin the limits of the external" (pp. 233, 234). Either Mr. S. supposes the word baptized in both these places to refer to the baptism of the Spirit, or that only the latter baptized, or only the former baptized, refers to tliis. He has before said that " to be baptized into the name of any one is to be devoted to him, by some appropriate ceremony, as a religious teacher and guide." By the " appropriate ceremony " he surely meant the Christian ordinance of which he was speakmg. He could not call the baptism of the Spirit a ceremony, we presume. Also, a ceremony that can be called appropriate is surely not any humanly-invented one, when there is one Divinely appointed. And cei-tainly at page 5 he 256 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. supposes the apostle to be referring to the external ordinance when .speaking of being "baptized into Jesus Christ," and being " baptized into His death." But does this agree with the idea that being baptized into Jesus Christ does not refer to the external ordinance, but to " the inwai'd baptism of the Holy Sjnrit " I Or if we .should now be told that it is the second, not the first occuri-ence, of baptized in this verse, that refers to the bajitism of the Spirit, what proof is there that the apostle, without the least intimation of this different application of the word baptized, has thus used the word 1 It would be just as scriptural to say that in Matt, xxviii. 19, the commission gives no injunction with i-espect to an extei'nal ordinance, that the apostles are there enjoined to do what it had been predicted that Christ himself would do, and Avhat is Christ's sole prerogative, as to say that to be baptized into Jesus Christ is an expression having no reference to any external ordinance, but only to the baptism of the Spirit. Mr. S. subsequently adduces in the commis- sion baptizing into the name, &c., as a proof of literal, in opposition to figurative baptism (]>. 284). And he maintains that, "had the Sa^dour intended the figurative. He must have specified it." In another place he speaks of " the preference that is due to a literal before a figurati^-e sense, where the latter is not uecessaiy " (p. 318). Also to the Romanist, on certain adduced passages of Scripture,, he has said: "No difference of construction can be asserted except on })urely arbitrary grounds, and for exclusively theological pui-poses. Unless it be affirmed that the Word of God is flexible to every creed, or that a self-constituted authority can fix its meaning without a just regard to the ordmary laws of language, the same rule must be applied to all the jDassages, and the rendering of one, whether as literal or figarative, must determine the i-endering of the other" (pp. io, 46). And can Paul say, in eftect, " Know ye not that so many of us as declared in baptism our faith in Christ, and consecration to Him, were 1" Avere ^ what ? Shall we say, and in remembi*ance that St. Paul again uses the same baptized — were regenerated and .saiictified into His death, when Paul says, were baptized into His death? And is renewed and sanctified an imj^rovement on Paul's words ? Are we allowed thus to alter Holy "Writ? Or is it a just interpretation of the expression, "baptized into His death" 1 Can Paul, by "laaptized," in the former j^ai-t of this short sentence, mean the oixlinance appointed by Jesus Christ, and by baptized, in the latter part, mean renewed and sanctified? Where has such ambiguity or deccptiveness as this supposes, a parallel? We arc awai-e of the two passages of Scripture to which jMx*. S. has referred : " Nutting into the water is the symbol in the service," and that this is as well represented by " sprinkling " as by " the momentary and hasty dipping." He acknowledges that the Fathers manifested no consciousness of impropriety in the idea of "burial in water," although he appears to conceive of it as " the most incongruous of symbols." He also says : 200 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. " The representation of a burial is inconsistent with the syrubol of the sanctiticHtion of the Spirit." Cannot baptism, as to its external ordinance, Avhen a person is covered and snrrounded by water, i-epresent a buiial, and be spoken of consistently with any law of a human language as a burial, when the trutli, which is symholized is the washing away of sin, the cleansing of the soitl from impurity? We pity the brother who believes that these two ideas "cannot be associated without confusion ;" and we regard our brother as unintentionally reflectiug on the apostle of the Gentiles as well as on the Baptists, oi', perhaps, rather on himself alone, Avhen he is holding up to contempt the idea of making "the same service, with sobriety and edification, represent a cleansing and a burial." Either we misunderstand God's Word, or it most explicitly teaches both. Expressions have been used by Baptists on this portion of Scri])ture, as well as on others, of which we disapprove; but whom can Di". H.'s language condemn but himself when he says, " because Christ is in Scripture represented as a vine and a door, who would plead Scripture in justification of saying in one sentence, Christ is a grai)e-bearing door, or denounce the rhetorician as a profane scofter who should exj)ose the absurdity of such a figure 1 " We are reminded of the language of Jesus to one: "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." Of Christ as emblematically both a door and a vine, we can conceive without confusion, and without profanely speaking or thinking of Him as a grape-bearing dooi'. Of immersion we can conceive as being like unto a burial when the believer is covered with the water, and at the same time can conceive of a spii'itnal cleansing through the renewing and sanctifying operations of the Divine Spirit as being represented by this immersion, without con- fusion and without profanely, or ludicrously, or contemptuously uniting these. It is not always sufliciently remembered that the term "buried," so annoying to some of our Pa'doba})tist friends iu its application to baptism, is not an indention of the Baptists, but a word so ap|)lied by the Divine Spirit. We are buried by the immersion, says the inspired apostle. Both Ba})tists and Piedobaptists may misunderstand and mis- represent tlie term burietl, but the term itself in this application has the highest authority. Dr. H., for various reasons, solemnly maintains "that in baptism there is no representation of the buiial of a believer with Christ" (p. 26 7). He demands a blessing, not a trope, in immersion; also, that "the spiritual blessing" should bear a " resemblance to immer- sion " (p. 266). If Dr. H. will accept the following from a Baptist, we will present it : " If in baptism, then, there lie an expressive eml)leni of perfect puiification from sin, immei-sion must be the mode of administra- tion; because nothing short of that re])resents a total washing. I may here ventuie an appeal to the common sense of mankind : whether pouring or sprinkling a little water on the /ace, or an immersion of the whole body, be better adapted to excite the idea of au entire cleansijig." The sii])stancc of this Ave shall shortly quote from Psedobaptists. We hope, also, notwithstanding Avhat Dr. H. and Mr. S. have Avritten res])ect- ing a scenic representation in tliis oixlinanee, that believei's Avill not cease to be reminded of the death, the burial, and the resurrection of their Lord and Savioui', and of such resemblances as really exist, when they are "baptized into His death,'' when they "are buried, vitli Him by FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 261 baptism into death; that lihe as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so" they "also should walk in newness of life." We do not forget one request of Dr. H., that we will bear in mind that in all that he advances on this passage, he must be considered as leaning on two others. However well that he should pi-esent this request, we think that it would have been still better if, laying aside his blinding prepossessions and useless crutches, he had accepted the "obvious" instruction which the apostle's words convey. We leave the argviments of our two Peedobaptist opponents, repeating our conviction that if, receiving the thanks of the " Friends" they could so spiritualize this passage as even to prove that there is no allusion at all to the outward ordinance of baptism, that l^aptism here means, with- out any such thing being asser-ted or intimated, the design of baptism, or means the baptism of the Spirit, every previous feet and ax-gument in proof of immersion and against sprinkling, pouring, or anything as its substitute, remain in all their potency; and con-sdnced also that Paul is referring to the veritable action which Christ enjoined, and which the apostles practised, and that his language is a corroboration of all previous evidence that baptism is immersion. Dr. Hodge properly deems it commendatory when an "explanation supposes the word to be used in a popular and general sense, but does not assign to it a new meaning." — On Rom. i. 1-17. In proportion as our opponents unwarrantably deny any allusion to the action of baptism in the inspired words, and maintain that the whole is to be understood spiritually, Avithout any reference either to immersion or auy other j^retended baptismal act, so far do they, as we believe, invariably and necessaiily so interpret the woi'ds as to make them totally inapplicable to the baptism of infants. From Scylla to Charybdis. A Baptist brother, the Rev. F. Johnstone, has written: "If baptism be not a burial, where is the propriety of the expi-ession, be the meaning and allusion of the passage what it may 1 " Dr. INI'Crie had said that " the apostle here speaks of the spiritual meaning and effect of baptism, namely, regeneration, and speaks only of real converts implanted in Christ." Mr. J. says : " We hesitate not to say that the apostle is reminding Christians at Rome of an actual immersion in water Avhich took place when they entered ujion the Christian profession, and from it drawing the important spiritual lesson as to the need of deadness to sin and liA^ng xinto God." Pi-of. Godwin numbers this among the passages in Scripture where the baptism of the Holy Ghost is spoken of. Prof. Wilson gives "a spontaneous admission" that "the Greek and Latin Fathers" favour the cause of the immersionists; and we, similarly to himself, admit the "little weight" that should be attached to " pati-istic interpretation." We accept them not as expounders of Scripture, but as testifying their opinion of the meaning of the Greek word representing baptism. Also we agree with him in deprecating the idea " that baptism exhibits symbolically the death of Christ." But we believe that this is as much the language of P?edobaptists as it is "the current language of the Baptist school." Death we believe to be supposed as having taken place, and, consequently, baptism is not intended for infants and un- believers, and only burial and resurrection are repi-esented in baptism. 262 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. To the quibbling objections of ovii' opponents, whether or not we have "learned even the ABC of figurative language," we have no hesitation in asserting that in the expression " buried ^vith Him in baptism," there is an allvision to a person's being covered with water, as a person in the sepulchre is covered, which our Peedobaptist brethi'en, Avhose ejea are not blinded with prejudice, can plainly see, and do candidly acknowledge, as succeeding extracts sufficiently testify. When an apostle designates bajjtism a burial, we know that there is something in baptism ha%dng similitude to a burial, and this we know to exist in the fact of being covered over in baptism. Prof "Wilson says: "The great fact of the passage is baptism into Christ's death, which does not admit of being symbolized by immersion; and grounded on this fact is the momentous conclusion, that in this baptism we are 'joined unto the Lord' in His burial and resurrection" (p. 295). Instead of finding that the apostle gTOunds our being "joined unto the Lord " on our being baptized into His death, we i-ead his words, " Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up," &.c. Instead of deeming it " preposterous " that we are taught that baptism is immersion, it is to us inconceivable how Prof W. can say that "in this baptism we are 'joined unto the Lord,' " and yet practise the baptism of infants and deny baptismal regeneration. Yet he can do these, and write in italics and capitals as follows: "The princijDle is, that bajjiism acknoivledges and seeds more than it symbolizes." If spared to give to the world our views on the subjects of baptism, we may more largely quote from Dr. W. and others on Rom. vi. But we cannot leave him without expressing our conviction that the following is utterly false, except in ajiplication to Prof W. and those who, under the influence of prepossessions, seek objections to immersion, altho\igh by these it is in substance iterated and reiterated. He says : " Burial is commonly associated in our minds with the act of lowering the moiiial remains into the grave;" and then he speaks of the advocates of immer- sion as being " largely indebted " "to this accidental circumstance." We emi^hatically assert our convictions that burial is not generally associated in the minds of men at large with ant/ accidental circumstance, but with the fact of being covered over. (See Prof W., pp. 288-303.) Further, this brother teaches that God, the God of order and not of confusion, "is confessedly the author of symbolic washing in baptism; and that is one reason Avhy He is not the author of symbolic burial in baptism " (p. 303). Then he exliorts "to hold to the symbol of cleansing." Because ba])tism is the synibol of cleansing, can it not also be s>aubolic of burial and resurrection, without necessarily introducing " confusion and incon- gruity into the symbolic acceptation of baptism " 1- Because baptism is symbolic of cleansing, we are not dis})osed, in order to confine it to this symbolic import, to pervei't what an inspired writer has recorded. Are not burial and I'esurrection as cleaily and closely associated with baptism in Rom. vi. and Col. ii., as the washing away of sins in Acts xxii. 16, or any other place 1 Does one symbol in the least militate against the other 1 Might we not with as good foundation deny that Acts xxii. 1 6, or any other Scriptui*e, teaches or encourages the idea that baptism symbolizes cleansing, because in Rom. vi. 4 we are said to be buried by FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 26S baptism, as deny that burial and resurrection are sjnnbolized in baptism becaiise baptism sjoiibolizes cleansing ? Yet learned Ptedobaptists con- fidently teach the world that as baptism represents purification, thei-e can be no argument in favour of immersion in Rom. vi. 2-4 and Col. ii, 12. Our learned brother, before closing the volume, when on another subject, thus writes: "The objection, though often heard in high critical quarters, is wholly irrelevant; because the apostle, whatever may be his subject, is not precluded from laying down principles which shall direct and control the administration of baptism" (p. 517). Not only is tliis permitted to the apostle, but it is said, " He has manifestly done so." Also, our brother, on " the baptism of the Holy Spirit," has previously said, and as we think very properly: "According to the aspect under which it is contemplated, the Pentecostal baptism is a figure or a reaKty. Viewed in relation to the emblems of the Spirit, it is a real baptism. . . . Viewed in relation to the Spirit personcdli/, it is a figurative baptism " (p. 271). This involves no confusion. Neither this nor the former is dei'ogatory to God, the author of order. We may further remark, that to prove the duty of immersion, or to prove that baptism is immersion, we are under no obligation to prove that in baptism either the washing away of sins, or the burial or the resurrection of Christ, or of believers, is symbolized. If baptism occurs without reference to ought symbolical, it is still baptism ; but if in baptism there is, according to inspired trvith, a symbolic idea confirmatory of its meaning immersion, we shall not reject the idea, nor oA'erlook the corroborating fact, at the bidding of any of our honoured but erring brethren. Mr. Fraser jileads that if we are to have a submersion, " let this submersion be, not by the summary and ofi"-hand method of dipping, but by the longer, and really more overwhelming, but truer method of pouring" (p. 35). Whether he subsequently discovers that .sprinkling is really more overwhelming than pouring, we know not; but after teaching that baptism was by pouring, he teaches that " the ordinance of baptism is to be administered in a similar manner, and that sprinkling is the only scriptural mode of dispensing the ordinance ! " (p. 68.) The language of the apostle so obviously, naturally, and necessarily conveys the imjoort for which we contend, and such is the obscurity in which apostolic language and the design of baptism, on any other suppo- sition, are involved, that various eminent P?edobaptist divines have been led to wish for a restoration of the ancient practice. Hence the language of Wolfius, of Conybeare and Howson, and of others already qiioted. Hence Sir Norton Knatchbull observes that the true and genuine reason of baptism being appointed "is almost lost," by the change of immersion into pouring or sprinkling {Anno., ad I Peter iii. 21). Hence the learned Lutheran, Buddeus, after having given a summary view of the arguments for immersion, from Zeltnerus, adds: "He who accurately considers these things will be of opinion that they are by no means to be blamed who, though they do not reject sprinkling, yet wish that immer- sion had never been deserted; or, if possible, that it might be restored : among whom is Spenerus, nay, Luther himself , . . That all doubts and" scruples may be removed, the advice of Zeltneiiis, a very learned divine of Altorf, should certainly l)e received; who persuades to the use 2G4 IMPOET OF BAPTIS.M. of a larger aftusion, that by so doing the want of immersion may be compensated." — TheoL Bog., 1. v., c. i., § 5. Woiiid these and others condemn their own practice by acknowledging and deploring its emblematical insufficiency, its departure from primitive l^ractice, and inconsistency with Holy Writ, if all these facts could so easily be disproved, as it might be supposed from the language of some of the modern Ptedobaptists % We say of some of them, because others in our country and on the continent are as candid and explicit as Buddeus himself. Liddell and Scott, the first Greek lexicographers in the English language, with others of eminence, make no mention of sprLiakle or pour as a meaning of baptizo. Writers belonging to the Church of England, which encourages immersion, have not so strong a temptation as some others to pervert the true impoi-t of this word. A Dissenting Pfedobap- tist, denying the church's right to decree rites ami ceremonies, is under a strong temiitation to interpret this word to justify his practice. Hence it has been asserted, " If such a one writes a lexicon, he gives baptizo a variety of meanings (see Ewing's Greek Lexicon) ; and on Mr. Ewing's principle of assigning meanings to words, he might have given it almost any number, in justification of any mode, or no mode. The figuratiA'e use of a word gives it no new meaning, and, consequently, is not pi'operly the province of the lexicographer. A good metaphor needs not to be explained, for it contains its own light. Besides, to explain or enumerate all the possible metaphorical a|)plications of a word is impossible : they are innumerable, and every 2:)erson has a right to use as many as he pleases, if he does it with good eflfect. We contend that ' baj^fizo,' in the apostolic age, had no secondary meaning." It may be remembered by the reader that several writers already quoted have referred to Paul's language where he speaks of being buried with Christ in baptism; as Moriis, Curcellanis, AVolfius, Altmann, Eavanellus, Buddeus, H. Alting, Grotius, Le Clerc, Gurtlerus, Rogers, Tillotson, S. Clarke, Sherlock, Baxter, Poole, Whitby, Doddridge, Bur- kitt. Dr. A. Clarke, Storr and Flatt, and others. Some of these encourage the idea that death is represented in immersion, which we think rather to be implied. Thus Dr. Adam Clarke, on Rom. vi. 4, says: "It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put binder the water, which seemed to say, the man is drowned, is dead; and when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life; the man is riseii again; he is alive. He Avas, therefore, supposed to throw olf his old Gentile state," ttc. Thus speak some of the Fathers. Tertullian says : "We die symbolically in baptism:" on which Rigaltius remai'ks: "We ai*e immersed as if we suffered death, and rise up out of the water, as reviving again." The A]>ostolic Constitutions say: "Baptism is a repre- sentation of Christ's death ; the water is that wherein we are buried." Again: "The immersion is the dying with Him; and emersion, or coming up from under the water, represents the resurrection." In like manner others. Also many attach to the words "with Him," in the sentence of the apostle, "We are Viuried with Him l>y baptism into death," a meaning FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 265 beyond that of our being in baptism buried, Uhe as Christ after He died, was buried. But not one of them, like Mr. S., considers the word buried to be used figuratively without any reference to a literal fact and action. They all believe that the expression buried is founded on the immersion in water that took place. Mr. S. has not adduced amongst the laws of figurative language the following: "That as every metaphor or simile has some truth upon which it is constructed, that primary idea or fact must be invariably regarded," "We recommend this to his future consideration. Let the following concessions of learned Psedobaptists of the pi-esent and of a foi'mer age, that apostolic language refers to immersion, be duly considered. We quote these authors simply on behalf of immersion as being taught by inspii'ed language to be apostolical baptism. Ovir aim is not to give a commentary on other truths of revelation. From our opinions already given, we shall not be understood as agreeing with every sentiment that may be contained in the language which we quote. One reason of our quoting so largely is our belief that Pfedobaptists generally, and even some Pfedobaptist writers, are profoundly ignorant on this subject, even ignorant of what their own most eminent and fellow-Paedobaptists have admitted. We are free to acknowledge that every one. Baptist or Pfedobaptist, is at liberty to jtidge for himself respecting the import of Holy Writ. Yet we believe that there are seasons when, witli special advantage, the opinions of our fellow-Chris- tians may be carefully weighed. We shall quote, first, some to whom the name of Paadobaptist is more appropriate than to others, as at the time wlien they wrote the usual practice was to immerse, whether the subjects Avere children or adults. We shall first quote some who spoke and wrote in the Greek language. Cyril, made Bishop of Jerusalem in A.n. ."^oO, writing in Greek, says: "For as Jesus assuming the sins of the world died, that having slain sin He might raise tliee up in righteousness, so also thou, rjobui down into the water {katabas els to Jiudor), and in a manner buried in the ivaters (kai tropon tina en toishudasi tapheis), as He is in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of life" (Ins. iii., on Bap. , xii. ). Again : " O strange and wonderful transaction ! Not truly did we die, nor were we truly buried, nor tridy crucified did we rise again ; 1)ut the imita- tion was in a similitude, while the salvation was in truth. Christ was really crucified, and really was Ijuried, and truly rose again ; and all these things have been graciously imparted to us that, sharing His sufferings in imitation, we might in truth obtain salvation" (Initia. ii., on Bap.). Again: "After these things ye were led by the hand to the sacred font of the Divine immersion [baptlsmatos)* as Chi'ist from the cross to the prepared toml). And each was asked, if he believes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And ye professed the saving profession, and sunk down thrice into the luater (kateduete triton eis to hudor), and again came up. And there, Ijy a symbol, shadowing forth the biirial of Christ," &c. — Initia. ii. 4. Athanasius, made Bishop of Alexandria in A. D. ,328 : "In these benefits thou wast immersed (ebapiisthes), 0 newly-enlightened ; the initiation into the grace, 0 newly- enlightened, has become to thee an earnest of resurrection ; thou hast the immersion (to baptisma) as a surety of the abode in heaven. Thou didst imitate in the sinking down, the burial of the Master; but thou didst rise again from thence," &c. [Disc, on the Holxj Passo., 5.) Again: "For that the child sinks down thrice in the font, and comes iip, this shows the death, and the resurrection on the third day, of Christ." — Ques. on the Ps., Prop. 92. * That innuersion was in his estimation the action of baptism, is proved by what follows as well as by what precedes. 266 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Basil, made Bishop of Csesarea in a.d. 370, says : "Imitating the biirial of Christ hy the immersion {dia tou haptlsmatos) ; for the bodies of those immersed (haptizo- onenon) are, as it were, hurled in the xoater {entliuptetai to hudatl) " {On the Ho. Sp., c. XV. 35). Again : "The water presents the image of death, receiving the body as in a tomb." Also, on Bap., b. i., c. i. 4: " Which we seem to have covenanted by the immersion (haptismatos) In loater {en to hudati), professing to have been crucified with, to have been buried with," &c. Gregory, of Nazianzen, born about a. d. 330 : ' ' Let us, therefore, be buried with Christ by the immersion (dia tou haptisiiuitos), that we may also rise with Him; let us go down with Him, that we may also be exalted with Him." — Disc. 40, on the Holy Bap. John, of Damascus, born about the end of the seventh centurj': "For the immersion {to baptisma) shews the Lord's death. We are indeed biu-ied with the Lord Ini the immersion {dia tou baptisnudos), as says the holy apostle." — On the Ortho. Faith, b. iv., c. 9. Chrysostom, made Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople in A. D. 398 : ' ' For to be immersed {baptizesthai), and to sink doA\Ti, then to emerge, is a symbol of the descent into the imder world, and of the ascent from thence. Therefore Paul calls the im- mersion {to baptisma) the burial, saying, We were bviried, therefore, with Him by the immersion into death" (Co ?H. o« 1 Cor. Disc. xl. 1). Again: "For as His body, l)uried in the earth, bore for friiit the salvation of the world, so also ours, biiried in the immersion {en to hai^tisnutti), bore for fruit righteousness, sanctification, sonship, ten thousand benefits, and will bear also the final gift of the resurrection. Since, therefore, we indeed in water, but He in earth, and we in I'espect to sin, but He in respect to the body was buried, on this account He did not say, ' planted together in death,' but 'in the likeness of death.' " — On Rom, A'i. 5. Disc, xi, Theophylact, Archbishop of Achrida about a.d. 1070: "For one immersion (baptisma) is spoken of, as also one faith, because of the doctrine respecting the initiation being one in all the church, which has been taught to immerse (haptizein) with invocation of the Trinity, and to symbolize the Lord's death and resurrection by the threefold sinking down and coming up" (Com., on Nahum, c. i. ). Again: ' ' For oiu" old man, that is, wickedness, was crucified with, that is, in like manner with the body of Christ, was biuried in the immersion (en to baptismatl) " (On Rom. vi. 5, 6). "For as He, having died, rose the third day, so also we, being tj^pically buried in the water," &c. (Com., on Luke xxiv. 45-53.) Again: "For symbols and an image of a l^urial and a resurrection are celel )rated in this water ; the thrice sinking down, symbols of the three days' burial ; then the man con\es up, as did the Lord," &c. — On John iii. 4, 5. These quotations are from persons who used the Greek language, and thus have borne testimony to the impoi't of baptizo, as well as to the practice of the church in tlieir day. The next belonged to the Western Church, and ■svi'ote in Latin. The first wrote when the church was beginning to baptize children younger in years than he approved. Tertulli.\n. — "Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed (tincti sumus), were immersed (tincti sumus) into His death?" (Quo. of Rom. vi. 3. On the Res. of the Body, c. xlvii.) Again: " We are three times immersed (ter mercjitamur), answering somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the Gospel" (On the Soldier's Crown, c. 3). Referring to Matt, xxviii. 19, he speaks of the Saviour "commanding that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (ut tin- f/uerent in Patrem," Sec.) — A(jainst Pra.vcas, c. 26. Ambrose. — "Thou wast asked. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty ? Thou saidst, I believe; and thou, didst sink do)rn (mcrsistl), that is, vxtst buried (sepultus e,v)" {On the Sac, b. ii., c. 7). Again: "Yesterday we discoursed respect- ing the font, whose appearance is, as it were, a form of sepulchre; into which, believing in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are received and submerr/ed (demeryirnvr), and rise," &c. (Do. b. iii., c. i. 1.) Again: "In baptism, since there is a similitude of death, without doubt, whilst thou dost sink down and rise again, there is a similitude of the resurrection" (Do., b. iii., c. i. 2). Again : " It is, therefore, a death, but not in the verity of corporeal death, but in a similitude ; for when thou sinkest down, thou dost take on a similitude of deatli and burial," — Do., b. ii., c. vii. 23. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 267 We shall now quote some who approximate more nearly to our times, many of whom belong to our country, and to an interesting- period of its history. It will be seen that these and similar quotations are not chronologically arranged. Craxmee. — "What greater shame can there be thau a man to professe himself e to be a Christen man because he is baptized, and j^et he knoweth not what bap- tisme is, nor what the dyj^pyng in the water doth betoken?" "Baptisme and dyppyng into the water doth betoken that the olde Adam, with al his synue and evel histes, ovight to be drowned and kylled by daily contrition and rejieutance, and that by reuewynge of the Holy Gost, we ought to rise with Christ from the death of synne, and to walke in a new Jyfe, that onr new man maye lyve ever- lastingly," &c. He then refers to Rom. vi. — Sermon, entitled An Instruction of Baptisme; dedicated to Edward VI. A. ScnoLAKER. — "The dipping in the water signifieth unto us that we are mortified of sjaine, of owv oune v,y\\ and of all fleshlye desire, and after this manner we are buried with Chryste in the fonte. And that we are lifted up agayn out of the fonte, signifieth unto us that we are risen frome death, that is, ch-awen out of all sinne, whiche might bringe us to death, in a newe spiritual life. And also that after this temporal death, we shall rise agayne into everlasting life." This is from A Christyan Instruction for all ])ersons, yongeand olde, d-c, translated out ofDoutch into I)iglysh by Anthony Scholaker. W. Tyndale. — "The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the olde life of sinne which is Adam. And the pulling out agaiue signifieth that we rise againe with Christ in a newe life fidl of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and worke the will of God in us, as thou seest (Rom. vi.)." — Obedience of a Christian Man, printed by John Daye, p. 143. John Frith, who w-as burnt at Smithfield July 4th, 1553: "The signe in Ijaptisme is the plounging downe in the material water, and liftynge up agayne, by the whiche as by an outward badge v.e are knowen to be of the number of them \vhiche professe Christ to be theyr Redeemer and Saviour" (p. 91). "The signifi- cation of baptisme is described of Paule in the 6 of the Romaines, that as we are plunged bodily into the water, even so we are dead and buried with Christe from sinne: and as we are lifted again out of the water, even so are we risen Avith Christe from oiu' sinnes, that we might hereafter walke in a newe conversation of lyfe. So that these two things, that is, to be plunged in the water, and lifte iip again doe signifie and represent the whole pith and effect of baptisme, that is, the mortification of oiu- olde Adam, and the rising up of our new man." — fVo7-ks, p. 93. Geotius. — " ' Buried with Him by baptism.' Not only the word baptism, but the very form of it, intimates this. For an immersion of the whole body in water, so that it is no longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which is given to the dead. So Col. ii. 12." "There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and of a resiirrection ; which, in respect of Christ, was external; in regard to Christians, internal (Rom. vi. 4)." — In Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12. PiCTETUS. — "That immersion into and emersion out of the water, practised by the ancients, signify the death of the old, and the resurrection of the new man (Rom. vi. ; Col. n.)."—Theol. Chr., 1. xiv., c. iv., § 13. Beausobre. — ' ' Baptism v/as, as it was then administered, a sensible sign of death and a biu-ial, on the one hand ; and on the other, of a resurrection. The subject was buried under the water, w^hich was, so to speak, a liqiiid grave, into which he was for a moment put. Then he was raised up, like a new man restored to life. Thus Paul explains the figurative import of baptism." — Dis, His. Crif. Theol. et Moraux, torn. v. , p. 145. Bp. Nicholson. — "The ancient manner in baptism, the putting of the person baptized luider the water, and then taking him out again, did well set forth these two acts; the first his dying, the second his rising again. . . . Into the grave with Christ we went not; for our bodies were not, nor could be buried with His: but in oiu* baptism, by a kind of analogy or resemblance, while our bodies are under the water, we may be said to be buried with Him." — In Davye, on Bap., p. 114. 2f)8 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. TowEEsoN. — "One other particular there is, wherein I have said the water of baptism to have been intended as a sign ; and that is in respect of that manner of application which Avas sometime nsed, I mean tlie dipping or plunging the party baptized in it. A signification which St. Paul will not suffer those to forget who have been acquainted with his epistles. For with i-eference to that manner of baptizing, we find him affirming (Rom. vi. 4), that we are 'buried with Christ by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' And again (ver. 5), that if "we have been ' jilanted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection. ' To the same purpose, or rather yet more clearly, doth that apostle discourse, where he tells us (Col. ii. 12) that as we are 'buried with Christ in baptism,' so we do 'therein also rise with Him through the faith of the ojieration of (lod, who hath raised Him from the dead.' For Avhat is this but to say, That as the design of baptism was to oblige men to conform so far to Christ'.s death and resurrection as to die unto sin, and live again unto righteousness, so it was performed by the ceremony of immersion, that the person immersed might, by that very ceremony, Avhich was no obscure image of a sepultiire, be miaded of the precedent death ; as, in lilie manner, by His coming again out of the water, of His rising from that death to life, after the example of the Institutor thereof? . . . The thing signified l>y the sacrament of baptism cannot otherwise be well repre- sented than by immersion ; or at least Ijy some more general way of purification than that of effusion or sprinkling. For though the pouring or siiriukling of a little water on the face may suffice to represent an internal washing, which seems to be the general end of Christ's making use of the sacrament of baptism, yet can it not be thought to represent such an entire washing as that of new-born infants was, and as baptism may seem to have been intended for, Ijecause represented as the laver of regeneration ? That, though it do [not]. require an immersion, yet rec|uiring such a general washing at least as may extend to the w'hole body ; as other than which cannot answer its type, nor j'ct that general though internal purgation which baptism was intended to represent. The same is to be said yet more upon the account of onr conforming to the death and resurrection of Christ, which we learn fi'om St. Paxil to have been the design of baptism to signify. For though that might and was well enough represented by the baptized person's being l>uried in baptism, and then rising out of it, yet can it not be said to be so, or at least but very imperfectly, by the iiouring out or sprinkling the baptismal water on him ? But, therefore, as there is so much the more reason to rej^resent the rite of immer- sion as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the onhj one that can answer the ends of its institution, and those things that were to be signified by it, so especially if (as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force) the general practice of the primitive church was agreea1)le thereto, and tiie practice of the Greek church to this very day." — Of the Sac. of Bap., par. iii., pp. 51-57. MiNOCHius AND EsTir,«. — "The apostle, in Rom. vi. 4, alludes to the rite of immersion, when the 1)ody is, as it were, bui'ied, and in a little while drawn out again, as from a sepidchre." — In Poole's Si/iiop. Rom. vi. 4. LiMBOECH. — "Tlie apostle alludes to the manner of baptizing, not as practised at this day, which is performed liy sprinkling of water, but as administered of old, in the primitive church, by immersing tlie ■\\liole body in M'ater, a short continuance in the water, and a sj)eedy emex'sion out of tlie water." — Com., in Epis. ad Rom. vi. 4. Brauxius. — "Christ went down into Jordan to be liaptized by John (Matt. iii. 11). The same thing seems to l)e intimated by the apostle when he speaks of being 'buried by baptism' (Col. ii. 12; Raptized into His death?' (Rom. vi. 3), referring to wliat is performed in baptism, namely, the entrance into water, and the going out of it. For he immodiately adds : 'Therefore we are buried with Him l)y baptism.' And (Col. ii. 12), 'Buried with Him in baj)tism, wherein also ye are risen with Him.' As in respect of Christ, His death was followed liy His resurrection from the dead, so our coirformity to Him consists in dying and rising again with Him. This is clearly presented to our view, and sealed Ijy that imn)ersion and emersion which are in baptism." — Theol. Prac, 1. ix., c. xxii., torn, ii., -p. 388. This writer, in accordance with others, considers the ajoostle to be "speaking of what was notorious and cei-tain," when he says, "Know ye not," &c. ; but learned Psedobaptists Avho seek to discountenance immersion, now teach that this miglit be meant, or possibly that, or more FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 271 probably the other, and that the apostle's meaning '< becomes apparent only after patient inquiry." So difficult it is to reconcile apostolic language with anti-apostolic practice. We verily believe with other Pjedobaptists whom we quote, that if baptism had been sprinkling in apostolic times we should not have read in God's Word of l^eing buried with Christ by baptism. ScHOETTGEN. — "The apostle forms a comparisou between baptism and death. He that is baptized is entirely under water, and no longer seems to live. AVlien, therefore, we Christians are baptized, it is into the death of Christ ; namely, that we should l)ecome imitators of His deatli. Baptism obligetli us to become like our Lord in His death and resurrection." — Hone. Hebraicce, ad Rom. vi. 4, p. 515. Bp. HoADLEY.— "This latter expression made use of by St. Paiil, with relation to baptism, is taken from the custom of immersion in the first days, and from that particular mauuer of baptizing proselytes, by which they were first covered with water, and in a state, as it were, of death and inactivity, and then arose out of it into a sort of new state of life and action. And if baptism had been then performed as it is now amongst us, Ave should never have so much as heard of this form of expressioD, of dying and rising again, in this rite." — Works, vol. iii., p. 890. Bp. Hall. — "Ye are in baptism biiried together with Christ, in respect of the mortification of yoiu- sins, represented by lying under the water ; and in the same baptism, ye rise up with Him in newness of life, represented by your rising up out of the water again, through that faith of yours which is gi-ounded upon the mighty power of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." — Hard Texts, on Col. ii. 12. Zanchy. — "Baptism is a sign of the mortification and burial of the old man. . . . For immersion into the water, which was used of old, represented this morti- fication, death, and bm-ial." — Opera, tom. iv., pp. 437, 438. QuENSTEDius. — "With St. Paul, to be baptized is to be buried (Rom. vi. 3, 4). Immersion is, as it Vv'ere, a burial ; emersion, a resurrection ; to which the apostle alludes (Col. ii. 12)." — Antiq. Bib., par. i., c. iv., sec. ii. Vitkinga. — "To be immersed in water, and to be under water, represent the death and biuial of om- old man, in virtue of the death of Christ." — Aplior. Sane. Theol, aphor. 891. Dr. Boys. — "The dipping in holy bajitism has three parts: the putting into the water, the continuance in the water, and the coming out of the water, ... as Paul, Rom. vi. 3."— Works, p. 294. RoELL. — "The signification of Ijaptism is taught (Rom. vi.), namely, that it is a sign and seal of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of our com- munion Avith them. For he that is immersed in water, which has the power of suffocating, is considered as in a state of death ; and likewise as long as he con- tinues immersed, he is there buried. But when he rises out of the watei', he rises, a's it were, from a state of death, and begins to live afresh. Of Avhat kind this newness of life is, baptism also at the same time distinctly represents. For as Avater has the poAver of Avashing and purifying, it signifies that, in virtue of our Lord's death, the person baptized is cleansed from sin, and that lie ought to li\'e a new and a pure life without the pollution of sin." "When persons are baptized in faith, they are bixvied with Christ ; to signify that they are no longer imder the citrse. They rise with Christ, or rather they are raised ; as they that are baptized, after immersion into water, rise again out of the water Avhen they repent, and so rise again from a death in sin. Thus also they rise again to a new life and are quickened: they live Avith Christ here in grace, and shall for ever live in glory." — Exi)l. Epis. ad Epli., in c. \\. 5. Exege. Epls. ad Col, in c. ii, 13. Bp. Davenant. — "In baptism the burial of the body of sin, or of the old Adam, is represented, Avhen the person to be baptized is put down into the Avater; as a resurrection, when he is brought out of it."— i?cepo. Epis. ad Col., c. ii. 12. A, Ross. — "Immersion into the Avater represents to us the death and burial of Christ, and, therefore, our mortification: likewise the very emersion out of the purifying Avater is a shadow of the resurrection of Christ, and of our spiritual quickening." — Annota., in WoUebii Compm. Theol., 1. i., c. xxiii., p. 150. ScuDDER. — "Baptism doth lively represent the death, burial, and resm-rection of Christ, together with your crucifying the affections and lusts ; being dead, and 272 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Ijuried with Him unto sin, and rising with Him to newness of life, and to hoi^e of glory (Roin. vi. 3-5; Col. ii. U-lsy'—Dalli/ Walk, c. v., p. 95. LuTHEK. — "That the minister dippeth a child into the water, siguifieth death ; that he again bringeth him out of it, signitieth life. So Paul explains it (Rom. vi.). . . . Being moved by this reason, I ^\■ould have those that are to be bajttized, to be entirely immersed, as the word im2)orts and the mystery signifies. "^ — In Dr. Dn Veil, on Acts viii. 38. Vide Lutheri Catcchts. 3Iinor. Vossius. — "In our baptism, by a continuance under water, the biu'ial of the body of sin, or the old Adam, is represented. The similitude consists in this : That as a corpse is overwhelmed and pressed by the earth, so, in baptism, a man is overwhelmed with water," &c. — Dlspu. de Bap., dispu. iii., thes. 4. PoLHiLL. — "Where baptism is in the right use, there is a seal of union with Christ. . . . They have the power of His death in mortification, and the j^ower of His resurrection in a Divine life : the one is notably adumbi-ated in the Ijaptismal immersion into the water; the other, in the eduction out of it." — Mys. Union, 0. vii., pp. 202, 203. WoLFius. — "Immersion into water, in former times, and a short continuance under the water, pi'actised by the ancient church, afforded the representation of a burial in bai^tism." — Cura', ad Rom. vi. 4. Bp. Patpjck. — " 'Buried with Him in baptism.' Though we by going into the water profess that we are willing to take up the cross and die for Christ's sake, yet, on God's part, this action of going into and coming out of the water again, did signify that He would bring such persons to live again (at the general resurrection)." — Ditic. of the Lord's Supiier. De la Rogue. — -"St. Paul says, We are buried with Him by baptism, which shows that the believer was plunged in water, thereby to represent, as it wei'e, a sort of death and burial." — In Stennett, on Bap., p. 185. WiTSi us.— "Immersion into the water represents the death of the old man, in such a manner as shows that he can neither stand in judgment to our condemnation, nor exercise dominion in our bodies, that we should oljey his lusts." — (Econ. Feed., 1. iv. , c. xvi. Clignetu,s. — "To which form of baptizing Paul seems to have referred (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12), where he saj'S that we are bui'ied with Chi'ist by baptism: for a death and bui'ial are better expressed by immersion than by sprinkling." — In Thesau. Dispu. Sedan., tom. i., p. 770. Saurin. — "Paul says: 'We are buried with Him by baptism into death; that is, the ceremony of wholly immersing us in water, when we were ba])tized, signified that we died to sin; and that of raising \is again from our immersion signified," &c. — Servians, vol. iii., p. 171. Robinson's Trans. Mastricht. — "In baptism we emeige out of a sepulchre of water, and pass, as it were, into a new life." — Theoret. Prac. Tlieuh, 1. vii., c. iv., § 10. Superville, quoting Paul's language, inquires : " Wliat correspondence is there between the ceremony of baptism and burial?"' And he ansM'ers: "We are for a moment covered with water, in token of death ; and then are raised up out of it, in sign of a resurrection." — Les Veritez, et les Decoirs de la, Kel. Chris., ji. 357. BujtKiTT. — " 'We are buried with Him by ba^jtism into death.' The a])0stle allutles, no doubt, to the ancient way and manner of ba])tizing ]>ersons in those hot countries, winch was Jjy immersion, or putting them iinder A\ater for a time, and then raising them up again out of the water." — E.cpo., on Rom. vi. 4. Dr. R. Newton. — "Baptism was usually performed by immersion, or dipping the whole body under ^\•ater, to represent the death, and burial, and resurrection of Christ together; and therewith to signify the person's own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to new life. St. Paul j^lainly refers to this custom (Rom. vi. 4)." — Prac. E.vno. of Cate., pp. 297, 298. Dr. Cave. — "As in immersion thei-e are, in a manner, three sevei'al acts, the liutting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising uj) again, so by these three were represented Christ's death, burial, and resurrection." — Prim. Chris., ])art i., c. x. Hardy. — "'Theiefore we arc buried with Him by ba])tism.' He alludes to the rite of immersing, which bears au image of our Lord's burial" {Anno., on Rom. vi. 4). " 'In bajitism.' The allusion is to the ancient custom of baptizing, when the body was immersed in water." — On Col. ii. 12. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 273 LocKK. — "We Christi.aDS, who by baptism were admitted into the kingdom and chm-ch of Christ, were baptized into a similitude of His death. We did own some kind of death Uy being buried nnder water, which being buried Avith Him, that is, in conformity to His burial, as a confession of our being dead, was to signify that, as Christ was raised up from the dead into a glorious life with His Father, even so we, being raised from our typical death and burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life." — Para., on Horn. vi. 4. Bp. Fowler. — "Christians being plunged into the water in baptism, signifies their obliging themselves, in a spiritual sense, to die and be buried Avith Jesus Christ (which death and burial consist in an utter renouncing and forsaking of all their sins), that so, answerably to His resurrection, they may live a holy and godly life." — Design of Chris., sec. i. , c. viii. B.\ATEK. — "In our baptism we ai'e dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant profession, that as He was buried for sin, we are dead and buried to sin." — Para, on the N. T., on Rom. vi. 4. Dr. Hammond. — "It is a thing that every Christian knows, that the immersion in iDaptism refers to the death of Christ; the putting the person into the water denotes and proclaims the death and burial of Christ."— On Eom. vi. 3. Dr. E. Harwood. — "When we were, therefore, immersed in baptism into the belief of His death" (Eom. vi. 4). "With Him have you been interred in your baptismal immersion. "^ — Col. ii. 12. Dr. Barrow. — " The action is baptizing, or immersing in water. . . . The mer- siou also in water, and the emersion thence, doth figure our death," &c. — Works, vol. i.,pp. 518,520. Dr. S. Clarke. — "Eom. viii. 11. And this was most significantly represented by their descending into the water, and rising out of it again. For as Christ descended into the earth, and was raised again from the dead by the glory of the Father, so persons baptized were buried with Him by baptism into death (Eom. vi. 4), and i-ose again after the similitude of His resurrection." — Three Ettized, Avere immersed into the water, . . . their l)odies being covered all over Avith it ; which is, there- fore, called our being buried AA'ith Him by baptism into death; and after some short stay under Avater A\ere I'aised u]) again out of it, as if they had been recovered to a new life." — Works, vol. x., pp. 252, 253. Bp. Sherlock. — "Baptism, or our immersion into water, accoi-ding to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figiu-e of our burial Avith Clirist, and of our conformity to His death," &c. — Kno. of Christ, c. iv., sec. 1. Bp. PRiVRCE— On being baptized for the dead — "It seems to have been a metaphor FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 275 taken from the custom of those days in baptizing ; for the person Ijaptized went down under the M^ater, and was (as it were) buried under it. Hence St. Paul says (in Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12) that they 'were buried with Christ by baptism.' So that this custom probably gave occasion to our Sa\dour to express His being to suffer death by the hands of the Jews, in the phrase of a haptism that He was to be baptized with. And St. Paul seems to have taken up the same phi-ase with a little variation, l^ut still with the same meaning." — ISTote ou 1 Cor. xv. 29. Slade. — "The ancient mode of baptism by immersion was a very suitable emblem of the old Adam being biuried and the new man being raised up." Archb. Newcome. — "Immersion in water betokens a burial with Christ." — Ohs. on our Lord's Conduct, &c., p. 162. E. BosANQUET, for "baptized" in Rom. vi. 4, speaks of our "being plmiged or biu'ied in the baptismal water;" and ou ver. 5 says : "For we were then immersed in the water." — Par. and Illus. of Bom. EsTiu.s (Roman Catholic). — "For immersion represents to us Christ's burial; and so also His death. For the tomb is a symbol of death, since none but the dead are buried. Moreover, the emersion, Avhich follows the immersion, has a resem- blauce to a resurrection," &c. (Com. on the Epls., ou Rom. vi. 3.) This writer teaches truthfully that burial supposes death to have taken i^lace. Woidd that he and others neither taught that baptism effected the death of the old man, nor that it should be administered to any but those believed to have died to sin. Archb. Leighton. — •" The dipping into the waters is referred to, as representing our dying with Chiist, and the return thence, as expressive of our rising with him" (Com., ou 1 Peter iii. 21). He has before spoken of our dying tvith Him ; we shoiUd rather sjieak of om* burial with Him being represented b>/ immersion. Schleusnek, on sunthaptestluu to Christo, to he buried luith Christ, says: "The origin of this singular mode of speaking, which is peculiar to the books of the New Testament, must 1)e sought for in baptism, which in the apostolic churches was perfonned by immersion. For submersion, which was formerly used in baptism, on account of its similitude to a biu'ial, because the whole body of the person to be baptized being immersed in water or a river, was as if buried in a sepulchre, not only had this signification, that it might represent the death of Christ ; but by the same symbolical rite the persons to be baptized were understood to profess and to promise that they were wdling in future, after the likeness and resemblance of the death of Christ, to renoiince all wickedness, and even to suffer death for the sake of the Christian religion, as Christ gave up His life for the sake of the truth : and as the body, which was immersed in water at baptism, again emerged or was raised out of the water, by this symbolical rite was represented the resiuTectiou of Christ, the hope of the future resuiTCction of the dead ; and men were admonished that the whole life shovdd be regulated by the instruction and example of Christ." — Lex. on Suntluipto. J. Benson. — " 'AVe are buried with Him,' alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." — On Rom. vi. 4. J. SuTCLiFFE. — "The allusion here is to the ancient mode of baptism in wai-m climates, by dipping the body under water." — Com., on Rom. vi. 4. J. He\\t.ett. — "In order to undei-staud the full force of St. Paul's inquiry, we must here understand by ' baptism ' the comjilete immersion of the body in water. " Com., on Rom. vi. 3. Poole. — "He seems here (Ptom. \i. 4) to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Eastern countries, which was to dip or plunge the party baptized ; and, as it were, to bury him for a while under the water. (See the like phrase, Col. ii. 12.)"— On Rom. vi. 4. Whitby. — " ' Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism,' plunging us under the water, into a conformity to His death, which put His body under the earth ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, even so we also, thus dead in baptism, shoiild rise with Him, and walk in newness of life."— Para., on Rom. vi. 4. Macknight. — "Buried together with Him by baptism. Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance; for He never committed any sin: but, as was observed at the beginning. He submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection. In like maimer the baptism of believers is emblematical 270 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of their own death and resurrection" (On Rom. vi. 4). Some of the P.iedobaptist worthies, as iVIr. Stacey, Dr. Pye Smith, and others, have taught that in the apostolic language there is no allusion to the outward ordinance. AVe ask, Are we buried by the pouring or sprinkling of the Spii'it ? for it is asserted that the baptism of the Spirit is pouring, by which it is maintained that sprinkling is justified. Wesley. — " ' Buried with Him,' alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion" (JVote.s, on flom. \i. 4). Nearly the same words are used by Dr. Doddridge and Dr. A. Clarke on this Scripture. Dr. A. Clarke. — •" They receive baptism as an emljlem of death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water" {Com., on I Cor. xv. 29). "It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the water." — Do., on Horn. vi. 4. WiiiTfiELD. — "It is certain that in the woi-ds of our text (Rom. vi. 3, 4) there is an allusion to the maimer of baptism, which was by immersion." Dr. Ciialmees. — "We doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles' days was by an actual submergiug of the whole body under water. We advert to this for the ])urpose of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, l)y death, underwent this sort of baptism by an immersion under the surface (jf the ground, whence He suou emerged again by His resun-ection. We, by being baptized into His death, are conceived to have made a similar translation, — in the act of descending luider the water of baptism to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending to emerge into a second or a new life, — along the course of which it is our jiart to maintain a strenuous avoidance of that sin which as good as exi^unged the being that we had formerly ; and a strenuous prosecution of that holiness which sliould l)egin with the first moment that we were ushered into our present being," &c. — Lcc. on Boui., on Iloni. vi. 4. Lange. — "As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with Him iu baptism. The body, as it were, buried under water, is dead with Christ; the plunging under water represents death, and rising out of it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking symbol could not be chosen." — On Inf. Bap., p. 81. KNAPr. — ' ' The image is here taken from baptized persons as they were immer- ged (buried), and as they emerged (rose again). . . . Since immersion has been disused, the full significance of this comparison is no longer perceived." — Chr. 77(60., p. 431. Baumgaetex. — "As in bajitism, since man is not only dipped into the water, but also comes up again, the fellowship so signified is not merely a fellowship of humiliation, but also of exaltation ; not alone a communion of death and the grave, but a cimimunion likewise of resurrection and ascension." — On Acts ix. I-3C. Dr. T. W. Peile. — "The apostle developes the typical nature of that rite, wherein the immer.sion of the body, in imitation of Christ's death and burial /or nhi, implies an engagement to die/ro»i sin ; and the rising from the Avater, in imitation of His resurrection, is emblematic of a new life of virtue and holiness" (Anno., on Rom. vi. 2). "The context, and the whole drift of the argument, show that as thanatos (I'ather, (o omoioma tou thanntou) is burial under the baptismal M'ater, typical of a death unto sin, so anatitafils (to omoioma tes anastaseos) is the rising from the water, typical of the commencement of a new life." — Do., on ver. f). W. Tnoi>Li)i'E. — "In that rite the immersion of the l>ody, iu imitation of Christ's death and burial /or sui, implies an engagement on the part of the bajitizcd to die to .s/h; and the rising froni the watei', in imitation of His resurrection, implies the commencement of a new life" (Anal. Thfol., on Rom. vi. I). "T'herc is arefercncc to the jjriniitive custom of baptizing l)y immersion ; and it must be allowed that by plunging the body under water, and raising it again, the ends and effects of baptism are more significantly represented than liy aspersion. For St. P.anl sj^eaks of bap- tism as emblom.atic of the dcatli, and burial, and resurrection of Christ, and iu conformity thereto of our dying unto sin, and rising unto righteousness (Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12)."— Z>o., on Matt, xxviii. 19. Pkesbv. Review. — "We cannot Init regret, therefore, that Mr. Ewing shoidd have been guilty of so jnany gross and glaring blunders in his endeavour to make out a case in favour of s])rinkling. . . . We have rarely met, for example, with a more weak and faiuifid piece of reasoning than that by which Mr. Ewing would pf-rsuade us that there is no allusion to tlie mode by immersion in the expres- FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 277 sion, 'biu'ied with Him in baptism.' This point ought to be frankly admitted, and, indeed, camiot be denied with any show of I'eason." — -Vol. i., p. 531. Olshausen. — "In this place we must by no means think of their own resolu- tions only in baptism, or see lao more in it than a figure, as if by the one half of the ancient rite of liaptism, the submersion, tlie death and Inirial of the old man, — by the second half, the emersion, the resurrection of the new man, — were no more than prefigured," &c. — Com., on Rom. vi. 3, 4. Tholuc'K. — "The baptismal symbol itself may be regarded as a figure of the death of Christ ; and, accordingly, he in this verse represents the Christian under- going baptism as being in some sort buried with the Saviour.'' " For the explana- tion of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circumstance that, in the early days of the church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below, and then raised above the water, to which practice, according to the direction of the apostle, the early Christians gave a symbolical import." — On Kom. vi. 4. Lapide. — "We are baptized into a simihtude of the death of Christ. For they who are put under water allegorically represent Christ dead and buried."- — In Tes. of Em. Pee., p. 29. Bp. Ellicott, on Col. ii. 12, says, referring to Rom. vi. 4: "There seems no reason to doubt (with Eadie) that both here and Rom. I.e. there is an allusion to the hatarlusis and anailusis in baptism." — Com. Dr. G. Hill. — "The apostle PatU (Rom. vi. 4, 5, G) illustrates this connection by an allusion drawn from the ancient method of administering Ijaptism. The immersion in water of the bodies of those who were baptized is an emblem of that death unto sin by which the conversion of Christians is generally expressed: the rising out of the water, the breathing the air again, having been for some time in another element, is an emblem of that new life Avhich Christians by their jiro- fession are bound, and by the power of their religion are enabled to lead." — Lee, in Dii\ Edited by Dr. A. Hill, vol. ii., p. 335. Dr. KiTTO, on I Cor. xv. 29, after giving the sense of the passage as, "Baptized in the confidence and expectation of a resiu'rection from the dead," says: "Under this view it is thought by Chrysostom and others that there is an allusion to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion, in which the immersion rejiresented the state of death, and the rising again the resurrection from the dead. (Compare Col. ii. 12, and also Rom. vi. 3-5.)" Bp. CoLEN.so, the Pentateuchical sceptic : ' ' Going down under the water (as the custom was of baptism in those days), as into a grave, they were 'buried,' as it were, 'with Him by baptism into His death.'"- — Trans, and Expo, of Rom., on Rom. Ad. 3. G. Bird. — " One explanation of bajitism in Holy Writ is, that by immersion we die with Christ {i.e., we are regarded, for Christ's sake, as having died Avith Him) : consequently Avhen Ave come up again out of the Avater," &c. — On the Ang. CliurcJi, p. 79. Fritzsche. — "We are thei-efore [i.e., because, AAdien Ave Avere baptized by immersion {baptizaremur mersii\ into Avater, Chi'ist's death Avas presented before us in an image of biu'ial), as was Christ, deposited in a tomb by baptism, that we might be declared dead" {Para., on Rom. vi. 4, p. 364). Again, in his Com. on Mattheic' s Gospel : "MoreoA^er, Casaubon well suggested that danein means to be submerged Avith the design that you may ])erish ; epipohr.tin, to float on the surface of the water; haptizesthai [reflexive form of haptizein], to immerse yourself AvhoUy, for another end than that you may perish. But that in accordance Avith the nature of the word haptizesthai, baptism Avas then performed not hy sprinkling upon, but by submerging, is proA'ed especially by Rom. A'i. 4." Dr. A. Barnes. — "It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing l)y immersion." Bp. Wilson. — "The expression, buried with Him in baptism, alludes to the ancient form of administering that sacred ordinance still dii-ected in oiu- own church, except when health forbids, of the immersion or burial, so to speak, of the Avhole person in the Avater, after the example of the burial of the entire body of our Lord in the graA'^e." — Lee. on Col., p. 219. Bp. Broavne. — "The comparison of baptism to burying and rising up again (Rom. vi. ; Col. ii. ) has been already referred to as probably derivec^from the custom of immersion," — In Dr. W. Smith's Die. of Bible. Art. Bap. 278 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. Wordsworth is less favoiu'able to immersion than most of his bretkren. He teaches, on this passage, that "in baptism our sins are drowned and bm'ied. . . . And we emerge from the Baptismal Red .Sea of Christ's blood" (Gr. Tea., on Rom. vi. 3). It is more profitable, we v'oidd say to Canon W. and others, to compare Scripture wdth Scriptiire, than to compare it with "the Fathers." Dr. Bloomfielu, — "There is plainlj"^ a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I agree with Koppe and Roseumidler that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian chm'ches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of baptism." " Wetstein adverts to the figurative nse of bury as emi)loyed of plunging under water." Theophj'lact observes "that as we are by baptism buried in the water, so Christ was buried in the earth." — Crit. Dig., on Rom. vi. 4. CoNYBEAEE AND How.soN. — " This passage cannot be understood unless it be ))orne in mind that the jirimitive baptism was by immersion." — Life and Epis. of Paul, vol. ii., p. 209. T. Lewin. — "Shall we continue in sin, that His grace may be the greater in still saving us ? Far be it ! says the apostle, for our baptism or submersion was a symbol of our death to sin, and of our resurrection to newness of life." — Life and Epis, of Paul, p. 542. Webster and Wilkinson. — "Doubtless there is an allusion to immersion, as the usual mode of baptism, introduced to show that baptism symbolized also our spiritual resuiTection " {Or. Tes., on Rom. vi. I^). "In omoiomati there is no allusion to the mode in Avhich baptism is performed. The omoioma is explained in (II). There is a refei'ence to a double resurrection — one to newness of life, the other (S) to eternal life; the fut. csomeiha expressing the certainty of the one, and the futurity of the other (Compare viii. 10, II)-." — Do., vers. 5-7. Thus unequivocally do some of the most emineut Pfedobaptist diviues, English and Continental, living and departed, of recent and remote date, testify to the primitive practice of immersion, and assert their conviction that apostolic language in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, refei-s to the Christian ordinance, and necessarily alludes to this as immersion, and not pouring or sprinkling. We need not " the sheltei- of these great names," and we regard the "patient inquiry " by Mr. S. into the import of this passage as having, in his case and in several others, by the influence of prepossession, led only to the darkening of Divine instruction by human " verbiage," to the obscuiing and perverting of what to the unprejudiced conveys an obvious and momentous import. Even Dr. Williams, who was " of opinion that the allusion is not to any mode of baptism whatcA^er, but to a sjnritual disposiiio7i," seems to have the con- viction that apostolic language to some extent favoured immersion, because, said he, " there is a greater resemblance between tliat practice and a burial than between the said plunging and the acti's'e communica- tion and application of Divine influences to the soul'' (vol. i., p. 196). He should rather have said. Than between sprinkling and pourmg, and a burial. As long a,s the apostolic allusions remain, Ave believe that we sliall maintain that there is a greater approach to pii'ofnnity in what Dr. H, says, and Mr. S. quotes, i-cspecting baptism as a scenic representation of Christ in His death, burial, and resuriection, than in anything that has been said by Baptists and Pa'dobaptists who have written alike respecting a representation in the Christian ordinance of these solemn facts relative to our adorable Pedeemer. We believe that, until the exigencies of S2)rinkling required another interpretation of these Avords, all commentators admitted that the apostle evidently and undoubtedly alludes ^o the Chx'istian immei-sionj and, consequently, we agi-ee with FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 279 Bishop Hoadley, that if baptism had been performed by the apostles as it is now by the Psedobaptists, we should never have heard of this form of speech (Works, vol. iii., p. 890). Finally, we believe that apostolic language in Rom. vi. is as much opposed to infants as the subjects of baptism, as it is to sprinkling or pouring as the action of baptism; and that what many Paedobaptists have wi'itten on this part of Scripture is as condemnatory of their own practice in substitviting infants for profes- sing believers, as in substituting sprinkling or pouring for immersion. § 6. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM 1 PeTER III. 20, 21. Dr. D. Davidson. — "Have we any instance of an emblem being tlie type of an emblem?" — Fam. Comp. Bi., on 1 Peter iii. 21. Dr. F. Watland.— "Our brethren who differ from us relieve themselves of one diificulty by plunging into a greater." — Prin. of Bap., p. CO. W. Jay. — "Paley observes that we should never suffer what we know to be disturbed by what we know not. And Butler remarks nearly the same when he says, If a tndh be established, objections are nothing. The one is founded on our knowledge, and the other in oxir ignorance." — Autoll., p. 1G7. The apostle Peter's words, in 1 Peter iii. 20, 21, are referred to by Dr. Halley as unfavoiu-able to immersion. He says that " some resem- blance between our baptism and the state of the family of Noah in the flood, is imjDlied in the words. But the eight souls were not immersed. In the strict sense of immersion, even the old world was not immersed — not dipped — for the water came upon them. In no sense was Noah immersed in water. We baptize with ' the like figure whereunto ' according to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized, and not according to that in which the antediluvians were drowned ; for our baptism is significant of salvation, and not of destruction" (p. 292). He then proceeds immediately to the baptism of the Pente- cost. We do not know that Mr. Stacey has cited this passage in opposition to immersion. Dr. H., it will be perceived, asserts the inapjilicability of the apostolic language to immersion, because Noah and because the eight souls were not immersed. He makes no attempt to prove that they were sprinkled. He does not positively affirm that the eight souls were either sprinkled or poured; but his language implies a belief that they were sjjrinkled, for he says: "We baptize with 'the like figure whereunto' according to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized." He appears to proceed here and elsewhere, as do Mr. S. and many of the Paedobaptists, necessary consccjuencc 1 FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 289 Finally, Dr. Doddi'idge says : "I am more and moi-e convinced that the vidgar sense of the New Testament, that is, the sense in which an honest man of plaiu sense would take it, on his Jirst reading the original, or any good translation, is almost everyAvhere the true general sense of any passage." "I chose to follow the plainest and most obvious and common interpretation ; which, indeed, I generally think the best." (Notes on Matt, xviii. 17, and 2 Cor. viii. 1.) If the rules which have been given are just in themselves, and are honestly applied to the Divine records where we have inspired precejit and precedent on the subject of baptism, we can come to no other conclusion than that John immei-sed his disciples in Jordan, &c. ; that Christ by His disciples immersed; that He has enjoined immersion into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that the a2:)ostles, in obedience to instructions from the great Head of the Church, and from His own example given, immersed professing believers ; and that the action in the Christian ordinance of which we are speaking is nothing else than immersion. In regard to the preposition en, let the following be weighed in the balances of truth and equity, and let that which is found wanting, if any be thus proved, be condeuuied and discarded. We ourselves are not disposed to reject logical, or philological, or theological truths, because littered by Baptists, however much on some occasions we may j^refer to i-ecord that which has proceeded from the pen of a Piedobaptist. Dr. Carson, ou Matt. iii. 11, "I baptize you in water," writes: "It may be siu'prising that, after all that has been said on the subject, I should still lay stress on the ])reposition en, in. I may be asked. Do you deny that it may be translated ivith? I do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress on it. A word may be used variously, yet be in each of its applications capable of being definitely ascertained. Were not this the case, language woidd Ije incapable of conveying definite meaning. To ascertain its meaning here, I shall submit the following observations: — I. In is its primary and most usual signification. Even in the instances in which it is translated otherwise, it may generally be reduced to its primary meaning, although it is more usual with our idiom to employ other prepo- sitions. There are instances, indeed, in which we cannot trace the primary idea. This, however, is nothing but what happens with our own preposition in, and with all prepositions. If the Greelcs say, en cheiri ischura (in a strong hand), we say, they went out in arms. En is so obviously the parent of in, that Mr. Ewiug says that ' it can hardly be called a translation. ' He considers it merely a change of alphabet. It may be true that this was the case in the formation of the derived word, but it certainly is a translation in as full a sense as any one word is a translation of another. It is not like hajjllze, which was not a word of our language. In is an English word as truly as en is a Greek one. It is given as an equivalent to en, not because it was formed from it, but because in meaning it coincides with it. We adopted the word and its meaning also. "2. As the instances in the acceptation of this preposition in which the primary idea cannot be ti-aced are extremely few, so it cannot be admitted in a signification inconsistent with this idea, except when necessity demands it. If the words in connection admit the primary and usual meaning, it is unwarrantable to look for anotlier." He says that the passages in which en is translated with are, without exception, such as woidd not make sense if it were translated In, of course meaning tliose in which it is legitimately rendered loith ; believing that without such a necessity no unbiassed translator would ever think of rendering en by tvith. He proceeds: "What is more usiial than to find, when en is translated among, &c.. critics explaining it as being ' hterally in ' ? Now, in the instance alkided to, all the words in connection admit the primary and usiial meaning of en. Even the most extravagant of our opponents admit that hajitizo signifies to dip. If, then, the word also signifies to pour, to use en in connection with it woidd render it altogether U 290 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. equivocal. We could not from the passage determine its meaning. I contend, then, that though en may sometimes be translated ivith, yet it cannot be so used here. For if haptizo is allowed to denote r//p, and not j^o^ir, -with is rejected as incongruous : if baptlzo is supposed to signify either dij} or pov. 7; then to use a pre- position after it, which usually signihes in, but here in the sense of vj'dh, which is rare, woiUd inevitably be equivocal, or would rather lead to a false meaning. It is absurd to suppose that such an equivocal expression could be used with respect to the performance of a Divine ordinance, which is to be a precedent for all ages. "3. I have produced innumerable examples in which en is construed Avith this verb incoutestably in the sense of dippuig. If, then, we have found the disputed phrase in a situation in which our opponents must admit our meaning of it; if the examjiles of this meaning of the phrase are numerous; and if no example can be produced in which the phrase is used in a situation in which we must confess that it refers to p)oitrhig, or anything but dipping; — all the laws of language forbid the supposition of pouring. What can forbid the phrase to have its usual meaning ? What can authorize a meaning which the phrase has not necessarily in any other passage ? "4. Even Mr. Ewing's translation of haptizo will not construe with en in the sense of v:ith. He would not say, / jjop you loith water, but / pop upon you with ■water. Biit there is no upon in the verb. . . . ' ' 5. Any translation that can be given of en is inconsistent with the supposition that haptizo signifies to iwur. We could not say, ' I p)0'i'''>' you with water.' Pour must be immediately followed by the thing poured, and not by the person on whom anji;hing is poured" (pp. 121, 122). Subsequently Dr. C. saj^s : ' ' Dr. Wardlaw concurs with Mr. Ewing in thinking that nothing can be learned from en, and ew,.and eh, the prepositions usually con- strued with haptizo. 'It is truly surprising,' says he, 'that so much stress should be laid on the frequently vague import of a Greek preposition. ' I ask Dr. Wardlaw what preposition in any language is perfectly univocal ? Are there many words of any part of speech, except those expressive of mode, which are perfectly univocal ? Are the above iwepositions more vague than the prepositions that correspond to them in our language ? Does it follow from a word's having two significations that no stress can be laid on itself in detei'mining on the evidence of its meaning in any particular situation ? If a word is sometimes iised in a sense different from its usiial one, are we at liberty to undei'stand it in such unusual signification at random, as often as it may suit our argument ? Were this the case, eveiy sentence we utter woxild be a ridtUe. Every time we open our lii>s we use words which are as vague as any Greek prepositions, yet the most ignorant are not misled by the circumstance. It is only when the observation applies to dead languages that it imposes on those who do not trace arguments to first principles. En may sometimes be translated with ; but there must be laws that regulate this matter, else human language would not be sufficient for testimony. Eis, in rare cases, may be translated ^mto ; but if this will justify us in assigning this meaning to it when it suits our jmriiose, nothing could be definitel}' expressed in human speech. Yet this is the resource of Dr. Wardlaw in evading the evidence of immersion, — a resource which, if used with respect to English, woiild expose the critic to derision. I have pointed out some of the laws that determine in such cases ; and whether I have been successful or not, siich hxws must exist, if human language is an adecpiate eA'idcnce of human thought. This I hold as an axiom. "But I will venture to appeal still fiirther to tlie common sense of my readers. Admitting all that is demanded for this supposed vagueness, is it not utterly incredible that, with respect to this ordinance, each of these three prepositions should assume, as it were, in coiicert to deceive us, its most unusual signification ? Can we ascribe sucli a miracle of delusion to the Spirit of truth ? Now, that in is the most usual signification of en; into, the most usual signification of el'< ; and out of, the most usual signification of eh, I supjiose no one wnU be hardy enough to deny. I could easily prove that the exceptions to this, Avith respect to the two former, are much fewer than they are generallj' supposed ; and when I come to INIr. Ewing's Appendix, I will show that, with respect to elc, there is no exception at all. But I am here taking for granted all that our o))j)onents demand ; and allowing the vagueness to be as great as they suppose, is it not absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit woxild use the three i)repositions. all in an unusual sense, when there were other FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 291 prepositions better suited to the purpose ? The absiirdity is still lieightened by the consideration that these prepositions are used in connection with a verb, which the hardiest of our opponents cannot deny as importing, at least in one of its senses, to immeise. The usual sense of the whole three prepositions is in our favoiu-: the verb admits our meaning, even accordiiig to Mr. Ewing ; but, according to the great bulk of the most learned of our opponents, this is its primary meaning. Judging, then, even from their own admissions, is it credible that the Holy Spirit would use language so calculated to mislead ? Could there be any reason to pitch upon such phraseology, except to deceive ? If jwurlng or sjJr'mJding had been apjMinted, there were words tvhlch imivocaUy denote these meanings. Why, then, shoidd the Holy Spirit pass by these woixls, and pitch upon a word that, according to our opponents, has perhaps a dozen of significations ? If there are prepositions that would, in their usual acceptation, express the meaning our opponents attach to the three prepositions in question, why shoidd the latter be employed in an uniisual sense ? There never was a greater specimen of Jesuitism tliau that M'hich Dr. Wardlaw here charges on the Holy Spirit. But this mode of reasoning caiTies its own condemnation in its very face. If the controversy were in a language of which we were entirely ignorant, and on a subject to which we were iitterly strangers, we might hold it as a self-evident truth that the man who screens himself under the vagueness of words, and argues at random on the supposition that on any emer- gency it is fair to take a word iu any situation he may find attached to it, has either a bad caiise, or does not know how to defend a good one. As no one will charge our opponents with the latter, the cause which they defend must be incapable of a sound defence" (pp. 132, 133). The Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel, after quoting Matt. iii. 6, 11 ; Mark i. 5, 8; John i. 26, 31, 33; Acts i. 5; xi. 16; 1 Cor. x. 2, and xii. 13, says: "The preposi- tion en, in, generally in the New Testament, as in other books, means wi, not with:* and as a rare sense ought never to be preferred to an ordinary sense without strong reasons, these expressions, 'to baptize in water,' must, in the absence of opposite evidence, mean, not to wash with, but to immerse in. . , . When it is said that the people were baptized in the river Jordan (Mark i. 5), and that the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. x. 2), the preposition en must mean in, not toith; and since in these places the words bajytizein en mean 'to baptize in,' not to baptize with, it is natural to conclude that they have the same meaning in other places. " Passages have been sometimes cited to prove that en has the sense of ^cith, and expresses the instrument of action ; but it has miich of tener the sense of in, as may in some measiu-e be seen by the following instances : — " Tithemai en, 'to place in,' Gen. ix. 13; xli. 10, 48; xlii. 17, 30; Ex. xl. 7; Num. xvii. 14; Dent. xiv. 28; Joshua iv. 3; Judges iv. 21; 1 Sam. xvii. 40, 54; XX. 25; xxi. 12; 2 Sam. viii. 6; xii. 31; xxii. 27; 1 Kings xiii. 30; xx. 26; 2 Kings X. 17; xxi. 4; 1 Chron. x. 10; 2 Chron. iv. 8; xxxvi. 7; Psalm xlix. 14; Ixxx. 6; Jer. xxxii. 34 ; Eze. xxxvii. 26 ; Matt. xiv. 3 ; xxvii. 60 ; Mark vi. 29 ; Luke xxiii. 53; John xix. 41 ; Acts v. 68, 25; ix. 37; Rom. ix. 33. " Thapto en, 'to biiry in,' Gen. 1. 26; xxxv. 19; xlvii. 29; 1. 5; Judges viii. 32; 1 Sam. xxv. 1 ; 2 Sam. ii. 31 ; xvii. 23; 1 Kings ii. 35; xiii. 31 ; 2 Chron. xvi. 14; xxxiii. 20. "Plu.no en, 'to wash in,' Gen. xlix. 11. " Bapto en, 'to dip in,' Deut. xxxii. 24; Riith ii. 4; 2 Kings viii. 15; Psalm Ixviii. 23. "■ Emhapto en, 'to dip in,' Matt. xxvi. 23. '' It has been said that en, with verbs of motion, when it means in, and not with, signifies the place where the agent is at the time of the action, not the place into which anything is put, as Mark i. 4, ' John did baptize in the wilderness ; ' John iii. 23, 'John was baptizing in ^non ;' but the list of places above quoted shows that this use of en is the exception rather than the rule. " It has been further said : ' When verbs denoting to dip are constnied with en instead of eis, the sense, according to a weU-known Greek idiom, is to put into and to leave in, as etheto en pthidake, He put him to be in prison (Matt. x. 16). In such * See Matt. ii. 1, 2; iii. 1, 3, 12, 17; iv. 13, 21, 23; v. 12, VS, 16, 19, 45; ix. 10; x. 17; xi. 8; xiii. 31, 32, 44; xv. 32; xx. 12, &c. 292 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. cases, it has been added, the coustructioii is pregnant, since both the motion to and the consequent position in the place is implied, as piptc'm els konksi, to fall to the ground, and lie there ' (Liddell, e)i). But either the rule does not apply to such words as haj/to and haptho, or else the continuance of the position is not denoted, as may be easily seen from the following instances: — Dent, xxxiii. 2-4, 'Let him di]i liis foot in oil,' Bap-sei en elalo (Sept.) ; Eiith ii. 14, ' Dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' IxipseM en to oxei ; 2 Kings viii. 15, 'He dipj^ed it in water,' ehapsen en to hudati ; Psalm Ixviii. 23, 'That thy foot mny be dipped in the blood of thine enemies,' bapie en haivmtl ; Matt. xxvi. 23, ' He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish,' embap- ws en to trublio; Homer, Od. x. 391, 'As when the smith dips in cold water {eiii liiahdi psuchro bajtfci) the hatchet or the axe, much hissing, tempering it.' "This sense of the expression is establi.shed by the only two places where it occurs in Hebraistic Greek, in the Reptuagint version of 2 Kings v. 10, 14, and in a I)assage of Josephus. The passage in the Second Book of Kings is as follows: — ' So Naamau came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha; and Elisha sent a messenger unto liim, saying. Go and M'ash in Jordan seven times, and thy Hesli shall come again to thee, and thou shall be clean. . . . Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according iinto the saying of the man of (iod.' By the word 'wa.sh' it is obvious that Elisha meant bathe or di]) ; the whole ))ody lieing leprous, the whole was to be washed. To dip also was a definite act whicli could be repeated seven times, but any other washing ^^•ould be indefinite ; and the leper would not know whether any amount of washing at one time could be taken for seven washings. Elisha also clearly referred in this command to the J^Josaic law respecting tlae leper, which M'as as follows: — 'He that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water that he may be clean' (Lev. xiv. 8). As the lej)er Avas wholly unclean, he must be wholly washed. The conmiand, therefore, meant that he should bathe himself ; and so the Jews correctly imderstood it, for their canon on the subject was, ' ^Vheresoever in the law the washing of the tiesh is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the wliole body in water. For if any man wash himself all over except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness' (Gill, on Mark vii. 4). When, therefore, Elisha said, 'Go and wash thyself in Jordan,' he meant, ' Go and bathe thyself, according to the law of tlie leper on the day of his cleansing.' Of course, Xaaman, if he fulfilled the com- mand of Elisha, must necessarily liathe himself in the Jordan seven times, and the narrative accordingly I'clates, ' Tlien went he doMai, and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times. ' "We may learn the same fact from the force of the Hebrew words employed in the narrative. For the word rnhliatz, here translated 'to wash,' means often 'to bathe,' as may be seen in the following instances: Ex. ii. 5; Lev. xiv. S; xv. 5; vi. 13; xvii. If). And the word tabal, here translated * to dip,' is always used in tliat sense. And, therefoi'e, the precise terms of the narrative agree with the circumstances of the case and the law of the leper, to show that Naanian by Elisha's command dipped himself seven times in tlie Jordan. We may further learn that the Jewi.sh translators understand this to be the case, from the term by which they translated tlic prophet's command to bathe or wash.* For the com- mand, according to the Sei)tuagint, was, 'Go and l)athe {lonaai) in the Jordan,' t and the fidtilmeut must necessarily correspond to the command. "Lastly, the Septiuagiut translators record the fulfilment of the command in the following terms : 'And Naaman descended and ))aptized himself in the Jordan,' hil rbaptlsato rn to lordunc. The meaning which the translators attached to the word ' baptize ' is here certain. First, l)ecause they are recording that Naaman fidlilled a command given him to bathe in the Jordan, and, therefore, that he * The only jilaces in which it occurs are the following : Gen. x.vxvii. 31 ; Ex. xii. 22 ; Lev. iv. (), 17; ix. i); xiv. (i, Ki, b\; Num. xix. 18; Deut. xxxiii. 24; Joshua iii. 15; Ruth ii. 14; 1 8am. xiv. 27; 2 Kings viii. 15; Job ix. 31. f " Porentlicin loiigai en to lordauc. (Sept.) ^ Louo, mid, to wash one's self, to bathe' (Liddell). 'The middle voice of loun almost invariably corresponds to our bathe.' 'We see no ground for objecting to the general princi])le that when tlie verb is employed without any regimen, expressed or ini]ilied, the washing is not confined to a part, but comprises tlie whole body.' "- "NN'ilson, pp. l.")t, 1.54. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 293 bathed; and, secondly, because they translate by the word 'baptize' a Hebrew word, tahal, which they knew to express the act of bathing; and, thirdly, because they knew that the Hebrew law of the leper required him so to Ijathe on the day of his cleansing. Since, then, the expression ' to be baptized in water,' haptkestltal en hudatl, means in Septuagint Greek 'to be immersed in water,' it must, in the absence of other evidence, be understood to mean the same in the Greek of the New Testament. "The second instance in which this expression occurs in Hebraistic Greek is in the narrative of the death of Aristobidus, by Josephus. There the historian says : 'The youth was sent by night to Jericho, and there he died, being baptized liy the Galatians in a swimming Ijath.' Hupo ton Galaton hapttzomenos en kolumbetlira teleuta. [Jewish War, i., 22, § 2. — Godwin, p. 30.) 'And was there dipped by the Galatians in a pool tdl he was drowned' (Whiston's Translation). Here the bap- tism was certainly immersion, for it drowned him ; and it was in the bath, for it was accom2>lished while he was swimming. According, therefore, to the usage of the Jewish historian, hapt'izesthai en is ' to be immersed in ' water ; and the expres- sion, without conti-ary evidence, must be understood to mean the same thing when used by the Jewish historians of the New Testament. " On the whole, since the ordinary meaning of the preposition en is In, not with, since it generally has this sense when it follows verbs which govern it in the New- Testament, and since on the only two occasions in which it occurs with haptizo in Hebraistic Greek it has this meaning, it shoiUd be so translated in the New Testa- ment. Thus hcqotlzein en means to baptize in, not to baptize tvith; and since the ordinary meaning of the word baptizo is 'to immerse,' we may certainly conclude that it has tliis meaning in those places of the New Testament in which it is con- nected with the preposition //*; and the expression of St. Mark, 'the multitudes ehaptizonto en to lordane, were baptized in the Jordan,' by John, must mean that they were immersed by him in that river." — [Essay on Bap., pp., 10-16.) It will be seen that Mr. Noel, in tlii.s extract, spcak.s of the import of baptizo, as well as of the import of the jireposition en. Our reason for transcribing the whole is, a conviction that the whole may be read and examined with advantage. Further, Mr. Noel speaks so clearly and convincingly in opposition to the confident and unfounded assertions of several Psedobaptists I'especting liudatl without a preposition, or huclati with the preposition en, being in the dative of the instrument, that we shall again q\iote him, and most of the proofs and illustrations which he adduces. Before cpioting, we may remind the reader, that in seeking to establish the " common usage and strict grammatical authority " of this instrumental dative, a reference is made to tJirec passages in the New Testament "where iu the same verse huclati appears without a preposition, but in each verse before iraeumati the preposition en is prefixed. This prefixing of a preposition to the latter clause, when the same preposition is understood in the former part of a sentence, one part being in anti- thesis to the other, we believe to be consistent with the Greek, though not with the English idiom. These verses arc Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; and Acts xi. 16. See the rendering of them at pp. 118-120, where we have given the utmost latitude to the objections of our opponents. Mr. N., speaking of hudatl without a preposition, says: — " In some instances baptizo is used with the dative alone. Tlie only cases of this construction are in the following three places: Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; and Acts xi. 16, in which the expression baptizein hudati ought to be translated 'to baptize in water,' not 'to baptize with water.' The following are the reasons for this opinion. "I. The first clause in these passages, baptizein hudatl, is antithetical to the second, haptlzesthal en pneumati; and since the second means 'to bax>tize in the 294 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Spirit,' the tirst ought to meau 'to baptize in water,' to make the antithesis complete. "2. The words in Luke iii. IG,* are the evangelists's record of words sjwken by John the Baptist ; but John said : ' I liaptize in water,' haiAizo en hudati, according to the two evangelists Matthew and Mark, and therefore Luke must mean, like them, to record that he said, ' I baptize in water,' not I baptize with water. " ."i. Luke elsewhere often uses the dative answering to the question ' wherein,' the dative expressing in and not %uUh. Thus : (1) Luke xvii. 34, Tuute te nukti, ' In that night,' tor tn tuute: See Acts ii. 41; Luke xix. 42; and Eom. ii. IG. (2) Acts i. 14, jjroshirterountes te jjroseuche, ' continuing in prayer,' and Acts ii. 42, for cti te 2Jroseuche: See Acts ii. 46. Emmenein te j>'tstei, (Acts xiv. 22), 'to continue in the faith' for en te pistei: See Stephen and Liddell, onmcno, comp. Kom. iv. 20. (3) Poreuomenai to i^hoho (Acts ix. 31), 'walking iu the fear,' for en to phobo: See 1 Peter iv. 3. Zcon to 2'»eumati (Acts xviii. 25), 'fer\'ent in Spirit,' comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. x. 11 ; xi. G. (4) Te idia dlalekto lalounton (Acts ii. G), 'speaking in his own language.' Poa lieDieis akouomen hekastos te idia dlalekto hemon; ' How hear we every man in our own tongue?' Acts ii. 8. (5) Porcueatlmi tais hodois uuton, 'to walk in their own ways;' Acts xiv. 16. Thei'e is much similarity iu the iise of the dative iu all these cases, and the last seems to me exactly parallel to that which is under examination. In the expressions poreuesthai hodo and haptizein hudati, the datives answer to the question ' wherein,' and as hodo expresses 'in the way,' so hudati expi'csses 'in water;' and this dative is a dative of place, not a dative of instrument. ' "4. These uses of the dative are recognized by grammarians. Matthiise notices 'The dative in answer to the question "wherein;"' adducing the following exam- ples: ' huperballein, proecliein, diapUerein pheronesei, adikia, &c., to distinguish oneself in intelligence, injustice, &c. Idkuebi tois somasi, 'to be strong iu body,' &c. In Attic the preposition is omitted, and the Ionic dative used as an adverb, Atheneni, Thehesi, Thurasi. — Liddell, en. ' ' He adds, ' Lastly, the dative is used in definitions of place in answer to the question "whei'e."' And he cites the following examples, among others, which exactly correspond to the expi-ession bapitlzein hudati, and settle its sense : — " ^ Hos ten palaian phegon audesal pote Dodotii.^ "Sophocles, Tracliinite, 170. *' 'Thus the old beach once uttered in Dodo}ia.' " 'Hos skoto kan ainchra prasses.^ — Ibid., 596. " ' So if you perpetrate deeds of shame in darkness.^ " ' JIo meden ci'i' oikoits banc' — Ibid., 730. " ' To whom there is no weight of grief in his house.' " ' Ilodols kuklon hemauton eis anasfro2}hen.' "Sophocles, Antigone, 226. " ' Ort my road turning myself to go back.' " ' Krati de heliosteres " ^ Kuneprosopa Thessalis nvn ampekei.'' — ffid. Col., 313. " ' 0« her head a Thessaliau bonnet, shading from the sun, covers her face.' " ^ Pater de sos autothi mimnei " '■ Atousin. As chole hebammenoifi means 'dipped in gall ' (Strabo in Wilson, p. 19), and himatlon hebammenon halmati is 'a vestnre dipped in blood' (Rev. xix. 13), so elaio baptousin means 'they dip in oil,' hudati baptousin, 'they dip in water.' Now, as the expression hudati bap)tei)i means 'to diji in water,' so the expi-ession hudati bapAizein similarly means 'to immerse in water. ' It is so used by Heraclides in the following sentence : ' For the mass of ii'ou which is dra-\vn out by the blacksmiths red-hot is baptized in water, and that which is fiery of its own nature being qvienched in the water ceases to be so.' Epeideper ek ton banauson diapuros ho tou siderou mudros heJkustheift hudati bajjtizetai, Icai to phlogodeslaipo tes idias i)huseos hudati katasbesthen anapaue- tai. — Wilson, p. 114. "According to the instances above quoted, the words hudati baptizetai should mean an immersion 'in water,' not an immersion 'by water.' And the circum- stances lead lis to the same conclusion as the rules of grammar; for a red-hot iron would be so much more easily and expeditiously cooled by plunging it into water than by pouring water upon it, that a blacksmith would never use the latter method; and Heraclides miist have meant an immersion by dipping rather than an immersion by affusion. And that this was the habit of the smiths of Ancient Greece, Ave learn from the following lines of Homer: — ' ' ' Sheparnon Hos d hot' aner chalkeus pelehun inegan ee Ein hudati psuchro bapteA megala iachonta Pharmasson.' " ' As when the smith dips in cold water the hatchet or the axe muck hissing, tempering it.' — Homer, Od., x., 391. "The following passages show this to have been the method of tempering iron among the Romans as well as Greeks : — " 'Alii stridentia tinguni jEra lacu.' — Virg. Georg., iv., 172. " ' Ensem, qiiem Dauno ignipotens deus ipse parenti Fecerat, et Stygid candentem tinxerat undd.' — JEn., xii., 91. " 'Gelido ceu quondam lamina candens Tincta lacu stridit.' — Ovid. Met., ix., 107. •• " ' Ut calidis candens fer mm efornacibus olim, Stridit ubi in gelidam proprere demersimus imbrem.' Lucretius, vi., 147. "To temper the hatchet, the Greek smith dipped it in cold water; and, there- fore, when we read in the scholiast of Sophocles of the Greek smiths, sideron hudati baptousin, we must understand him to mean, 'they dip it in water;' and when Heraclides says, hudati bap>tizetai, we must understand him to mean ' it is baptized in water.' Like bajjtizo, tithemi governs the prepositions eis, en, and the dative without a preposition ; and, therefore, we may expect this dative to have the same force in connection with each of the two worcls. " Tithemi governs eis in Hom. II., xxiii., 704, xxiv., 797, &c. It governs en in the following instances: En pliresi thesthe hekastos aido (II. N. 121). En time tithetai (Herodotus, iii. 3). Etheto en phulake (Matt. xiv. 3) ; see also Matt, xxvii. 60 ; Mark vi. 29 ; Rom. ix. 33. "But we find likeA\dse tithemen noo, 'to place a thing in the mind' (Pindar, p. i. 78 ; Liddell). And koleo men aor theo, 'place thy sword in thy sheath' (Od, K. "Just as tithemai koleo is 'to place in the sheath,' so baptizein hudati is 'to baptize in the water.' "We find exactly similar use of the word 7nergo, to immerse, in the following instances: — 1. 'Flavins in Euphratem mergitur;' ' Merger e manum in oraursce;' ' Pullos mergi in aqicam jussit.' 2. ' Se in vmri mergunt;'' ^ Nihil in lacu mergi potest.'' 3. 'Me Deus cequore mersit;' ' Mergitur oceano;' ' Visceribus ferrum me.rgere.'—-Faccioluti, ' Mergo.' ' Animas luto demergere; ' ' CoUa demersere hume- m,' are similar expressions. " 6. We may fiurther judge that the words baptizein hudati mean ' to baptize 29 G IMPORT OF BAPTISM. in water,' from the use of tlie Latin ablative iu connection with tlie words thigo, to dip, kivo, to bathe, and menjo, to immerse, recollecting that the Greek dative cor- responds to the ablative iu Latin. The following instances are sufficient for our purpose: Ave read, ' Tingere in amne faces ;^ ^ In nndis summa 2^f(hi>n taloqne temts ventli/ia thif/it;' ' S'jwngia in aceto tincta;' and, likewise, without the preposition, ' iVlum Jluvio tingere,'' and ' Tiugunt cent lacu' (Greorg., iv. 172). See Riddle and Facciolati, ^tingo.' We read, ^ Lavantur in fluminihus ;' '' I n umbroso fontr lavari ; ^ and, likewise, without the prejwsition, ' P/icebe qui Xantlio lavas avme crines'' (see Fac. 'lavo''). We read also, '' Viscerihus fennim mergere ;'' ^ Nee me Dens cequore me.rsit;^ ' Bootes qtii vix sero alto mergifur oceano.'' Fac. ' jnergo.^ As, therefoi'e, ^Jluvio tingere'' is 'to dip in the water,' amne crines lavare 'is 'to bathe the haii- iu the stream,' so bajjtizein hiulati is 'to bathe iu the water.' "7. There are many places in which baptizo is connected with the dative of instrument. In all these places it expresses the force which jJuuges into the water, and is never in a single instance, as far as I know, iised to express the water itself. The following instances illustrate this fact: Thus Hipjiocrates says : 'Shall I not laugh at the man who by many burdens baptizes his ship?' Me gelaso ton. ten nea jMlloi.si 2)hortioisi baptisanta. — Hippoc. 532; Godwin, p. 27. And Justin Martyr S2)eaks of persons 'baptized by the heaviest sins.' Tais barutatais hamar- tiais bebaptismenoi. — Jus. Mar., Ibid., p. 33. In these cases the burdens and the heavy sins describe the force which baptizes into the element, not the baptismal element. The man, like a ship, is sunk in a sea of calamity by his burden, and sinners are bai:)tized by their heavy sins iu a sea of guilt. Exactly similar is the construction of all the following passages. Plutarch says : ' The mind is improved by proportioned labours, but is baptized by those which are excessive.' Psuche tois men summetrois auxetai ponois, tois de huperballousi baptisetai.- — Ibid., p. 32. He si^eaks further, 'of persons baptized by debts.' Ophlemasi bebaptismenoi. — Ibid., p. 33. Chrysostom speaks 'of being baptized by cares;' Baptizomenos p>lirontisi {Ibid.); and 'of being baptized by many waves of business.' — Pollois haptizomenos j)Tagmaton kumasi. — Ibid. In all these places the dative expresses not the water, but that which plunges into the water. The excessive laboiu's, the heavy debts, the mimerous cares, and the waves of business, all plunge the person into the sea, but are not the sea itself. There is one case cited in which the dative connected with baptizo may exj^ress the water of baptism. Heliodorus speaks of a man te sumphora bebaptisynenon, ' baptized in the calamity, or by the calamity. ' If it is the dative of instrument, then, as in all the other places, it expresses not the water of the baptism, but the force which plunged into the water ; and if it expresses the Avater, it is the dative of place, not instrument, and sliould be trans- lated ' Ijaptized in the calamity. ' ' ' This view of the dative of instrument is further confirmed by the fact that, whenever baptizo is connected with Jnq^o expressing ageuc}% the preposition always expresses the force Avhich baptizes in the water, and not the water itself; we always have the expression, — to be baptized liy anything in water, not to be bai)- tized by water. Thus Dion Cassius says : ' How should it not be baptized by the very midtitude of the rowers?'* Libanius says: 'He who with difficulty sustains the burden which he liears would be baptized by a small addition. '+ Polybi\is speaks of a galley ' pierced and baptized by a ship of the enemy ; 'J and of things 'l>eing by themselves ))ai5tized and going down.'g Libanius says: 'I am one of those baptized by that great Avave,' that is, being OA'erwhehncd by the waA'e, he was sunk iu the sea. || Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of being ' liaptized by intem- perance into sleep;''! and Josephus says that Aristobulus 'being baptized by the Galatians in a bath, died.'** In these cases, as everyAvhere else, the Avater is the * Posvicn an oak hup'' autou ton plethous ton kojion ba}}tisthcic.-- Dion Cassius, lib. xviii. + Hodc moUshn nun j^herci j^hcron liupo milcras an baptist/uic prosthckcs.— Lih&nms; GodAvin, ji. '.IS. J Tetromcncn kai laptizomcnen hupo ncos polemias. — Polyb., xvi. 6; GoilAvin, p. 27. § Antoi Imp' auton iMptizomcnoi kai katadunontcs. — Ibid., p. 2t). II Autos eimi ton bchfijttismenon hupo ton megalou kumatos ekcinou. — Ibid., p. 31. % Hupo methes baptizomenos eis hupnon.-- Ibid., p. 30. ** Hupo ton Galaton baptizomenos en kolumbcthra teleuia. — Ibid., p. 30. \ FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 297 element iu which the baptism takes place, and not the agent by which it is accom- plished. "Like Dr. Campbell, therefore, who translates Jiudati haptizo (Lnke iii. IG), '1 baptize in water,' we may conclude that when the dative occurs in the New Testa- ment with ha2Jtlzo, it must be understood, not as the dative of the instrument, but as the dative of the place ; for this fact has been established by the antithesis between the first and the last clauses in each of these passages ; by the records of the same sentiment found in the evangelists Matthew and Mark, where the words are 'to baptize in water;' by a similar use of the dative in other passages in the writings of Luke and of the New Testament ; by the recognized use of the dative in other Greek authors ; by a similar use of the dative with hcqjto; and by the fact that not a single passage is adduced in which the dative of instrument connected with haptizo means the baptismal water." — On Bap., pp. 18-27. Tliis is testimony relative to the pi-epositiou en and the dative of instnimentality, of one who, in opposition to educational prepossessions, worldly position, and interest, has discarded his Paedobaptist sentiments on the Christian ordinance of immersion, and has embraced and thu.s defended the sentiments entertained by ourselves. It may possibly be maintamed by our opponents, notwithstanding the rule in syntax quoted fi'om MatthijB, and the examples exactly iu point that are quoted, that to translate hudati, in water, and not, by water, is not the usual rendering of the Greek dative, if all instances of its occurrence are taken into account. We admit this, and will not peremptorily insist on in, although it can be replied, — of which Mr. Noel lirst speaks, — that hudati, as it is found in the only thi-ee passages of God's Word where it occurs in con- nection with baptism without a preposition, seems required by rule to be translated as if it were written en Jmdati, because of the antithetical part of the sentence having the preposition en expressed, and that, conse- quently, the literal rendering even of hudati without a preposition, in such a connection, is, in loater. Tliis, it has been further said, seems also established by a record of the same fact by other evangelists, who have used the preposition en; as well as by a repeated use of the dative elsewhere by the evangelist Luke, when en, in, is certainly the understood preposition. But, if in the three New Testament passages where the preposition is omitted, we say with water, it is evident from the whole that immersion is spoken of, and not pouring or sprinkling. Immersion with water is also immersion in water. Tlie occurrence of hai^tisma in the accusative case, governed by kata or ^;«ra understood, where Christ's suSerings are called a baptism, and in parallel passages, will be known by any who are acquainted with the Greek to be altogether different from the dative of which we are now speaking. We regard the transla- tion of en hudati in the common English version, by " with water," as utterly unauthorized, being as unjust to the original as it is flagrantly inconsistent with itself in not elsewhere causing us to read, "And were baptized of him with Jordan " (Matt. iii. 6) ; " John also was baptizing loith -^uon" (John iii. 23); "And were all baptized of him vnth the river of Jordan" (Mark i. 5). Our translators, who translated under royal directiofts and restrictions, have helped to obscure the meaning of this ordinance, and to quiet those whom prepossessions have not wholly blinded and made perfectly easy iu the neglect of a Divine institution. To baptize en must mean to baptize in, whether the word in be followed by water, Jordan, Bethabara, or the wilderness, &c. It being known 298 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. that tlie person was baptized in watei', to say that he Avas baptized in tlie river implies that the water Avas in the river; to say that he was baptized in the wilderness, implies that the water was iu the wilderness. Hence Dr. Wordsworth, on Mark i. 6, says : " In the river Jordan. St. Matt, says in the Jordan" (6-V. Tes.). And in no place is it said that the water was sprinkled, or poured, or baptized ^^pon them; but we learn that they were baptized (immersed) in the water, that the action took place in the element. There is but one exception to this, — which is perfectly consistent with immersion, but diametrically opposed to sprink- ling or pouring, — where we are told in Mark i. 9 that Jesus was baptized by John into the Jordan; unless it be also an exception where hudati occurs iu the three passages without a preposition, just noticed, and where the antithetical part of the sentence in which en is expressed, and the occurrence of en with hudati in the records of the same by the other evangelists, and of the dative in other parts of Luke's writings where en is certainly the understood preposition, may be considei-ed to favovu* in as the rendering in these three passages. "From historical connections, or parallel occurrences in which a regimen exists, we may learn the appropriate sense" (Prof. Wilson, on Bap., p. 213). See renderings of baj^tizo and of prepositions given in parallel colvimns, pp. llG-122, where, as counterfeit coins can be detected by their bulk or their weight, counter- feit words may be detected even by the merely English reader, common sense, honestly iised, being the only requisite; for, if even to the prepo- sitions a literal and correct rendering bo giveu, the usurping counterfeits for immerse in all their worthlessness may be immediately detected and displaced. The proof which has been adduced that in is the meaning of en will show the impropriety with which oiigh to has received the commendation of one Pfedobaptist, after he has told us that in the New Testament this preposition has no less than sixteen meanings accoi'ding to Parkhvu'st, of which nvjh to is the eleventh. We are not, however, edified by being desired to read, instead of the common translation : " Niglu to the beginning was the Word" (John i. 1). Jonah was three days and three nights nigh to the whale's belly. Lazarus "had lain nigh to the grave four days" (John xi. 17). We are not told by this divine that Noah and his family were saved nigh to the ark, that the Egyptians were drowned nigh to the Red Sea, and that Paul at Damascus was let down by the wall nigh to a basket. As long as the inspired writings continue to be the law of the Lord, the words of Black stone, in reference to human law, will continue to deserve regard from eveiy interpreter of the Oracles of God: " The words of a law are generally to be \uiderstood in their usual or most known signification, not so much regarding the pro- priety of grammar, as their genei-al and popular use" (Com., vol. i., § 3). And how far the language of Dr. Williams, when reasoning against Socinian sentiments and Socinian logic, applies to our Piedo^aptist friends in their unnecessary departure fx'om the generic or primary meaning of every preposition found in comiection with baptism when the element is mentioned iu Holy Writ, we will leave them to judge for themselves. When animadverting on the misapplication of learning to the affairs of religion, and on that supercilious contempt with which some Socinians FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. have treated the humble followers of Christ, he says : " Yes, if he Kves by faith, his religion is irrational; and if he submits his understanding implicitly to the plain decisions of revelation, rejecting novel, far fetched criticisms, he is an incorrigible bigot." Let the reader know that all lexicons, all interpreters, and all critics, give in as the primaiy meaning of en. Hence this is the word in the original, where we read, " Our Father which art in heaven " (Matt. vi. 9) ; " They perished in the waters" (Matt. viii. 32); "He was in the world" (John i. 10), «fec. Instead of reading that they were all baptized of John in the river Jordan, the preposition at has been recommended as a preferable render- ing, and by Prof Godwin has been adopted, although he teaches elsewhere that &y or ivith is the import of en joined Avith liudati (pp. 39, 40). But what is the information communicated by such a sentence to any one who knows how many miles v/as the length of the Jordan I Besides, how palpably incongi-uous to say. He shall baptize you at the Holy Ghost and at tire ! It is our opiiuon that the sacred writers could not have used stronger or more explicit language to describe immersion in water as the baptism of John, and as Christian baptism, than by using the words and phrases wliich they have selected. We do not conceive that our own missionai'ies speak more explicitly when they report the baptisms which they administer in a tank, in the Ganges, or other places. In the Jordan, we regard as an expression pei'fectly parallel to our expression, In the Thames; in the Mersey, etc. After all, we have not yet noticed two opjiosite objections to the most explicit assei-tion of Jolm's baptizing in the river Jordan. The two objections we are about to notice so expressly contradict each other, that we are reminded immediately of Lindley Murray's xvIq, that two nega- tives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative. Some have ventui'ed to suppose that during a great part of the year the Jordan did not contain x'xiter enough to immerse the human body. But Mr. Thorn, without referring to the different size of the Jordan at different seasons of the year, informs us, first, that "water, about three feet deep, pure and quiet, is best adapted for immersing grown-up people ; and that were it much deeper or shallower, or foul, or much agitated, it would be unfit for such a purpose, rendering immersion exceedingly troublesome, if not impossible." He proceeds to say that " the baptizing spot has been visited and minutely examined by many intelligent and credible travellers, who tell us that here ' the river Jordan is of considerable width, the water turbulent, the bottom rocky, the edges of the bank abi'upt, and the depth about six or seven feet close to the shore,' " tfec. He thus concludes : " Judging, then, from the places chosen, and the fonts constructed for immersion, by our opponents, and, indeed, from the nature of the case (unless men and women in John's time were twice as tall as at the present day !), I contend that dipping persons in the Jordan was altogether impracticable; and unhesitatingly conclude that they were only afiused or sprinkled with the water of it" (p. 10).* * Dr. KiTTO. — "Both the breadth and depth of this river vary so greatly in different parts of its course, that no general inference is to be deduced. . . . Dr. Shaw took its average breadth at thirty yards, and its depth at nine feet." — Pic. His. of Pal., vol. ii., pp. clxxii-clxxiv. Dr. "VV, M. Thomson.— "Travellers have differed mdely in their descriptions of the .*?00 IMPORT OF BAPTISJr. Thus are imaginary difficulties converted into impracticabilities; and though the supposition is in opposition to the expi'ess assertion of God's Word, it is iinhesitatincjJy concluded tliat the baptized were only affused or sprinkled with the water of the Jordan. Tims is error of all kinds built upon suppositions, but truth upon facts. Thus is the express declaration of Holy Writ that John baptized in Jordan, in the river Jordan, flatly contradicted by men that love God, l)ut whose prepossessions have con- jured up imaginaiy difficulties supposed to involve impracticability of immersion. Let the reader judge how far it resemljles — only out-doing — the logic of Dr. Halley in favour of pouiing or sprinkling, which is wholly based on the difficulties in the way of innnersion. It is, liowever, due to Dr. H., however inconsistent with the rendering of en by \oiih^ for which, before hudati, he ])leads, to state his disapproval of with before Jordan. He says : " En, with the name of a river, must, I think, be rendered in. John was baptizing (I must repudiate the version, with the Jordan, or with its water) in the Jordan, . . . in the streaui " (p. 32G). But in reply to the opposing objections to John's baptizing in Joi'dan we will quote hrst from Mi-. Robinson, the Baptist histoi'ian, and then from the Ptedobaptisfc, Dr. Kitto, and from some others. Robinson. — "The river Jordan, far from wanting water, was siil>ject to two sorts of floods, one periodical, at liarvest-time, in which it resembled the Nile in Egyjit, with which some sujiposed it had a subterraneous communication. When this flood came down, the river rose many feet, and overflowed tlie lower banks, so that the lions tliat lay in the thickets there were roused, and fled. To tliis Jeremiah alludes, Behold the Khir/ of Babylon t^hall come uj) Ulce a lion from the sioelling of Jordan. The other swellings of Jordan were casual, and resembled those of all rivers in uneven countries." "John, setting out from the place of his birth, Hebron, a city in the hilly part of the tribe of Judah, two and twenty miles from Jerusalem, travelling northward, and leaving Tekoali, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem on the left, went toward Bethoglah, Engedi, Gilgal, and .Jericho, taking his road through the wilderness of .Judah, near the banks of the lake Asphaltites, and crying (or preaching) to the inhabitants of the towns, arrived at that part of the wilderness which was bounded on the east by the river Joi'dan, which met him, as it were, running alongside full south, and hereaboiits fixed his first baptismal station. The word wilderness did not signify Jordan, principully from two causes -visiting it at different seasons of tlie year, at f the liver at the time of Maundrell's visit was veiy turl)id. ... It no longer, indeed, rolls down into the Dead Sea, so majestic a stream as in the days of Joshua, yet its ordinary depth is still about ten or twelve ieet."- Itlug. of Scrip., vol. i., pp. .STS-liZ?. Di'. P)UEWKi{, in his Guide to Scrijiturc Historii, states that the average depth of the .Jordan is nine feet. Dr. E. HoniNSON says: "The .Ionian, as we saw it here, is less broad, less deep, and loss rapid than where wo have come ui)on it near the Dead Sea" (JSr6. /?«., vol. ii., ]>. 414). Also, of this river, "altogether impractical )le" for immersion, "unless men and women in .John's time were twice as tall as at the present day," Dr. R. s.ays: "We now stood upon its shores, and had bathed in its waters, and felt ourselves surrounded liy hallowed associations." — Vol. i., p. 543. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 301 iu Jiidea aii imiiihabited country, but woody, grazing lands, in distinction from arable fields, which were champaign or open, and vineyards, olive yards, orchards, and gardens, which were enclosed. There were in the time of Joshua six cities with theii' \allages in this wilderness, and the inhabitants of those parts were graziers and sheep-masters. "All the evangelists affirm John baptized in Jordan. Mark, who says he bap- tized in Jordan, says also he baptized in the wilderness. Of course he baptized in that part of the river which bounded the lauds of Benjamin and Judah on the east, about four or live miles above the mouth where it discharged itself into the lake Asphaltites, and where the woodlands of Judah abutted on those of Benjamin. The river here was about seven miles east of Jericho, and about twenty-five or six east of Jerusalem. Hereaboiits the Israelites passed over Jordan ; and about half- a-mile from the river the remains of a convent, dedicated to John the Baptist, are yet to be seen; for the Syrian monks availed themselves of the zeal of early pilgrims, who aspired at the honour of being baptized where they supposed John had baptized Jesus. The Greeks have imagined a place three or four miles distant ; others have supposed it higher up the stream northward, toward Galilee; and others, again, the passage right over against Jericho; but some ford a little nearer- the mouth, somewhere about the lines that parted the lands of Benjamin and Judah, seems best to agree M'ith the account given by the evangelists, and it exactly agi'ces with the ancient geography ; for the line that parted the two triljes ran through a place called Bethbavah, in the wilderness of .Judah, or the huuse at the ford next the woodlands." Thus Kobinson, on the Jordan, and on the locality of John's baptism (pp. 9-12). The Fictorial Humlay Book, edited by Dr. Kitto, says, on the locality i>f John's baptism: "The true site of this event is, however, probably not known. The Catholics place the site about seven miles from the Dead Sea, the Greeks not more than four. Both points are tAvo of the most beautiful places on the river, and there seems little dift'erence iu the appearance of the stream or its banks." The editor then quotes an interesting account by the Rev. C. B. Elliott, of a visit in 1837, when a cavalcade of five thousand Greek and Oriental pilgi-ims were joui-neyiug thither to perform their annual ablutipns " in the place where John was baptizing." "When they reached the spot, instantly a rush Ava.s made, and the pilgrims, youug and old, rich and poor, sick and sound, men, women, and children, plunged into the stream. . . . Here and there the father of a family might be seen, now religiously forcing the head of a little girl under water. . . . Others resigned themselves composedly to the priests, who, standing like the Baptist in tlie river^' &c. Does this comport Avith the waters of the Jordan being unto its banks so deep as to render baptism in Jordan so certainly impracticable, that we may iinhesilatingly conclude with Mr. Thorn ] Or has Mi-. T. had an express revelation respecting the precise spot where John baptized, and respecting the impracticability of immersion there at that time 1 If the Jordan was too deep to baptize in, what must be said of the far greater rivers of Europe and America, and of the sea itself, in which baptisms often have taken place % We have read, " Where a Porson would fail, a Thorn woiild triumph." Dr. Gumming, speaking of John as immersing in the Jordan, says: "I doubt if the Jordan, at Jerusalem, is really so very deep, excejit in times of flood, as would be sutiicient" [Sab. Eve. Rea. on N.T., on Matt, iii., p. 1 9). The Jordan at Jerusalem ! Who ever heard of this before ? As to the sutficient depth of the Jordan for immersion, what we have quoted from Pfedobaptist travellers and waiters should be sufficiently 302 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. confounding to Dr. 0. and Mr. Thoni. The doctor with eqiTal force refei's to " the ancient pictures of the early masters" {p. 19); and with these before liis eyes can say, " My idea of baptism is, that we should approach as near to the outward iisage as circumstances will admit" (p. 20). But on immei'sion he says: "To say the least of it, if it be not a penance, it is not convenient " (p. 20). What an austere Master is the Ijlessed Jesus, who has commanded His disciples for once to be immersed into the name of the Triune God ! Madame Ida Pfeiffer, in her Visit to the Holy Land, Egypt, and Italy, says, on the arrival at the Jordan : " The moment our Arab companions reached the bank, they flung themselves, heated as they were, into the river. Most of the gentlemen followed theii* example, but less precipitately" (p. 139). Dean Stanley, from whose interesting volume, entitled Sinai cmid Palestine, we have pre\'iously extracted, does not appear to have imagined the least difficult}'' in the way of immersion from the supposed j^lace where John administered his Divinely-enjoined ordinance. Hence he .says: "If from the general scene we turn to the special locality, the reason of John's selection is at once explained. He came ' baptizing,' that is, signifjdng to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their former sins," &c. "On the banks of the rushing stream the multitudes gathered," &c. " Then began that sacred rite which has since spread throughout the world, through the vast baptisteries of the southern and Oriental churches, gradually dwindling to the little fonts of the north and west ; plunges beneath the water diminishing to the few drops," &c. 2. In regard to the pre2:)osition eis. It is maintained by the Baptists that the meaning of eis is into. Thus it is maintained, that as haptizein en means to immerse in, so baptizein eis means to immerse into. The reasoning of our oj^ponents we maintain to he, — and we doubt not through the influence of aforementioned prepossessions, — as erroneous, inconsistent, and contradictory as the same has been proved to be on the preposition en. One Pa^dobaptist mentions that " Parkhui'st gives no less than eighteen different meanings for this preposition." Among these, at is mentioned under the fifth and fourteenth meanings of the word; tonmrds, under the sixth meaning, and near to, is not given amongst all the eighteen; yet it is asserted "that eis very often signifies at, near to, towards.'^ And certain passages are referred to where it is rendered to, xinto, toioards, and at. It is rendered towards in JNIatt. ii. 21, although we knoAv not why it should not be rendered into. And that it has the sense of into in most of the other passages referred to, where it is rendered to, towards, and unto, is maintained by ourselves, although the expression would sometimes be uncouth with such a render- ing. This, however, does not disjjrove the reality of such an impoi-t, as each lang\iagc has its own idioms. That " at, near to, and towards," can be said to be the meaniiTg of eis is, as we believe, no more correct than it would be to say that Daniel was cast nea,r to, but not into the lion's den; that the mariners cast Jonah toicards and near to, but not into the sea; that Christ and the apostles went totoards and near to, but not into Jerusalem; that the righteous shall go near to and toioards, but not into heaven; and that the wicked shall be cast toioards or near to, but not FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 303 into hell. We do not say that eis ought invariably to be rendered into; but we maintain that mthout evidence from the connection of the impro- prietv of into, it ought never to be rendered by to, or unto, or by any other particle than into. "VVe maintain that its primary meaning is into, and that it devolves on him who gives another rendering to prove in eveiT instance that, instead of into, it has the meaning given. As the English reader cannot, withoiit an Englishman's Greek Concordance, ascei"taia the frequency with whicli in the New Testament eis is rendered info, and A\T.th which it is rendered to, toivards, and unto, where the sense of into is clearly perceivable, we will inform him, with the assistance of Dr. A. Campbell, that in the four Gospels " eis occui's 795 times. Of these, it is translated by into 372 times, and by to for into more than 100 times; for to the house, to the temple, to the city, to Jerusalem, Bethany, Nazareth, &c., means into; and of 273 times ^into, it might have been very often into'" (On Bap., p. 158). The word eis is used when we read in the New Testament, " enter into thy closet " (Matt. vi. 6); '^^ into the herd of swine — into the sea" (viii. 32); "a net cast into the sea" (xiii. 47); '■'■into the furnace of fire" (xiii. 50); "he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water" (xvii. 15); "cast him into prison" (xviii. 30); " mtists" (p. 358). He proceeds: "Let it be observed that on the other hand, in the New Testament, we have not the ])hra3e to baptize into water, to baptize into the Holy Ghost, we have not the preposition eis, which might determine the sense, but to baptize with water, to baptize with the Holy Ghost; these being con- strued as the instruments with which the baptism was performed, not the substances into which the persons were baptized. If it be meant that the apostles were immersed into water, why have we not the usual and ])roper phrase, eis hudor (into water) 1 or that our Lord immersed into the Holy Ghost, why not the ])hrase eis to jmertma to hagion (into the -Holy Sjiirit)'?" (p. 325.) In this passage the reasoning is in sub- stance: L That immerse is not immerse when the element of innnersion is not mentioned ; in other words, that if we are literally aiul expressly commanded to ininiorse into the name of the Father, etc., it is right to understand it as teaching either that we are to immerse by ])ouriug or s])rinkling, or that tlie connnand is obeyed if we pour or s^trinklc, when W(!, liy the a])poiuted ceremony, consecrate to the Father, y the words going down, and especially when the fact of having come to the water has been just before expressed 1 Read the following from Dr. D wight on the import of eis, and think of the accordance of the whole with the baptizing of infants : " A 11 persons are baptized, not in, but into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that is, they are in this oi-dinance publicly and solemnly introduced into the family, and entitled in a peculiai- man- ner to the name, of God. Accordingly, they are called Godly; Chris- tians; Spiritual; Sons and Daughters of God; and Children of God; throughout the Scriptures. That this is the true construction of the passage just quoted is, I think, obvious from the Greek phraseology, eis to onoma, the proper English of which is, into the name. Accordingly, it is customarily rendered in this manner." Ho quotes Rom. vi. 3, i ; 1 Cor. xii. 13; and GaL iii. 27; and then adds: "In all these instances the phraseology is the same with that first quoted; and, fr-om analogy, teaches us that it ought thex-e also to have been i-endered in the same manner; into being the original and proper nxeaning of the preposition" {Ser. 157; on Matt, xxviii. 19). But Mr. S. tells us further that the rendering, " Jesus was dipped into the Jordan," is a " strange reading." Everybody knows that we are not familiar with this rendering. What minister of the Gospel is there who does not occasionally from the pulpit give to his hearers a mort^ strange reading than this, in giving a literal rendering of the original, in order to acquaint his hearers with the precise idea of the inspired writer, or to illusti'ate and establish some revealed truth? A i-endering may be more correct, and yet may sound more uncouthly than the false reading with which we are familiar. But is it grating, even to an English ear, to speak of one person immersing or dipping another into the Severn, into the Derwent, &c. 1 A writer of distinction among the Ptedobaptists, whom Mr. S. has greatly honoured in his volume, has written, " I have no wish to deny that, in the instance of our Lord, John baptized into the Jordan. In some instances, and in this, immei-sion might have been the most convenient mode." It appears, also, from this as if the idea there attached by the respected writer to being baptized into the Jordan, was neither being sprinkled nor poured into the Jordan, but really being immersed into the Jordan. 310 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. Furtliei', it is tlioiiglit by Mr. S. imprudent on the part of the Baptists to lay stress on this one passage, because ''it takes from the force of those other passages in wliich this constniction is wanting." We beg to inform Mr. S., if he should be iguoi-ant of the fact, that eis in the New- Testament in connection with hcqotizo occurs twelve times, and en four- teen times; and that whilst we maintain that haptizein en means in these fourteen cases to immerse in, whatever word, common or proper, the preposition en may govern; we also maintain that haptizein eis, in the dozen occurrences of this term, means to immerse into, whether fol- lowed by words signifying water or the Jordan, Christ or Paul, Moses, or the name of the Father, &c. ; that wherever it carries its action, it never dui-ing the journey, according to any evidence that has reached ourselves, effects a transformation of immersion into sprinkling, pouring, or any use of water other than immersion. If eis before the Jordan signifies at, and before water signifies to, we might ask Mr. S. if the Seventy are to be understood as coiTectly rendering the Hebrew when they use eis in Gen. vii. 13, 15; xxxvii. 20, 22, 24; Jonah i. 12, 15; &c.; or whether we are to understand them as speaking of Noah's entering into the ark, of Joseph's being cast into a pit, and of Jonah's being cast into the sea, &c. Dr. Ryland says : " I have known a most excellent man so influenced by the fear of immersion, as to shun all similar examples of this use of the preposition, except eisienai eis to hieron; and then, instead of rendering it simply, to enter into the temple, he gives it this odd, circuitous rendering : ' properly, to arrive at it, so as to get com- pletely within it'" (p. xxii.). We might give a rendering that would be further from the tnith of the original, although it would make a rather " strange reading," were we to say, Jesus was immersed at the Jordan so as to get completely within it: And they went down both at the water so as to get completely within it; and he immersed him. It will be perceived that we have given immersed for baptized, which we think has been proved to be the genuine and only meaning of the Greek A'erb, although our friends only admit this to be its meaning when followed by certain prepositions, or when united with words that apparently they fain hope will not bring them into water. But to do justice to our friends who " claim for baptize an application broad enough to cover every mode of observance," we will again mention that we do not maintain in regard to the preposition eis, as we do in regard to the verb haptizo, when used literally, tliat it may be con-ectly and invariably rendered by one word. We believe that baptizo, as compared with rhantizo and cheo, is itself a verb of mode, and that to maintain that it has an application broad enough to cover every mode, is as true as if we should say respecting the English word imn^erse, that it means to dip, to poiir, to sprinkle, or to ajjply any liquid in any way, and that there is no contradiction of terms when we speak of immersing by sprinkling, etc. Further, we will quote Mr. Stacey's own words in vindication of at, as the rendering of eis, in Mark i. 9. He says: "The preposition eis has no absolutely single meanmg, but denotes in as well as i7ito, and at as well as either. In this last sense it is employed in many passages, and chiefly, as in Mark, in connection with places. ' Philip was found FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 811 at Azotus.' ' When I was at Jenisalem.' ' For as thou hast testified of me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome ' (Acts viii. 40; XXV. 15; xxiii. 11). Thus rendered in the example in question, every imaginary difficulty disappears, and a jtcst interpretation is given to the whole passage, — ' Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John at the Jordan ' " (p. 202). We presume that Mr. S. does not think at the Jordan either a '' strange reading," or an indefinite expression, notwithstanding that the river is much more than a hundred miles in length. And what reader does not see that, although at is the rendering given in the places quoted from Acts, the idea of being loithin the places mentioned is conveyed by eis in every instance; and that nothing in any one of the passages encourages the rendering of eis by any other word than ?«to, wherever into is admissible according to the idiom of our language? We can in English without obscurity say, " into a mountain," just as a Grecian could say eis to oros, but every phrase does not allow of so literal a rendering without doing violence to accustomed phraseology. Further, the English reader will be surpiised to be told that the rendering of eis by at is not once given by oui- translators of Mark's Gospel. We have from Mark the phrases " into the wilderness," *'into Galilee," "into Capernaum," "into the house," "into the city," "into the borders of Tyre," "into the parts of Dalmanutha," "into the towns of Csesarea Philippi," "into the fii-e," "into the waters," " into hell," " into the kingdom of heaven," &c., but no at given for eis. Again, though at is given in a few other places, in the Acts of the Apostles, being, compared with those quoted, exactly parallel, no encou- ragement is given to the phrase, was immersed at the Jordan, instead of was immei-sed into the Jordan. See Acts iv. 6; x\TLii. 22; xx. 14, 15, 16; xxi. 3, 13; xxiii. 11; xxv. 15; xxvii. 3; and xxviii. 12. Three times eis is translated at in Luke's Gospel; Luke vii. 61; \T.ii. 26; and xi. 32 ; not one of which is parallel to INIai'k i. 9. These, out of hundi'eds of instances in which eis occurs, are the only instances in which we have the rendering at, all which, excepting the last, eveiy candid critic, as we believe, would say, coincide with into as being the meaning of eis, although, on account of the difference between the idiom of one language and of another, the rendering given in these places may be approved. Hence Robinson in his lexicon says, under eis : " Sometimes eis c. accus. is found where the natui'al construction would seem to require e?i c. dat., as after A^erbs which imply neither motion nor direction, but simj)ly rest in a place or state. In such cases the idea of a previous coming into that place or state is either actually expressed, or is implied in the context. — See Passow, Eis, no. 6, Winer, § 54, 4, b. Matth. § 596. Comp. Buttm. § 151. I. 8." If this is tnie, does not Mark i. 9 take Jesus "into the Jordan;" and is not what our Methodist brother has written most incorrect and decep- tive? In regard to eis in Luke xi. 32, although not parallel to eis when coming before the name of a place, nor parallel to eis before the Jordan, we will quote again from the Psedobaptist lexicogTapher, Dr. Robinson, under the word. " 3. Trop. as marking the object or point to or towards which anything tends, aims, &c. Spoken . . . (e) gem\ as marking the object of any reference, relation, allusion, into, unto, towards, i.e., -vAdth reference 312 IMPORT OF BArTis:M. to, ifcc. Passow ill Eis, no. 5 (a) properly, in accordance with, conj'orinably to; Matt. X. 41, 42, in accoi'dance with the character of a prophet, or as a )trophet. Matt. xii. 41, and Luke xi. 32, into, that is, conformably to, or at the pi-eaching of Jonah," ttc. Neither the literal nor the tigurative u.se of eis in any i)ortion of human or Divine wi-itings affords, as we believe, the least countenance to at as the rendering of eis in Mark i. 9. In.stead of the rendering of Mr. S. being "a just interpretation," Ave maintain that it justly covers with shame him that thus seeks to avoid being- covered with water; and especially after he and other Pa^dobaptist writers have repeatedly and emphatically told us that the meaning of eis is INTO ; and when they again and again correct the translators of the New Testament for giving in and nnto in dilferent places in.stead of into. Our Piedobaptist friends unite to teach that in the very laAV of baptism (Matt. xxAiii. 19) we are taught to immerse into the name, tSrc. ; that the meaning of eis is into, and ought so to be rendei'ed; but that the immersion is carried into the name, etc. Does such verbiage teach that they have no objection to immerse, if it can be but carried away, whether into heaven or any other place, if it is but really cai'ried away ; and that they have no objection to into, if it does not bring them into the loater? We shall close our remarks on the imjjort of eis with some acknow- ledgments from Pajdobaptists, and with brief strictures on certain incon- sistencies and inaccuracies. Dr. Halley. — "It may be said tliat men were baptized into Moses, baptized into Christ, baptized into His death, baptized into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Gliost, which ex])ressious, if hterally translated, would be immersed into Moses, immersed into C'hrist, and so on" (p. 288). " The baptism was into Moses, the syntax corresponding with the baptism into Christ" (p. 292). "To baptize into," "will usually mean to immerse" (p. 287). J. Stacey. — "The preposition eis, Into" (p. 199). Macknight. — " Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" " Lest anj' should say that into mine own name I had baptized." — Trans, of 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. Bengel. — "£"(6' to onoma, k. t. 1., into the name, &c." — Com., on Matt, xxviii. 19. Dr. Doddridge. — "Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" "Lest any .should say that I had baptized into my own name." — Trans, of 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. Dr. Watts. — "Let it be considered also that we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." — Work,i, vol. iii., p. 259. Dr. Geo. Hill. — ' ' Go ye, therefore, make discijiles of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." — Lee. in Die, vol. ii., p. 331. K. Watson. — "Christians are 'baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' "—Bib. and Tlieo. Die; Art. John the Bap. J. Brewster. — "They were baptized in, or rather into the name of the Lord Jesus." — Led. on jicts, p. 356. Dr. T. J. HussEV. — "Bajitizing tliein in, info, the name of," &c. — Com., on Matt, xxviii. 19. E. BiuKERSTETH.- — "The direction to disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father," &c. — On Baj>., p. 39. W. Trollope. — " The j^roper translation of haptizontps eis to onoma is, baptizing into the name." — Gr. Tes., on Matt, xxviii. 19. L CoBBiN. — " They were baptized into the name of Christ only" (Domes. Bihie, on 1 Cor. i. 13). "They were all )^ai)tized into the name of Christ." — Do., on Eph. iv. 5. Harvey Goodwin. — "He charges his faithful followers to go, and make disci])le3 of all the nations of the earth. . . . They who were willing to become FUTILITY OF OBJECTIO^•S. 313 tlisciples were to be baptized in, or rather into the name," &c. — Com. on Matt.; xxviii. 18-20. Dr. .J. Bennett. — "And they, having heard, were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Baptism is spolien of here, as well aa in the commission to the apostles, not as we read, ' baptize in,' but ' into,' or unto the name. " — Lee. on Acts, xix. Dr. A. Clakke. — ". . . Because superficial observers might imagine that he baptized them into his own name — to be his followers, though he bajjtized them into the name of Christ only." — Com., on I Coi\ i. 15. Dr. Conquest. — "Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name," &c. "All our fathers were imder the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and wei'e all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. " J. B. Walkee. — "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name,"&c. — Pliilos. of the Di. Opera, in the Red. of Man, ji. 46. Dr. Gumming. — "Into Paul or into Cephas." — Sah. Eve. Rea., on Cor. i. Dr. WoRDSWOKTH. — ^' Eis to onoma. Not in, but iiito the name." — Gr. Tes., on Matt, xxviii. 19. Dr. D. Brown.- — "In the baptism of our blessed Head, we find ourselves in the pi-esence at once of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, into whose adorable name we are baptized (xxviii. 19)." ^' Baptizing them in the name \eis to onoma'\. It should be, 'into the name;' as in 1 Cor. x. 2, 'And were all bajatized unto (or rather, "into'") Moses' [eis ton Mosen] ; and Gal. iii. 27, ' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ' [eis Ohriston].^' — Com., on Matt. iii. 13-17 ; xxviii. 19. S. Shaepe. — "Baptizing them into the name." "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" "No one can say that I baptized into my own name." — Trans., Matt, xxviii. 19, and 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. Dr. Stanley. — "Surely it was not Paul who was crucified for you, and into whose name you were baptized." — Epis. to the Cor. In Notes. Dr, TuRNBULL. — "Into the name of Paul have ye been baptized? . . . that no one might say, into my name I baptized." "All were baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the sea." — Trans., 1 Cor. i. 13, 15; x. 2. Bp. Hinds corrects the in, and writes into, in Matt, xxviii. 19. — Rise and Early Pro(j. of Chris., p. 133. Dr. E. Robinson, on haptizo with adjuncts, says : ' ' Eis c. aecus. , to baptize or to he baptized into." — Lex. Art. Bajytizo. Di". Stier. — "Baptize ye (say, I baptize thee) into the name of God, the triune God." — Words of Jesus, vol. viii., p. 301. Dr. Alfoed. — "It is ^^ufortunate again here that our English Bibles do not give us the force of this eis. It should be into (as in Gal, iii. 27), both here and in 1 Cor. X. 2, and wherever the expression is used." — Gh: Tes., on Matt, xxviii. 19. These are but a specimen of Ptedobaptist corrections of the rendei'ing of eis, by in, instead of into, and of quotations from their Avox'ks teaching that the (primary) meaning of eis is into, and that its proper rendering, unless in exceptional and obvious cases, is into. From lexicons, gram- mars, commentaries, controversial and other works, we presume that the testimony might be multiplied a hundredfold; whilst instances of such translation might probably be multiplied a myriadfuld. Yet our Ptedo- baptist bi-ethren, and especially our Independent, Presbyterian, and Methodist brethren, will write their inconsistencies and absurdities on Christ's command, " Immersing them into the name," on Philip and the eunuch's going " down both into the water," as well as John's immersing "in the Jordan," "in the river Jordan," and "into the Jordan." Dr. Wai-dlaw confidently atfirms " that our Baptist friends . . . determine the sense of the preposition from its connection with the verb;" and he advocates for eis, in Mark i. 9, the rendering at, admitting that the i-endering, "to or towards," is "nonsense." — Inf. Bap., pp. 149, 150. S14 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Is a rendering correct because it is not nonsense, or even because in some other cases sucli a rendering is admissible ? Ovir intelligent and estimable New Connexion Wesleyan brother, similarly to Dr. W., i-ecom- mends at as the translation of eis, in Mark i. 9. He says: "If, when immersion is intended, eis forms the true regimen of haptizo, how shall we account for this being the only instance of its occurrence]" (p. 201.) Is he ignorant of the fact that Baptists and all unprejudiced scholars of every denomination do not demand eis after hcqytizo, but accept eis, or en; and that to immerse in or into is equally good syntax in Greek or English 1 Even he corrects the common translation of eis, where erro- neously it is given in, and properly gives into at pp. 4, 24, 75, 76, 95, 172, and 284. He corrects rmto by into in pp. 202 and 284. (See also pp. 199, 202, 242, 275, &c.) When the danger is imminent of being once during life caiTied into the water, a solemn, significant, and Divinely- enjoined profession of faith in the Lord Jesus and devotedness to Him being made in this immersion, either the verb or the preposition, or both, assume another meaning which they I'arely or never possess, by which the immersion is blissfully " carried " into the land of Utopia ! Prof. Wilson enables us to give to another rendering than into for eis when we read of baptizing into the Jordan, into the name of the Father, into Christ, into Moses, and into Paul, an application of the following : — " To prefer a different meaning appears very like going out of one's way to serve a purpose " (p. 330). He renders eis, into, in the commission (pp. 2, 4, 5, 296, 307, 310, 348, (fee); in John's baptizing into repentance (pp. 307, 341, 361); in the baptism iiito Moses (p. 307), not to mention other places. He also says, on " the constitiction of haptizo with the preposition eis,'' referring to Hellenistic Greek, in which it so fi-equently occurs, and to Mark i. 9 : " We readily conceive that immersion is clearly implied in the construction which has been exemplified, and we have no possible objection to the Baptist availing himself of the entire benefit of this concession" (pp. 112, 113). And yet he is " incessantly ringing in our ears the oracular dictum " respecting the meaning of baptism, that "it utterly breaks away from the trammels of an exclusively modal application, is clear as the noon-day sun" (p. 332). The sage conclusion is that, as we may baptize, i.e., encompass and cover the object with water otherwise than by puttinff it into the water, ergo, a sjirinkling of the face is baptism equally with an immersion of the person. Dr. A. Barnes, in his CovunentarT/ on Acts viii. 38, says, on eis: "Its meaning would be as well expressed by ' to,' or ' unto.' " This is not philological. It is not true. The coming of Philiji and the eunuch " to " or " unto " a certain water, the inspired writer expresses in the 36th verse. Dr. B. says: "Out of twenty -six significations which Schleusner has given the word, this is one." Such is not an honoui-able representation of Schlcusnci-, who says that, " primarily, it signifies hUo, to {in, ad), with an accusative." Dr. B. also says : " It is incumbent on those who maintain that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism, to pi'ove that this passage cannot possibly mean anything else, and that there was no other mode pi'actiscd by the apostles." We emphatically deny this, and elsewhere adduce Dr. 13. and the most eminent Predobap- tist writers on Ikermeneutics, to prove the validity of our denial, and that FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 315 it devolves on Di'. B. and his coadjutors to prove that eis here has any other meaning than its primary one, into. Dr. B. Boothroyd gives into as the rendering of eiV, in Matt, xxviii. 19; Acts"viii, 16; xix. 5; and 1 Cor. i. 13, 15. Nor, though he encourages the idea that immersion is "con- trary to decency," does he dare to give to m, in Acts viii. 38, another rendering than into. On the preposition eis, in all the places to which we have been refer- liag, we can say in the words of the American Baptist, Dr. Wayland, on the commission : "We prefer the preposition into to in in the apostolic formula. Into is the proper translation of the original word. This is a sufficient reason for our preference. ... In the name of any one means by the authority of," &c. — Prin. of the Bap., p. G4. 3. In regard to the preposition ek, wliich before a vowel is written ex. It is maintained by our opjDonents that this preposition should be rendered from where it occurs in connection with baptism. Thus it is maintained that the eimuch came up from the water. We allow that the word from may be used in many instances where the fact is out of. For instance, we may speak of Christ's coming from heaven, although He came out of heaven. We may depart from a house or city in which we have been residing; and an evil spirit may go away from a man that has been possessed of the same. In all these instances, out of is the fact, although from is the expression, and the allowable expression, unless we wish to speak in the most particular manner that is possible, a manner not generally necessary. These statements apply equally to the Greek prepositions apo and eh, as to the English prepositions from and out of. The Greek apo may be used as we use the English from : as, "he de^mrted from Galilee;" "came wise men from the East;" " cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan ;" " went up straightway from the water;" "pull out the mote from thine eye;" "he would depart from their coasts ;" " the unclean spirit is gone from a man ;" " same day went Jesus from the house" {put of, in the common version, Matt, iii. 16; vii. 1; -sdii. 34; xii. 43; xiii. 1); "he departed from Jericho," &c. In all these places, and in vei-y many that might be quoted, it will be admitted, except where baptism is concerned, that though apo, from, is used, and not improperly used, yet out of is the undoubted fact. We are not saying that apo is either always or generally thus used; we are maintaining and proving that ap)0 is frequently thus used : and, indeed, our conviction is, from the length of examination to wliich we have gone, that it is thus used in a considerable majority of instances. But the Greek eh is certainly used very rarely, if indeed, at all, except where there is i\ie fact our of. All instances of its occurrence we are very far from having examined : we would not, therefore, oracularly assert that no exception can possibly be met with. We are confident, howevei-, from the testimony of lexicogi-aphers and critics, that oiU of is the primary and general, if not the universal meaning. We know that in English there would be the greatest impropriety in speaking of a man that he came out of a. house, a city, sleep, or water, if he had not been in the same. To express this out of eh is undoubtedly the Greek word. The same fact we beHeve to be implied in Greek when we read, oti eh tou andros autes elephthe, as in English when we read. SIG IMPORT OF BAPTISM. " because she was taken out of man : " when we read, lesous hekei eh tes loudaias, as when we read, Jesus came ont of Judea. We do not mean that ek may not in certain connections l>e ret)dered by other words than out of; sometimes because /)'o;m or out o/ w\\l make no difterenee in the sense; and sometimes because other words will render the phrase more idiomatic in our tongue. We have the rendering "of" in John xxi. 2, " two other of His disciples." This does not prove that tlie meaning out oj'is not invariably in the Greek ek. " Dr. Sam. Johnson," says Dr. A. Campbell, " gives twenti/ different meanings for the English prepo.si- t\o\\ from, twenty-two ' other manners' of nsing it ; in all, forty-two cases oifrom. These the learned doctor supports by more than seventy quota- tions. Yet the celebrated tlorne Tooke (vol. i., j). 282) explijdes the metaphysics of the doctor, and shows that it was all conceit; tlvAt from has just one meaning, and that is the ineaning which everybody alfixes to it. A cei'tain Mr. Greenwood gives seventeen meanings to the English for; and Dr. Johnson gives no less than forty meanings to it, su}i, out of 920 times in the New Testament, is translated by upon only 158 times, that is, about once in six times : whereas en is translated four times in every five by vn. Yet to sprlnhle upon is never cavilled at l)y a Pjedobaptist ; while to baptize, or immerse in, is always i-epudiated as an unwarrantable licence on the part of a Baptist ! " (p. 158). To ajjo we grant the meaning oi from, and have so rendered it (see pp. 117, 118, ttc.) : for ek we claim the meaning out of; although we admit the ju'o- priety of saying (e^) from heaven, (ek) from the temple, {ek) from the city, {ek) from the grave, &c. If either ek or upo is preceded b}' haptizo en or hapdizo eis, along with pool, bath, river, or water, as one immerses in, and the other immerses into the .same, either ek or apo will, in these cases, bring out of the pool, bath, river, or water. The expression n]>o, from, if it had l)een invai'iably used in connection with a departure from the water of bai-)tism, would not have militated in any degree against the views which Ave entertain ; but the expression ek, out of is an addi- tional proof that baptism is immersion. The conviction is so clear that l)aptism is immersion, that Di'. G. Campbell, and many other learned Ba^dobaptists, have followed tlie English translators in rendering apo, (tilt of, in Matt. iii. IG. We need to assert and satisfactorily to prove nothing furthei- i-especting the import of ek tlian that its \indoubted primary meaning is out of. Greek grammars and lexicons do generally in substance assei't that " ek, in its original meaning, is employed only iu reference to such objects as FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 317 proceed from tJie interior of another object, or from the most intimate connection with it." Thus the grammar of Matthife says: " Genei-ally it denotes a removal from the inside of a place or thing" (p. 997, § 574). Liddell and Scott say: "Radical signification, />o//( out of\ avxiy from ^ op[)osite to e?s." Eobinson says: '■'■Eh., before a vowel ex (Buttm., § 2%. G), a prei^. governing the genitive, with the j^rimary signif out of, from, of; spoken of such objects as were in another (comp. in Apo, init.), but are now separated from it, either in respect of place, time, source, or origin, etc. It is the direct antithesis of eis. Sept. chiefly for min. (See AViner, § 51, pp. 313, 3U, sq.; Matth. § 569. Passow^, art. Ek)" Buttmann gives for ^Uqw, from, of;" for ''ex, out of, from" (p. 409, in Gram., edited by Dr. C. Supf ). Dr. J. R. Beard, editor of Cassell's Popular Educator, gives '^ eis, or es, into; in, on, toward, against, at. E71, in; on, at, among. Ek or ex, out of; from, after" (vol. vi., p. 764). Jelf gives: " Ek, ex. Primary meaning, out, opposed to en, in" (§ 621). Winer gives for '' in, en;" for " into, to, eis;" for " out of, ek;" and for "from, apo" {Gram. 0/ fJie N.T., § 47. 3). He adds: "Beyond doubt, ck indicates the closest connection. The original signification of ek is, issuing from witliin (the compass, sphere of) something. It is antitheti- cal to eis" (pp. 382, 383). "Figuratively, this prep, denotes every sowrce and cause; out 0/ which something flows" (p. 385). Dr. Ewing, in his lexicon, gives for ek, ex, only " out of," and refers to his gi'ammai", where he says: " The signification is always out of" Trollope says: '■'Ek, or ex, from, or out of, differs from apo in referring to such objects as proceed from the interior of another object" {Gram., Y>. 171). Dr. J. J. Owen teaches that ek is the preposition to convey "the idea out of" {Com., on Matt. iii. 16). So "Webster and Wilkinson teach that it is the most appropriate word. — Gr. Tes., on Matt. iii. 16.* It is due to Dr. Carson, who has previously been quoted, again to refer to him, and to quote from him what may be of advantage to some of our readers. A learned opponent having asserted that though ajJO and ck were originally distinct, in the progress of the language they came to be used indiscriminately, and while «^J0 encroached on the pi-ovince of ek, ek in return assumed part of the territories of apo, Dr. Carsox maintains, in reply, that "It is contrary to the tirst pi'inciples of language that prepositions appointed to express different relations shoidd be used to express the same relation. Were this the case, the prepositions wonld be two only in sound ; one of them would cumber rather th:i,ii eiu'ich the language. Thei-e is a sense in which one word may lie said to encroach on the territories of another; that is, it may be used in a situation which another usually tills. But this is not properly an encroachment. So far as it properly goes, the territories are its om'u. The territory occupied hy both belongs exclusively to neither. It is common, and either may be used at pleasure. But consistently with this joint reign, each may have a pecidiar territory, into which it is iisurpation in the other to enter. Were it true, according to the learned writer, that apo and ek at random usurp each other's territories, it would be impossible for criticism to ascertain anything from their use. Language woidd be inctqiahh of definite meanhuj. From my own account * To have quoted lexicons and grammars which give the meaning of Greek preposi- tions in Latin, woixld not have been so explicit to some readers, the Latin not being so definite as the English and Greek, the same word in Latin having the meaning of in when followed by the ablative, and of into -nhen followed by the accusative case. Hence may be found ''apo, a vel ab ; ek, ex, ex ; ei.'s, ad, in ; en, in." 318 ■ IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of them, it is clear that in a vast multitiitle of instances they may be used in the same place, optionally. But even here it is possible to discriminate them. Each of them has in every instance its own distinctive meaning. I may say in English, this friend is out of Glasgow, or from Glasgow, yet out of and from are not the same. The one expression denotes that the point of departiu-e was in the city; the other may have its point of departure either in or at the city. There are cases also in which the English preposition could not be used in the same situation. In a besieged city, the expression, 'this soldier has come out of the city,' is very different from 'this soldier has come from the city.' I assert, then, tliat the fact that these prepositions may be used often in the same situation, is no evidence that they have not their characteristic meaning ; and far less is it evidence that they are in all things indiscriminate. While they have a common territory, each has a province of its own. Even when apo is used where ek might be used, there is this difference, that the former is not definite, and does not mark the idea which the use of the other would have marked. I call the attention of critics to this distinc- tion as one of vast importance " (p. 136). He proceeds to dejirecate the idea that if two words are interchange- able in one situation, they may, therefore, wherever the critic i^leases, be supposed interchangeable J and to maintain " that two words with mean- ings characteristically distinct, may have in other things a common province, while there are laws to ascei'tain the extent of the common province, and to limit each within its peculiar boundaiy." He also maintains " that in the common j^rovince each expresses its ovm mean- ing;" and he takes up in detail all the examples adduced by his learned opponent, in order to disprove his opponent's assertions. Afterwards, lie says : "I have followed the -wi-iter through all his examjiles, and have wrested them out of his hands. But tMs was more than my cause required. There is not one of the examples that corresponds to the subject of our debate. Our contest respects a case in which there is o'eal motion, and a change of position from one point to another. It respects departui'e and ariival. Now, there is no example to the purpose in which there is not a change of place. The preposition ek might be used with respect to other tilings in which the primary idea could not be discovered ; while, with respect to real change of place, the distinction might be universally presei-ved. ... I conclude, then, with all the authority of demonstration, that Philip and the eunuch were loithin the water, because they came out of it" (p. 140). Prof. Wilson, on Dr. Carson, says: "Many of his remarks on the meaning of the Greek prej^ositions are conceived in the best spii'it of a judicious and enlightened criticism, and they elucidate general principles Avhich are essential to the right interpretation of language" (p. 237). Without implying that we have reason to boast of acquaintance Avith the Greek language, we hesitate not to assert our conviction that the Greek vocabulary in its wide, definite, and admirable range, does not contain words whereby moi-e clearly and jiositively to assert the following, than those chosen by the Spirit of inspiration, and recorded in Mark i. 5, 9, 10; and Acts viii. 38, 39. "And there went out unto him- all the land (or country) of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all immersed by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." " Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was immersed by John into the Jordan; and immediately coming up from the water," &c. " And he commanded the chariot to stand (still) : and they went down both into the watei*, both Philip and the eunuch; and he immersed him. But (or and) when they FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 819 came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Loi-d," &c. We do not forget that there is in Greek the -word hapto (which has more significations than one) ; and that there are other words which we need not mention. Probably on no passage of Scripture have the writings of Psedobap- tists shovrn in a higlier degree the influence of prepossessions in blinding to a perception of what is untrue, unjust, and impolitic, than in what has been written on the baptism of the eunuch. Dr. Wall is forgotten or disregarded in all that he says I'especting the impolicy and dishonesty of not granting to an adversary Avhat is certainly true and can be proved so, because it creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. Dr. G. Campbell has been altogether disregarded as to his statement that a disputant who proceeds in defiance of the etymology and use of the word, and in defiance of the evidence of antiquity respecting the general practice, "never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend." We are told by our Methodist brother, Mr. S. (p. 216), that if the translation into the water, and out o/'the water " were admitted, it would fall short of the required proof, as it is possible to go into the water and not be immersed. Had pouring been the mode in which the ordinance Av^as administered, the same form of narrative might with equal propriety have been adopted." We admit the p)ossihility of a person's going into water, and having water poured vipon him whilst in the water : but let any man read " and he poured him," or substitute " poured " for " bap- tized" in other places, and then gi^-e an opinion whether 2>our could loith equal lyropriety be adoj^ted, or whether it can possibly be the meaning of haptho. The next sentence in Mr. S. declares the possibility of going down into the water for the purjiose of sprinkling. But if we admit its possibility, what strength of argument in favour of sin-inkling is involved in what all the world and all ages appear to have regarded as incongruous and ridiculous] "Besides," says Mr. S., "the very same thing is said of Philip that is said of the eunuch. One action is asci-iljed to both. If the latter went into the water, so did the former: and if this implies immersion in one case, it cannot imply less in the other." Here Mr. S. is honoured by the company of Drs. Dwight, Stuart, Miller, and Alexander; not to mention others. Dr. D., in holding up the Baptists to contempt, thus scandalizes himself on the Avi-iting of the Divine Spirit: " They went down both into the water; that is, they Avere both plunged." Dr. Stuart says: "I haA-e another remark to make on kate- bescui ampJioteroi eis to hudor. This is, if katehesan eis to hudor is meant to designate the act of plunging, or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then Avas Philip baptized as well as the eiinuch, for the sacred Avriter says that both Avent into the Avater." Dr. Miller says: "There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that the eimucli Avas." Dr. WardiaAV says truly : ' ' The act of baptizing is something quite distinct from either the going down into the icafer, or the coming up out of it" (p. 151). Again, '■'■Both went do\vn, and both came up, biit one only M'as baptized" (p. 152). And the good doctor is amazed that even his Baptist friends do not perceive that this "sets aside the whole of their argument derived from the modes of expression employed— j/oi/ir; doivn into, and coming up out of, the water; the one being so clearly previous, and the other subsequent, to the act of baptizing " (p. 152). There 320 IMPORT OF BAPTlS^r. is nothing corroborative of immersion in (johuj doivn into, and coming up out of, because these are not the intervening action, baptism! It is matter of "astonish- ment," yea, it is "passing strange" that the Baptists do not see this! Of course whether baptism is pouring, sprinkling, piu'ifying, or immersion, there is always a ffoing doTini into the water, and a coming up out of it on the i>art of the baptizer and the baptized ! Without doubt, we Baptists — and greatly it is to be deplored — are "much more ingenious than ingenuous." For "if these two phrases [going clown into the tvater and coming up out of if] had any reference at all to the mode of bap- tism, it would follow that Philip was immersed under the Avater, and emerged out of it, as well as the eunuch ; which no one supposes " (p. 151). Dr. Gumming says: "But this passage does not prove immersion more than sprinkling ; for it is said that not only did the eunuch go into the water, but that Philip went; they both went into the water; but the most severe advocates of immersion, at least so I believe, for I have never seen an immersion, do not hold that both the minister and the recipient ought to be immersed in the water at the same time" ( IVie Church before the Flood, p. 284). Yet these doctors can at other times recommend a literal translation and the interjireting of Scripture "according to its i^lain, gi-ammatical, and obvious sense. " A. Pirie says : "If this [els'] signifies plunging, then Philip and the eunuch must have been both plunged on this occa- sion" (On Bap., p. 40). ^Vlio under the heavens has ever taught that "the Greek word eis, rendered into," signifies plunging? Dr. L. Woods .says: "The mere cir- cumstance of going into the water no moi'e proves that the eunuch was immersed, than it proves that Philip was." "The passage may be just as well rendered, ' They descended to the water, and ascended. /j"oto it.' " — ( Works, vol. iii., p. 448.) D. Fraser, writing for the enlightenment of Mr. Spurgeon and the Baptists, teaches that "this meaning of eis, as marking the motion towards, and into, the place within which the liaptism is effected, will liecome still more manifest and certain, if we consider its use in connection with the eunuch's baptism (Acts viii. 38)." He further teaches that "both the motion itself of going — ' They went down both' — and the preposition 'into,' applying equally to the eunuch and Philip, cannot possibly be connected with the baptism; for the baptism followed, and was consequent upon, their going down both 'into.'" Also he .says: "In connection with eis, as in entire harmony with en, we might refer to apo and eh. . . . The two prepositions apo and ek, are altogether opposed to immersion, and, marking the egress from, as eis marks the progress into, in the strongest possiljle inanner confirm the meaning that we must attach to eis in the jmssages referred to." But further, the prepositions ' ' indicate, in the strongest possible manner, that Scriptural bap- tisms were administered only by sprinkling" (pp. 4l\-^). Thus Philip sjirinkled the eunuch in the water, as John before had jwured or sprinkled "within the Jordan, and with the waters of Jordan as the means " (p. .S9). G. Taylor writes the following, including the words within brackets: "WHiat say you to the instance of Philip and the eunuch? Philip in company with the eimuch 'came to water; ami he couimaudcd the chariot to stand still; and they went down l)oth into the water [here is immersion], and he baptized him ' [here is baptism]." — Facts and Evi., 2)p. 17, 18. li. Watson says: "Nothing is said of the eunuch which is not said of Philip, 'They went down both into the water,' 'and when they were come up out of the water,' and so Phili}) must have immersed himself as well as the eunuch" {Ins., vol. iv., ]». 457). On the glaring omission of "and he baptized him," we will not now allow ourselves to comment. When sui'veying the whole, do we not justify Dr. Garson's words : "It is astonishing how silly wise men Avill become, when they attempt to force the Word of God." They know not what they do. Dr. J. A. Alexander. — "That the i>]irase [they went down into the water] does not necessarily imply sidmiersion, is moreover clear from the consideration that such an inference would i)rove too much for those who draw it, namely, that the baptizer must himself be totally immersed" (On Acts viii. 38). Before quitting this, we might mention that possibly Dr. ,1. Bennett supplies us with as dashing logic on this jxn-tion f>f Scripture as any of his honoured brethren. He wishes us to learn from the question and assertion of the eunuch respecting baptism and water that, '^ vhin-cver tlierc is water, a person may be baptized. ' " 'Behold, water; what hinders me to be baptized?' intimating that, wherever there is water, a person may be baj)tized. But this can be true only on the suppo- FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 321 sition thcat any quantity may suffice. " Is it not sagacity worthy of a diploma to have discovered this intimation? Who will wonder at his subsequent assertion, " The api^lication of water to the body, 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ' is bajitism, howcA'er the mode of administration may be varied." Nor are we unprepai'ed for the outrageous declaration in the same page, "As they both went down into the water, and one of them, Philip, was not immersed, there is no proof that the other was" {Lee. on Aets, p. 135), Would there have been as candid an admission that "they Avent down both into the water," if prejudice had not conducted to inferences so erroneous? What could be more disingenuous, and, as to some of the expressions, more untrue, than what these learned men have asserted ? If tile fact of both going into the Avater proves the baptism of both, then at all our watering places the men and women who go down into the water along with the bathing machines, are bathed themselves along with those who go into the water to bathe; yes, and we might as well add, the horses and the machines are bathed too. Possibly it may be said that this is in reply to the assertions of Baptists that there is proof in this 2:)assage that baptism is immersion. But what Baptist asserts that going down into the water describes the act of baptism ] The going down both of Philip and the eunuch into the water is distinctly narrated ; but it is after the explicit mention of this fact, that we read, " and he baptized him." In these last words the rite of baptism is described. We are thus told in language that needs not be misunderstood, that Pliilip baptized the eunuch. The eunuch liad previously expressed his Avish to be baptized. Philip's consent is now practically given. Philip was the agent and the eunuch was the siibject. The going down into the water and the baptizing are two distinct actions. The former, it is true, was preparatory to tlie latter; and also, as we maintain, opposes the idea that baptism is pouring or sprinkling, as no sect of people, Christian or heathen, of wliich we are aware, in all the world, in any age, has ever adopted the practice of going down into the water to be sjn-inkled on the face;* wliilst it affords irrefragable confirmation of immersion as the meaning of baptism, from the fact that going down into the water is the almost invariable and necessary precursor of immersion, when one person solemnly immerses another into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "And again," says Mr. S. (p. 216), "the prepositions eis and ek, though often meaning into and 02't of, have frequently the sense of to and from, and may, with undeniable correctness, be represented by these particles, save wliere the necessity of the passage obviously demands the former." We are sorry that our esteemed brother should so far depart from the learned and admii'ed Presbyterian Professor, to whom for once we can refer -vvith appi-oval. Prof Wilson teaches, on Exodus xxx. 19, that " the literal rendering " of " ex autou" is " out of it " (p. 1 69). He also says : " That ek strictly and properly contemplates the point of dejiai-ture as loithin the object denoted by its regimen, is demonstrated by our more philosophical grammarians, and ably maintained by Dr. Carson" (p. 478). Thus Dr. D. Brown, on Christ's baptism, says: * We would not deny that, after the adoption of pouring or sprinkling as the substi- tute for immersion, the absurdity of which we are speaking has by no individuals ever been adopted. 322 IMPORT OF BAPTISM, "Mark has ^out o/the water' [e^]." The sentence of Mr. S. is replete with fallacy. A person reading it miglit conclude that the primary meaning of eis and eh is to and from, and that a deviation from this rendering is only justifiable when the connection renders these particles (to and from) inadmissible. Or he might believe that to and from, with as much propriety and tnith as into and out of, may be regarded as the primary meaning of these Greek prepositions. The very lexicon he quotes teaches that into and out of are the primary meaning of these words, and, consequently, that they should be so rendered, except where the connection will allow other wox-ds to convey this meaning, or where the connection evidently requires another rendering. Mr. S. says: " ^ Eis,' says E-obinson, and he confii-ms his statement by references to Winer, Passow, and others, ' governs the accusative, with the primary idea of motion into any place or thing, and then also of motion or direction to any place, thing, &c. The antithesis is expressed by ek' " (p. 217). This we admit, and it is all that we want. That eis, whose primary and general meaning is into, signifies also to and unto, we are far from denymg. But how are the next sentences a logical deduction from the words of Robinson] Where is the justice to the lexicographer, or to Holy Writ? He says "The exact meaning of the preposition depends upon its connection. According to the verb with Avhich it is construed, it signifies direction to an object, or enti'ance into it." What is the intention of the first sentence? We will not answer, although we have proposed the question. Few are the words, except words of mode, that in every connection have one invariable import. But why does not Mr. S., in imitation of his lexicographer, give into before to? Why does he reverse tliis order? Has not he liimself repeatedly corrected our translation of unto, and told us that eis means into? Has he not assured us that in Mark i. 9, eis would have meant into, if it had been followed by to hudor, instead of being followed by ton lordanen? Here is eis followed by to hudor, but, alas, for us Bap- tists! preceded by the yerh^emmbaino, instead of the verb bajytizo; and, as " there is nothing in the passage to coiintenance immersion more than sprinkling, the syntax affording as much proof of one as of the other," there is, of course, a rule in syntax, although we have not yet seen it, which teaches that els, in the positions mentioned, and for the reasons specified, would be improperly rendered into! We venture to say that independently of the meaning of haptizo, the words eis hudor ought to conduct into the watei', whether for sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, our Psedobaptist brethren who are willing to follow the practice of apostolic times. But our brother refers us to use, sacred and profane, in justification of his assertions. He next says: " In the passage under review the verb is katabaino, to go down, and is followed equally by both prepositions, as the sense of the passage may require. When Plato, in the very first line of his Republic, says: Kateben chtlies eis Peiraia meta Glaukonos tou Aristonos, ' Yesterday I went down to the Pirreus, with Glaucon, the son of Ariston,' to, and not into, is manifestly the preferable read- ing. It is thus in a variety of places in the New Testament : * He went down to Capernaum ; ' ' the Avay that goeth down from Jerusalem FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 323 to Graza;' 'they came down to Troas;' 'he went down to Antioch', &c." (P. 217.)* We regard these passages as a very unhappy selection for Mr. S. Whatever may be said of the preferableness, or of the admissibility of the rendering to, is it not a fact, in accordance with the expression in Greek, that Plato went down into the Piraeus? that Jesus went down into Capernaum'? that the way spoken of goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza? that Paiil and Timothy came do'wn into Troas? that Paul went down into Antioch? By eis our opponents are willing to be led to the edge of the water; but does eis in the above passages lead only to the borders of the places mentioned, and not into those places? We admit that the Greek eis may be used for xmto and to, biit if eis "will not take into a town or countiy, or into water, what word in the Greek language will take into'i It would be just as truthful were our friends to say that there is no evidence in Matt. ii. 14, that Joseph "took the young ohild and his mother by night and departed into Egypt;" and in John ii, 12, that Christ ever went down into Capernaum, as to say that there is no evidence that Philip and the eunuch ever went down into the water. " With the exactest grammatical pi'opriety we may" maintain any one, if " with the exactest grammatical propriety we may " maintain the last, "the spitax affording as much proof of one as of the other." As it is maintained, and very properly, that the preposition eis, in the very law of baptism, has its obvious and most common acceptation, into, what can be more appropriate, yea, necessary, than to regard it as having the same sense when elsewhere used in connection with the ordinance of baptism, imless siich a rendering would involve evident obscurity or absurdity? Let the reader take into account facts and "circumstantial probabilities," and judge whether " the balance appears decidedly against immersion," or decidedly against sprinkling or pouring. If the preposi- tions eis and elc were as ambiguous in their impoi-t as some of our P?edo- baptist brethren teach when writing on the subject of baptism, it is a doubtful matter whether Christ ever came out of heaven, or ever entered again into heaven; Avhether He ever came out of the grave, or indeed ever entered into it; whether any of us will ever be received into heaven or cast into hell ; and those who have been accustomed to believe from Josephus that Pompey entered the holy of holies, may learn from the preposition used, vague as it is, that he only went to it, and that he stood at the edge of the veil. But Ave have not yet exhausted the evidence against immersion from going into the Avater, &c. Dr. Stuart has said: "As to emerging out of water, I can find no such meaning attached to anahaino." We do not say that out of ivater is a part of the meaning of anabaino; but Ave maintain that it means to come up; to ascend. Thus Ave read in Matt. xvii. 27. "Take up the fish that first cometh up" {anahanta). In Eph. iv. 9 : " Now that he [anebe) ascended, what is it but that he also {katehe) descended first {eis) into the lower parts of the earth." In Rev. xiii. 1 : " I saAv a beast rise up out of the sea " {ek tes thalasses anahainon). So the Septuagint describes the ascending of gods out of the earth, and of * John ii. 12; Acts viii. 26; xvi. 8; xviii. 22; xxv. 26. 324 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Samuel (1 Sam. xxviii. 13, 14). Thus Barnabas in his epistle, sec. 11, says : " There wan a riAer, and, anahaineii ex autou, out of it rose beautiful trees;" and thus Herodotus uses ekbaino, when he says of the crocodile, ekbe ek tou liudatos, it cometh out of the ivater. We do not maintain that hatahcdno and anahaino will, without other words, take a person into water and bring a person out of water, or immerse a person in the water. We do not say that because Rebekah (Gen. xxiv, 16) " went down to the well," she, therefore, bathed herself. She " filled her pitcher, and came up." The import of anahaino and katahaino is as definite in Greek as are the terms rising up and going down in English. Yet when Dr. Stuai-t " analyzes the idea of katahaino" he finds that it indicates the action performed before reaching a place, approximation to it, and not the entering into it. We do not maintain that katahaino expresses more than the act of going doAvn; then eis expresses into; and to hudoi', the water. Nothing can be more plain and undeniable than the English and the Greek, and nothing more clearly fallacious and unjust than what Dr. Stuart asserts. Let any person adduce any Greek writer of any period in the world's history, who has used the words katehesan eis to liudor, with any other meaning than "they went down into the water." The same Prof. Stuart could find no place where aj)0 " is applied to denote a movement out of liquid into the aii'," just as if the fact of having entei'ed into the Jordan ceased to be a fact, because a person having entered into the same is said to come from it; just as if, can we not meet with a case in every respect parallel, we are at liberty to pervert the meaning of a preposition (eis), and the record of a fact, exactly as our convenience and likings may prompt ns. He did not, however, remember that Homer makes Aurora rise xip iap okeanoiC), from the sea [II., 19, 1); that a fish, in Tobit 6, 2, leaped {ajM tou pota- inou) from the river j that Callimachus, in his hymn to A2:)ollo (line 110), says: "The Cretans do not bring water to Ceres {ajJo) from every river;" and in his hymn on tlie bath of Minerva (lines 45, 46), says: "To-day, ye water-bearers, do not bathe; to-day, Grecians, drink ye (apo) from the fountains, and not {cqw 2)otamon) from the rivei*s." These are like other cases \A\exe from may be used in English, as apo in Greek, but the sense and fixct are undoubtedly out of. Nor has this word a different meaning when used by Herodian (1>. i., ch. xiv.) respecting "the image of Pallas brought ^-wxy {apo) from Troy," although in this case and in many more the movement is not out of liquid into the air. We would refer all those Avho maintain that we may here read with propriety, "and they went down both to the water," to verse 36, where we read: "And as they went on their way they came {epi ti hudor) unto a certain water." Wc maintain that having come to the Avater is recorded in verse 36, and that going down into it is recorded in verse 38. Thus we read in Mark xvi. 2, "And very early in the moi-ning they came {epi) to the sejwlchrc at the rising of the siui, and entering {eis) into the sepulchre," &c. So in John vi. 16, 17, " And when even was now come, his disciples went down (not eis, into, Init epi) tinto the sea, and entered {eis) into a ship." Again, in Acts xii. 10, "When they were past the first and the second ward, they came FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 325 (epi) unto the iron gate that leacleth {eisY "into the city." The altering of into in this passage, by Pjedobaptist writers, is in defiance of every exegetical as well as of every philological rule. But it is said that although they had previously come to the water, the present to is connected with katahaino, and is used to express the descent from the chariot to the water. Were we, however, to grant this hypothesis, which appears to be invented to pi-eserve from an entering into the water, we must necessarily unite ek with anahaino, and then we have what is equally opposed to fact with all other hypotheses and objec- tions, namely, that both Philip and the eunuch again entered the chariot. Instead of this, the inspired writer says: "And when they came up out of the water, the tSpirit of the Lord caught away Philip, tliat the eiuiuch saw him no more : and he went on his way rejoicing." We cannot feel or write otherwise than strongly whilst having the conviction tliat, had the inspii-ed writers wished to convey the idea of going down into the water and coming up out of it, " the Greek language could not have supplied them with any other words so proper as those which they have chosen;" and that a translation, there is reason to believe, " is not extant, where these ideas are not conveyed." To the conclusion of JVIr. Thorn, that "Jerome knew the spot well," and "calls it a small brook," it is iiunecessary to say more than that small brooks in diflerent countries are often in some portion of their course proving sufficient for immersion. If it is satisfactorily proved that Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, we need not reply to the fancy of Dr. Miller, that " pro- bably destitute of any convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the stream, they both went down to the water," for the purpose of taking up " a small portion of it, to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch." We deem it as clear that the Spirit of inspiration has recorded another fact, as it is extravagant and ridiculous to suppose that such a man as the eunuch, on his journey, had no vessel fit to carry as much water as would sprinkle him with a few drops, a sufficiency of which one of his servants might have brought in the hollow of his hand. The supposition of the doctor is worthy of him who can charge the Baptists with imposing on popular credulity. " We can afford to leave imposition and credulity to those who need them." It is worthy of note that that Clu'istian baptism which with the greatest particularity is narrated in the sacred wi-itings, is that of a person who is from home, who is travelling, and who is passing through the desert part of Judea. The Holy Spirit has selected this instance in which to state particularly the publication of the Gospel, the reception of the Gospel, a coming unto water, a going down into the water on the part of both Philip and the eunuch, an immersing of the eunuch by Philip, their coming up out of the water, Philip's being carried away of the Spirit unto Azotus, and the eunuch's going on his way rejoicing. Should not the Pfedobaptists regard it as ominous of a bad cause when they have to reject, first, what they deem the primary meaning of the verb bcqHizo, and then to deny to each of three prepositions, viz., en, eis, * In the English authorized version unto is here given instead of into. Not so, Beza, Castalio, Doddridge, and others. 326 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. and ek, what they acknowledge to be the primary, the plainest, and most Tisual meaning'? and to ek its only meaning, as admitted by some of the most learned Ptedobaptists themselves? On tlie baptism of the eunuch taking place in the desert, some remarks will be found in subsequent quotations. We read of John the Baptist "preaching in the wilderness of Judea" (Matt. iii. 1). It is evident that some place near the Jordan received such a designation, and conseqiiently that the place in which the eunuch saw water being denominated a desert, in no degree militates against thei-e being a suffi- ciency of water for immersion. It is our painful conviction that the treatment by many of the P?edobaptists of the Greek prepositions en^ eis, and ek, in order to ojjpose immersion and to favour pouring or sprinkling, involves a violation of universally - acknowledged i-ules of interpretation, sets at defiance the most clearly established historical facts, and, if allowed, would enable us to deny the Deity and atonement of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spiiit, and every cherished truth and gloiious doctrine of God's holy and blessed Word. Some of these rules of interpretation we will give, after which we may quote from one or more of the Psedobap- tists who despise and reject those miserable subterfuges of many of their brethi-en, the admission of which, as we believe, they themselves perceive, would admit eveiy assertion of the Socinian, if not eveiy negation of the Infidel. If en hudati means not in water, and eis hudor into water, what is the meaning of in aqud, and in aquam ? and where is the evidence that any person or thing was ever put into, oi- was ever in, a bath, the sea, a river, or water ? and where is the evidence that any jierson ever did or could come out of the same 1 But having admitted eis to mean into in the command to baptize, why not, consistently with themselves and with acknowledged rules of interpretation, admit this to be its meaning before the Jordan and before water] Let Acts viii. 38 be admitted as a clear case of immersion; and let those who agree with Mr. Thorn, that "there is no question that the mode was the same in all cases," act consistently with their convictions. We may here mention that Dr. Halley, who has " no objection to the translation ' into Jordan,' " is here chargeable with no sophistry, as he has shown his policy in passing by this portion of Scrij^ture. Silence in Di-. Stuart Avo\dd have been more politic than saying that although his opponents "should suppose that eiS took a man in to the knees, or even to the loins, it would never prove that he went over the head. Nay, at this depth he might be sprinkled with fully as much ease as he could be dii)ped, and the baptizer would have this advantage', there woidd be no stooping in order to reach the water." Amongst the violated rules of interpretation are the following : — Hooker.— "I hold for a most infallible rule m expositions of Scriiitnre, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words as alchemy doth, or would do, the substance of metals, maketh of anything what it listeth, and briugeth in the end all truth to nothing." — Polity, book v. ViTKiNGA. — ' ' This is accounted by all a constant and undoubted rule of approved FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 827 interpretatioxi ; that the ordinary and most usual signification of words must not be deserted, except for sufficient reasons." — De Syn. Vet., 1. i., pars, i., c. iii. Dr. Addington. — "If there are two translations of a word, one of which is certainly true, and the other may be false, it is easy to say which the wise and candid would prefer." — Chr. Min. Rea., p. 34. Dr. Doddridge. — "It seems desirable, where it can be done, to interpret the particles in their most usual sense." — On Mark ix. 49. Bp. Taylor. — "In all things where the precept is given in the proper style of laws, he that takes the first seuse is the hkeliest to be well guided. ... In the interpretation of the laws of Christ, the strict sense is to be followed." — Duct. Dub., b. i., c. i. ; b. ii., c. ii. Dr. Waterland. — "Since words are designed to convey some meaning, if we take the liberty of playing upon words after the meaning is fixed and certain, there can be no security against eqviivocation and wile, in any laws, or any engagements whatever. All the ends and uses of speech will hereby be perverted." — Sup. to Case of Arian Subs., pp. 9, 10. Dr. Williams. — "Just criticism requires that similar renderings should be given to similar phrases in the same connection." — Vol. i., p. 166. Hence, Mr. Alsop, speaking of men pressed with express Scripture, taunts them with its being "advisable to cast about, to turn their thoughts into all shapes imaginable, to hunt for the extremest probabilities. If a word, a phrase, an expres- sion, is but capable of another sense, let it be probable or improbable, true or false, agreeable to the scope of the passage, or alien, all is a case." — Antisozzo, p. 549. Thus uniformly do our opponents reprobate in theory the adoj)tion, without strong reasons, of a rare, in preference to an ordinary sense. Before Ave, in conclusion, quote any Psedobaptist author on the import of ek, or on the baptism of the eunuch, we will quote two or three Baptist writers. GiBBS. — "The attempts which have been made to overthrow the fact here recorded, by disputing the proper signification of the Greek prepositions, is puerile in the extreme ; and desperate must be that cause which requires to be supported by such an expedient." — Def. of the Bap., p. 78. Dr. A. Campbell.— " Now the difference between them and us here is just this : we take \hQ first meaning, that is, the most common meaning in all cases as respects this ordinance; we take the first meaning of hapfizo, baptismos, eis, en, ek, apo. We uniformly take the first or primary, which is the litei-al import of the terms in dispute. But my opponents take the sixth meaning of one and the eleventh mean- ing of another, just as it suits their humour. " "I have proposed to be guided in ascertaining the import of the original words by the verdict of the translators of the common version, trammelled, as they were, by King James's authority. For although they were prohibited by the king from translating bapto and baptizo into English, when they had reference to this ordi- nance,* yet in no one instance did they translate these words by to pour, to j^our out, or to sprinJde; nor ever did they in one instance translate rhaino or rhantizo by to dip, immerse, or plunge. Has Mr. Maccalla controverted these facts ? No. I also px'oposed to take any modern translation wliatever, and from it alone prove that immersion is the only baptism. Has Mr. Maccalla acceded to this overture ? No. I have also proposed to take the common or literal meaning of the terms in disjjiite as given by Greek lexicograiihers, and as used by Greek writers, sacred and classical, and to abide by their decision. Has Mr. M. acceded to this proposal ? No. Now, what is his course ? It is simply this : First, to adopt no standard of appeal; to fix on no definite terms. But it is, secondly, to throw everything into uncertainty, by representing these terms as ambiguous by vague allusions to their figurative use, and by one of the grossest sophisms, /«ifocia accidentis; as when we say a thing must be so, because it may accidentally be so ; + I say this is his course * Baptizo alone is used by the sacred writers in apphcation to this ordinance. + To such deception as this the words of Dr. A. Campbell apply: " 'Out of the water ' [ek). This preposition stands opposed to eis, ' into ;' and as that may mean to, so this may mean /ram." — Com. of Barnes, on Acts viii. 39. 328 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of darkening, confounding, and perplexing the suliject, and, at the same time, the minds of the auditors. We have again and again shown tliat in all institutes and ordinances, civil or religious, the words are to be taken literally, or in their commonly-received sense ; and more especially in positive appointments. " Mr. M.'s method of ascertaining the true meaning of the terms in dispute may be illustrated very clearly by a very slight reference to the most common occurrences in a figurative style. Catiline was called the head of the faction ; Emmet, the keystone of the conspiracy ; Talleyrand, the eye of France. Here the words head, keystone, and eye, are used figuratively. Suppose a thousand years hence a con- troversy should arise about the meaning of these terms. A scholar would say that head literally denoted the most important member of an animal ; but a sophist would, on my ojiponent's principle, say, By no means, for instances can be produced, of great antiquity and i-espectability, which show that it signified a whole man; and then comes the argument, the sophistical argument, Catiline was called a head, but Catiline was a man ; therefore the term head denoted a man. Just so of the terms eye and keyntone, &c. A scholar affirms that the term melt signifies to liquefy, to dissolve, commonly by means of heat. No, says a sophist, for 1 once read of a whole congregation vidting into tears ; but they did not become liquid. There- fore the term to melt cannot signify to convert into a liquid state, by means of heat. A thousand instances might be adduced to expose the sophistry of Mr. M.'s criticisms. These suffice to show how easily the sophistry may be detected." — Debate, pp. 276-278. B. "W. Noel quotes the following from Robinson's Researches in Palestine: — "There were several ways leading from Jerusalem to Gaza: one by Eamleh, one by Bethshemish, and the other through Eleutheroiwlis, and thence to Gaza through a more southern tract. The latter now actually passes thnmgh the desert, that is, through a tract of country without villages, inhabited only by nomadic Arabs. . . . When we were at Tell-el-hasy, and saw the water standing along the bottom of the adjacent Waddy, we could not but remark the coincidence of several circumstances Avith the account of the eunuch's baptism. This water is on the most direct route from Beit-Jibrin to Gaza on the most southern road fi-om Jerusalem, and in the midst of the country now 'desert,' that is, without villages or fixed habitations. There is at present no other similar water on this road ; and the way to Gaza, the chariot, and the subsequent linding of Philip at Azotus, go to show that the transaction took place in or near this place" (vol. ii., p. 041). Mr. Noel, after oppo.sing Psedo- baptist suppositious respecting the baptism of the eunuch, mentions, "5. It is unlikely that the Ethiopian wo>ild allow Philip to take the troul)le of descending to the water, when one of his attendants could so easily bring the water to the chariot. 6. It is utterly iraproljable that a man of wealth ^^■ould cross the desert without having a supply of water for himself and his attendants more than sufficient for the required sprinkling; and, therefore, the eunuch woidd have asked for bap- tism before coming to the pond, if the rite had been performed by sprinkling. When Mr. Stephens set out for Ivlount Sinai from Cairo, one of his camels cari-ied ' two of the largest skins containing filtered water of the Nile ' (Stephens, vol. i. , p. 232). When Dr. Wilson and his party were setting out on the same joiu-ney, their supply of water required four camels for its conveyance (Wilson, vol. i., p. 107). 'At Bethulie,' says Lamartine, ' there is a good spring. An Arab drew water for an hour to satisfy the horses and to fill the jars hung from the saddles of our mules. There is no more m ater as far as Jericho, a journey of ten or twelve hours ' (De Lamartine, Voyacje en Orient). We may be sure that in that hot climate a man of rank and wealth would not be without the comfort of water-skins on his journey, especially as he had Ijefore him the desert of Shur, which he must cross before he could reach the Nile. If it be objected that the eunuch would not sit in his wet clothes, 1 answer that Gaza, towards which they were travelling, lies in latitude 31°29', nearly ten degrees south of Naples; that if the eunuch was returning from Jerusalem after either of the three great festivals, he Avould find the sky cloudless, since the interval between the early and the latter rains is without clouds, and that beneath that Ijurning sun he would be exposed to no danger, and to little incon- venience, if his under linen-garments, which alone would be immersed, dried upon his pei'son, if he threw around him other dry clothing; and if he did suffer.any inconvenience, it was a slight test of his sincerity, in which he would i-cjoice. "But it is unnecessary to suppose that he submitted to this inconveuienco. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 329 Meroe, in Upper Niibia, over which Queen Candace reigned, was at this time ' one of the richest countries upon the earth' {Kiffo, 'Candace')- She was, therefore, a wealthy sovereign, and the eunuch was her treasurer (ver. 27). From Jerusalem, wliich is at nearly the thirty-second degree, north latitude, to the city of Meroe, Av hich lay about the eighteenth degree, north latitude, the distance^was fourteen degrees of latitude ; and j)art of tlie journey, from Gaza to the Delta of Egypt, he would have to cross the edge of the wildei'ness of .Shur, of which we read (Exodus XV. 22). A rich man, Avith such a journey to accomjilish, would certainly provide himself with tents. AVhen Dr. Hobinson describes his preparations for a journey from Suez to Sinai, he says : ' A tent was to he purchased and fitted up ; water- skins were to be procured,' &c. (Rob., vol. i., p. 49.) Dr. Wilson, with reference to the same journey, says : ' Mr. Smith and I purchased a small tent for ourselves, and one for our servants' (Wilson, vol. i., p. 107). And Mr. Stephens thus describes his entrance on this desert : ' I rode on in silence and alone for nearly two hours ; just as the sun was siidcing behind the dark mountains of Mokattam, I halted to wait for my little caravan ; and I pitched my tent for the first night in the desert, with the door opening to the distant land of Goshen' (Stephens, vol. i., p. 330). The treasurer of Candace was not without his tent. . . . One such instance of immersion is enough to prove the apostolic practice ; for unless the apostles had generally immersed the converts, Philip would certainly not have felt himself at liberty to immerse the Ethiopian ; if sprinkling had been the practice of baptism at Jerusalem, where there was every convenience of baths, Philip would certainly have preferred sprinkling where there were no conveniences for immersion. He immersed because the a[)ostles immersed ; and they immersed because Christ said, ' Go ye and teach all nations, immersing them ' " (pp. 89-92). I. T. HiNTON. — "The mode of the administration of the ordinance is here clearly detailed. ' And they went down Ijoth into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.' It might well be deemed impossible that any state- ment could be more specific than this. Does any Baptist recpiire any other words to describe correctly the administration of the ordinance as practised by him ? Supjwse I were writing to a friend resjiecting the baptism of a young man : ' We both walked into the waters of our magnificent lake, and there I baptized (immer- sed) him in the name of the triune Jehovah ; and when he came up out of the water, the smile of heaven was depicted on his countenance. ' I ask, is it possible any human being capable of understanding the English language can misapprehend in any point the ])hysical act performed? If perfctly intelligible in one case, how can the same language be obscure or doubtful in the other? " It is urged that this was ' in the desei-t ; ' but, as already observed, the Hebrews mean by desert an uncultivated place. ' Some deserts were beautiful, and had good jiastures' (Calmet. Art. Desert). I cannot see any propriety in reducing all the beautiful deserts to barren wastes, and their streams to a bowl of water, for the convenience of my Ptedobaptist friends. Besides, if a few di-ojis of water only were wanted, travellers through the deserts always had a good supply for men and beasts ; and surely a few drops might have been spared without waiting till the eunuch should exclaim, ' Here is water ; what hindereth?' . . . "But of all absurdities in defence of error, the assertion that there is the same evidence that both were immersed as that the eunuch was, is the most childish, not to say disgraceful. Who ever affirmed that persons were baptized (immersed) by simply ' going down into the water, ' without any further action ? ' They went down both into the water, and lie baptized hlm.^ Clearly, therefoi-e, but one person was baptized, or immersed, and that person, the eunuch. It is ordinarily necessary (in rivers or pools, at least, whether essential to the validity of the ordinance or not) for the administrator, as well as the subject, to go into the water, in order that the latter may be immersed; bat who can possibly imagine that it is necessary for two persons to go down into the water in order that the one may sprinkle the other ? "The last refuge is, that the Greek prepositions do not necessarily mean into and out of, but to and from. It is a hard case if Pjedobaptists translate the Bible (thirty of them, with a royal pedant, a strenuous wrangler for sprinkling, as their overseer), and then deny the correctness of their own translation in a point where their translators would gladly have ])leased them, if their consciences, already burdened with royal restrictions, could have endured it. All that need be said is, 330 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. that these prepositions are generally used to mean into and out of; and that if that meaning has not been expressed, the Greek language has no prepositions which will express it. I ask the Greek scholar who is an advocate for sprinkling, whether, if he were about to write a sentence in Greek describing his going into and coming out of the water, he would not use these very terms?" (pp. 85-87.) We now refer the reader to some of the P8edol)aptists whose prejudices against immersion have not led to sucli discreditable quibbles, and who, in accordance with our translation by Peedobaptists, have not dared to deny tliat the proper rendering of eis to huclor is into the water, and of ek tou hudatos, out of the water, and who have thus confirmed the senti- ment which we maintain, that Philip and the eunuch entered the water in order that the eunuch miglit receive immersion in obedience to the command of Christ. We shall not, however, reproduce the admissions already cited, but refer the reader to them. They say, in substance, that "the various passages" of Holy Writ to which the Baptists "appeal, will lead every candid mind to a different conclusion" [Eclin. Cy.) from that to which some of our opponents have come. They speak of them as " undeniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily into the water," &c. (Dr. Wall.) See Venema (p. 156), Storr and Flatt (p. 150), Dr. Towerson (p. 143), Dr. Lightfoot (p. 142), Calvin (p. 141), H. Alting (p. 140), Ravanellus (p. 140), Vossius (p. 139), Dutch Anno. (p. 270), &c. Hence, says Quenstedius, " It is written (Acts viii. 38, 39) that Philij:) we7it doion with the eunuch into the water, and there baptized him; and it is added that, the ordinance being administered, they both ca77ie up out of the water." He had previously said : " When Jesus was baptized. He immediately came up (or, as Grotius renders it, He had scarcely ascended) ' out of the water.' Our Saviour, therefore, when He was baptized, first went down into the river, Avas plunged into the water, and afterwax'ds came up out of it." — Antiq. Bib., par. i., c. iv., sec. ii. Dr. Doddridge translates Matt. iii. 16: " And after Jesus was bap- tized, as soon as He ascended out of the water," ifec. He renders Acts viii. 38, 39 : " And he ordered the chariot to stop : and they both went down to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they wei'e come up out of the water," etc. He says, amongst other things, in a note on the passage : "It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water mei-ely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to poixr on the eunuch. A peison of his dignity had, no doubt, many ves^ls in his baggage on such a journey through so desert a country; a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them. (See Dr. Shaw's Travels, Prof., p. 4.)" Although we disapprove of the rendering, " to the water," by Dr. Doddridge, his candour and logic are a striking contrast to those of Dr. A. Clarke, Avho, indeed, gives into as the translation of eis, but feeling the preponderating evidence in favour of immersion, again introduces his favourite chimera of self-plunging : "While Philip was instructing liim, and he professed his faith in Christ, he probably plunged himself under the water " {Com., on Acts viii. 38). This the doctor can believe and teach; and can also recommend the practice of sprinkling. Would that more had the candour of Drs. Doddridge, G. Campbell, and some others, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 831 manifested in the rejection of desjiicable subterfuges, and of hypotheses opposed to express fact or destitute of all foundation. Finally, Dr. Halley says : " On the subject of Greek prepositions, I have, on account of the length of these lectures, suppressed the remarks which I had prepared. I do this the more willingly, as I do not observe in regard to them any difference from Dr. Carson in more than one particular. That particular relates to the peculiar use of the preposition eis in such phrases as ' he died in {eis) Ecbatanah.' . . . Dr. Carson con- tends that in these instances the preposition retains its usual signification ' into.' . . . The solution suggested proceeds upon the principle of the grammarians, that the preposition eis implies motion in some verbs which in any other construction they wovild not possess^ that is, having gone into Azotus, he was found in it; having gone into Jerusalem, he died in it, &c. That this construction, however admissible in certain instances, Avill fairly solve these passages, I do not believe" (p. 386). Since Dr. Halley so far agrees with Dr. Carson, he admits that the Greek ek invariably means out of, and that the primary and general meaning of eis is into, and of en, in; and he must necessarily unite with us, as we think, in deprecating the fallacy and mistranslation that by unnecessarily using to for eis, and more xxnjustifiably rejecting out of and adopting frovi for eJc, hides or pervei'ts the plain facts of inspii-ation respecting the baptism of Christ and of the eunuch. We think also that Dr. H. is self-condemned in his advocacy of loith water as the translation of e?i Jiudati, instead of in water. The minuteness and explicitness character- izing the record of the eunuch's baptism are sxich as might have been expected to render quibbling or doubting impossible, did we not know the power of prepossessions to render unintelligible the plainest utterances of the Divine Spii-it. We will also, in conclusion, remind our opponents that in every instance where they maintain that en should have another rendering than in, that eis should have another rendering than into, and that ek should have another rendering than out of it devolves on them to prove that in these instances these prepositions have not the meanings, in, into, out of; and to prove that instead of these meanings they have such meanings as they assign to them. The rule that any one, pleading for a secondary meaning, is bound to the proof of it, is asserted by Dr. Carson and admitted by Dr. Halley and others. (See also, on the impoT't of en and ek, pp. 122-124.) § 8.— FUTILITY OF OBJECTIOKS TO THE IMMERSING AT ^NON. E. Baxter. — "A new and forced exposition which no reader dreameth of till it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected." Dr. Angus. — ^"The words of Scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless such meaning is shown to be inconsistent with other words of the sentence, with the argument, or con- text, or with other parts of Scripture." — Bi. Hand Book. p. 178. Archb. Whately.— " We are not to be satisfied with any figurative sense, or any sense what- ever, that words can be brought to bear; but to seek for that in which they were originally designed and believed to be understood. It is evidently of the first iiiiportance to look to the meaning wliich the expression appears to have conveyed, at the time, to the persons addressed ; for we cannot suppose that the sacred writers were not aware in what sense they would be understood by those they addressed, or that they would knowingly leave them in error on any point of practical importance." — In Macallan, on Bap., p. 129. Webster and Wilkinson.— "Dr. Pye Smith has well remarked fu., p. 546), 'The attempt 332 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. to set aside the decisions of impartial and honest ciiticisni is painfully discreditable. Nothing h so injurious to a good cause as the calling oUa hudata. Jeremiah speaks of the first, and addressing Babylon says: 'O tliou that dwellest ujion many icaters, thine end is come ;' for Babylon was situated on Avhat the Jews called the river, the {p-eat river Euphrates. The evangelist John describes Eome, which was built on the Tiber, by saying, The great harlot, the great citj' which reigneth over the kings of the earth, sitteth ui)on many loaters. Ezekiel describes Judea and Jordan, by saying to the princes of Israel, Your mother is a lioness, her whelps devour men, she was fruitful by reason of many waters; an evident allusion to the lions that lay in the thickets of Jordan. The thunder which agitates the clouds, charged with, floods, is called the voice of the Lord iipon many waters: and the attachment that no mortifications can annihilate, is a love wliich many ivaters cannot quench, neither can the floods drown. How it comes to pass that a mode of speaking, which on every other occasion signifies much, should in the case of baptism signify little, is a question easy to answer." In the words of another we might add, Easy from the Avell-known power of prejudice, and the dire necessities of error. B. W. Noel. — " On the supposition of baptismal sprinkling the language of the passage under examination is unintelligible, but if John immersed his disciples it becomes plain. The immersion of some hundreds of persons daily woiUd require either a river like the Jordan, or the 'many waters' of ^non, since any tank or pond woidd soon become turbid by their entrance into it; and several pools of water instead of one would be a great comfort both to John and to the baptized converts. From this passage, therefore, we may conclude that John immersed his disciples. Some have siipposed that ^uon was chosen by John, not in contrast with other places throughout Palestine or Judea, but in contrast with other arid parts of the desert in which he was accustomed to preach (Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 2, 4; vii. 24; John i. 23) ; and that water was therefore necessary for the multitudes who flocked to him. But had this been the case, though the historian might have said that there was water there, he would not have specially noticed the ' many streams,' the jjo?/« huduta. This marked a larger supply of water than was meant for their thirst. But it is improbable that zEnon was mentioned in contrast M'itli the wilderness. Eusebius and Jerome place it eight Roman miles south of Scytho- polis, and fifty-three north-east of Jerusalem. (I^itto, '^Enon.') In the absence of all other information on the subject, this must be held to determine its site probably ; and if the testimony of Eusebius is to be accej^ted, the whole of Samaria, from north to south, lay between it and the wilderness of Judea." "It is, moreover, improbable that ^nou was contrasted with the wilderness, because that lay along the banks of the Jordan ; and when John preached in it, he baptized in the river (Matt. iii. 1-6). * This is an appropriate argumentum ad hominem to those who maintain that John's baptism was exclusively personal, and not by means of his disciples. Z 338 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. "Since, tlien, it was chosen in preference to other places in the neighbourhood because of its waters, it is very unlikely that it was chosen to supply the multitudes with drink. This is i;he less likely, because the numbers which were baptized at this place were so much reduced that the disciples of Jesus were now baptizing more than John baptized (John iii. 22 ; iv. 12) ; so that the disciples of John were filled with jealousy (John iii. 2C). ' ' Fui'ther, this reason for the selection of ^non is rendered the more improbable by the circumstauce that Jesus is never said to have chosen the places where He preached for their supply of water, although numbers from every part of the country flocked to Him. It is a mistake to suppose that while John preached in the wil- derness Jesus preached only near towns and villages. In Mark i. 45, we read that He preached ' in desert places. ' The miracles of the five loaves and of the seven loaves were wrought in desert places for iive thousand and for four thousand meu (Mark vi. 35 ; viii. 4). And the cure of a demoniac was wrought in the presence of great multitudes, at the foot of the mountain of transfiguration, no ueighboui'ing village Ijeiug mentioned (Mark ix. 14). " It is not a satisfactory reason for the choice of ^non that John was poor, and could not obtain access to wells and tanks ; some tanks were public, John iv. 6, 7 ; V. 2-4; ix. 7. Our Lord was as poor as John, and John was the most popular. Jerusalem and all Judea went out to hear him preach; Scribes and Pharisees came to him, influenced apparently by self-interest ; multitudes thought that he was a prophet (Matt. xiv. 5; Mark xi. 32). All the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he Avere the Christ or not (Luke iii. 15). To suppose that the persons who came to hear him preach could not beg or buy water in the villages of Judea is imreasonable. Still, therefore, we have reason to conclude that John immersed his disciples, because he chose ./Enon as a place in which to baptize on account of its 'many waters'" (pp. 68-71). Instead of quoting many Ptedobaptist writers, we refer the i-eader to those ah-eady cited. See Casaubon (p. 90), Le Clei-c, Lampe, and Bossuet (p. 91), Curcellffius and Vossius (p. 139), Alting (p. 140), Cahdn (p. 141), Bossiiet (p. 142), Tower.son (p. 143), Hammond (p. 145), Poole (p. 148), "Wall (p. 157), &c. Some of those who speak of bajttizo as meaning to immerse, refer to this passage ; others refer to it when speaking of primi- tive practice. All who, like Calvin and others, believe that John and Christ administered baptism " by plunging the whole body under water," believe assuredly that John " was immer.sing in ^uon, near to Salim, because there was much Avater." Let these be compared with the un- founded and deceiving suppositions to which in others we have adverted, and let the reader judge whether we have not a sufficient argument for immersion from the meaning of the word haptizo, from liistorical evidence of immersion as the apostolic i)ractice, and from every word with which hai^tizo in the inspii-ed wi-itings is associated. We shall conclude on this with the following Psedobajjtist testimony. Calvin. — "From these words (John iii. 23) it may T)e inferred that baptism was administered, by John and Christ, by plunging the wliole body under water." Bp. Bossuet. — "The bai>tism of St. John the Baptist, which served for a pre- parative to that of Jesus Clirist, was performed liy ]ilunging. The prodigious mul- titude of people that Hocked to his l)aptism, made St. John the Baptist choose the places about Jordan, and among those ])laces the country of .^Euon near to Salim, because tliere vxts vaich tvater there, and a great facility of di2)ping those who came to consecrate themselves," &c. Bencet- — "So the rite of immersion required." — Gnomon, on John iii. 23. Dr. TowERSON. — "For what need would there have been of the Baptist's resorting to great confluxes of water, were it not that the bai>tism was to be performed by an immersion? A very little water, as we know it doth Avith us, sufficing for an effusion or sprinkling." — In Booth's Poidob., vol. i., p. 209. Dr. Whitby. — "Because there was onuch loater there. In which their whole bodies might be dipped." — Com., on John iii. 23. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 339 Dr. A. Clakke. — "As the Jewish custom required the persons to stand in the water, and ha^^ng been instructed and entered into a covenant to renounce all idolatry, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunge themselves under the vxiter, it is probable the rite was thus performed at ^Enon. The consideration that thev dipped themselves, tends to remove the difficulty expressed in the note on Matt.iii. 6." We accept the Dr.'s admission of immersion, and instead of the fancy of their dipping themselves, his own admission on the preceding verse that what was done by John's disciples under his government and dii'ection, may be attributed to John, according to the common custom of all countries and languages. E. MiMPEiss. — '■'■ PoUa Inulata. 'Abundance of water.' 'A multitude of waters.' ' Many w^aters. ' " — Treas. Har., p. 131. J. Glyde. — "Such a passage as this before us, which seems at any rate to imply that immersion was the prevalent mode of baptism in the days of our Lord and His apostles" {Memoir and Remains, p. 414). He believed that sprinkling was valid, though immersion might "be deemed more regular, and in close conformity ^vith Scriptural precedent." Dr. Doddridge. — ^^ At jEnon, — because there was a great quantitu of loater there. It is exceedingly difficidt to determine the true situation of this place. . . . But nothing surely can be more evident than that x>olla hicdata, many watei's, signifies a large quantity o/' water, it being sometimes used for the Euphrates (Jer. li. 13). Sept. To which, I suppose, there may also be an allusion (Rev. xvii. 1). Compare Eze. xliii. 2; and Rev. i. 15; xiv. 2; xix. 6; where the voice of many waters does plainly signify the roaring of a high sea." In the Paraphrase he WTites: "And John was also at that time baptizing at ^non, which was a place near Salim, a town on the west side of Jordan; and he particularly chose that place, because there was a great quantity of water there, which made it very convenient for his purpose: and they came from all parts and were baptized by him." Olshausek. — "John also was baptizing in the neighbourhood, because the M'ater there . . . afforded convenience for immersion." — Com., on John iii. 22-36. Dr. W. Smith. — " There was ^LCnon, near to Salim, to the north, where St. Johii was bajjtizing upon another occasion, ' because there was much water there' (iii. 23). This was during the summer, evidently (comp. ii. 13-23), that is, long after the feast of the passover, and the river had become low, so that it Avas necessary to resort to some place where the water was deeper than at the ordinary fords " (Bib. Die, Art. Jordan. Sig. E. S. Ff.). Subsequently the writer speaks of 2&aon, " where there was not generally so much of a ford, but, on the contrary, where the water was still sufficiently deep, notwithstanding the advanced season." Under uSnon, we read "^non, a place 'near to Salim,' at which John baptized. It was evidently west of the Jordan, and abounded in water." Signed G., i.e., George Grove, Sydenham. Dr. Macbride. — "The spot chosen by the Baptist on the banks of the river, and the observation that he baptized at ^'Enon ' because there was much water there,' seem to prove that he administered it by immersion." — Lee. on the Diat. § 9. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSIOJT OF THE MULTITUDES BY JOHN. W. Jay. — "It is better to let the text speak its own language naturally and glowingly, than to use coercive measures, and torture out the meaning, or bombard it into submission." — Atitob., by Dr. Redford and Kev. J. A. James. Dr. C'AnsoN. — "It is utterly unphilosophical, as well as unscriptural, to reject testimony on views of probability; on this very ground all the doctrines of the Gospel have been rejected." Dr. Baknes. — " One reason why we do not understand the plain doctrines of the Bible is our prejudice (ver. 17-19'. Our Saviour plainly told His disciples that He must die. He stated the manner of His death, and the principal circumstances. To us aU this is plain : but they did not understand it (Luke\ They had filled their heads with notions about His earthly glory and honour, and they were not willing to see the truth as He stated it."— Co?/!., on Matt, xx., ia Remarks, x. Dr. R. Vatjghan. — "It is the injunction of an inspired instructor — 'Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.'"— In Ex. Hall iec, by H. M. Villiers, p. 270. 1851. Dr. H-VLLEY. — "If we allow the exigencies of controversy to create a new sense of phrases, we may prove anything we please from Scripture." — Comj. Lee, vol. xv., pp. 27, 28. It is objected to immersion as the meaning of baptism, that such an action is incompatible with the numbers said to have been baptized by 340 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. John. As John baptized " by divine appointment, and baptized the Loi'd Jesus, the consideration of His baptism may afford some assistance in the more important inquiry respecting the nature of Christian bap- tism " (Dr. Halley, p. 130), especially respecting the action or the meaning of the word, because the same word is aftei-wards and iuAariably used Avherever in the New Testament we read of baptizing. Let it ever be remembered that the proof of a secondary meaning of the Avord hap- tizo, as of a secondary meaning of every other word,, devolves on those who maintain it. This needs to be repeatedly mentioned, because some entirely overlook it, and others act occasionally in defiance of it. The conduct of some seems to intimate that their cause would sink by its consistent adoption. Our belief is, that to j)Our, and especially to sprinkle, are words of mode so vastly different from to immerse, and so destitute of proof as the meaning of hajttizo, that if the Word of God had stated that double or treble the number had been baptized by John, we should have believed that they weie immersed by him. But let us examine this difficulty, and some of the hypotheses to which this supposed difficulty has given birth. Mr. Thorn says : " Frt)m the best calculations I can obtain from Josephus, the number purified by him covild be little less than two mil- lions of people, con.sequently he must have purified more than twelve thousand per day. To have dipped tliem was impossible — even a tithe of them would soon have overwhelmed the strength and vierour of a giant. But as all these might have been spi-inkled with ease, a doubt can hardly exist that such was the method pursued by him " (p. 20). Wlule meditating on this unproved, but confidently-believed h}^Dothesis, think also what will remain in God's Word that is worth keeping, if every one is at liberty to alter the meaning of words aiid phrases because of some difficulty imagined by himself Dr. Guise says: " It seems, therefore, to me, that the people stood in ranks near to, or just within the edge of the river; and John, jDassing along before them, cast water u])on their heads or faces, with his hands, or some ])roper instrument; by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day" (Note on Matt. iii. G). If Mr. Wesley and othei-s had not felt embarrassed, would they have been the humble transcriber's of Dr. G nisei (See Wesley's Note on Matt. iii. G.) How does it accord with " the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion," of which Mi\ W. speaks on Rom. vi. 4 1 and with immersion as " the custom of the first church," of which he speaks when recording the baptism of Mary Welch ] Tlie eminent Lutheran, Biiddeus, says: "Though a great multitude was ba])tize(l by John, yet thence it does not follow that they could not be ba])tized by immersion; seeing nothing hinders but tlu'v might be bap- tized separately, one by one." — Theol. Day in., 1. \., c. i., § o.*- * "We rather wonder tliat the fact of John's baptizing in the wilderness has not been more dwelt niion as an (ilijei-tiim to immersion, notwithstanding the testimony of every- one who explains it being similar to that of Wesley, who says that generally "in the New Testament it means a common, or less cnltivated place, in o])position to pasture or arable land;" or of Dr. D. Davidson, who says that "the original word signifies not a desert, but a pastui-e, or thinly-inha])ited coiuitiy;" or of Ingram Cobbin, who says : "Wilderness, an open, uncultivated covuitry, thinly inliabited." — See Coin., of these and others. Dr. Paxton says : " In sacred language, n mountainous or less fruitful tract, where FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 341 Mr. Ralston, an American Pseclobaptist, supposes it impossible for John " to baptize one million, or near one million of persons " in " eighteen months" "by immersion. But it was practicable by affusion, and on suj^position that a number of them stood before him in ranks, and that he poured the water upon them from his hand, or from some suitable vessel" (p. 57). On this Dr. A. Campbell remarks: "To this most absurd hypothesis of a wholesale baptism, or a baptism of crowds in the mass, by means of some suitable squii-t or vessel which might extend to fifty or on0 hundred at one discharge, we know not what to say. It appears to me an act of degradation to notice such puerilities. I had really thought that no man in the nineteenth century could have demeaned himself so far as to introduce such a miserable salvo. Did we ever hear of two, ten, or twenty persons being baptized by one discharge of water ! ! Oh, Predobaptism, how art thou fallen ! ! " Mr. Jacob Stanley, in a pamphlet in defence of infant sprinkling, issuing fi-om the Wesleyan Connexion Book Depot, London, says : " But suppose John's baptism to have resembled the baptism of Israel in the sea, and in the cloud, that is, baptism by sprinkling ; then there is neither impossibility, nor difficulty, nor danger, nor indelicacy in it. In this case it was not even necessary for John to stand in the river Jordan at all; neither did it require the people, either male or female, to change their dress; all that in this case was necessary would be for the baptizer to stand at the edge of the river, and the baptized [he does not say, those to be baptized] to stand in a row upon its banks, whilst with a sioitch dipped in the water he could, without any great exertion, baptize thousands in a few houi-s." If the reader does not inquire whether " a switch" was used in connection with the cloud and the sea in which the children of Israel were baptized, about Avhich, if we are not mistaken, the Word of God says as much as in the case of those baptized by John, we may mention that God's Woi'd, which is also equally silent respecting John's standing "at the edge of the river," and those to be baptized standing "in a row upon its banks," expre.ssly states that they were "baptized of him in the river of Jordan." We think also that instead of a switch, which, according to more dictionaries than one, means a small, flexible tioig, a moi) might have been used with varied advantage over the switch. But the record of inspiration which we have quoted is equally opposed to both hypotheses, whether they be regai'ded as the tissues of absurdity or the flights of genius. Dr. Halley also begs us to weigh the difficulty involved in John's immersing the numbei's that came to him to be baptized. He says: "Mr. Thorn estimates the numbers baptized by John at two millions; and although I do not Ivuow that he can be controverted, I dare not make the estimate so large, but am content with a fourth, or a tenth, or even a twentieth of it." He then states a fact, and adroitly draws from it a most unwarrantable inference, attempting no manner of proof, but imme- diately leaving it as it* it were true as the Gospel, and clear as a sunbeam. the towns and villages are thinly scattered, and single liahitatious few and far between, is distinguished by the name wilderness." "Such places, therefore, were not absolute deserts, bixt thinly peopled or less fertile districts." — lUus. of Scrip., vol. i., p. 4;i9. 342 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. If some persons had tlixis acted, we iniglit have supposed that they regarded their ipse dixit na sufficiently oi'acular. He says: '"Jesus baptized not, but His disciples,' is said in contrast with the practice of John, who was himself the baptizer." We firmly deny that this is either proved or probable.* Dr. H. afterwards modestly inquires, respecting these crowds that John baptized: "Did they go in their usual clothes J or did they return to their homes in them 1 or ddd they carry change of raiment from their several cities into the wilderness, and undress and dress on the banks of the river in the midst of th'e vast crowds 1 or did they go naked into the water?" &c. (p. 315). These are questions pro- posed by the Christian and learned gentleman, who not only candidly wishes us to deduct what discount we "may think all the uncex'tainties of the case may fairly justify " (p. 313); who says, "Let the difficulties have their full weight, but always with the reserved possibility of a solution, could we learn more of the particulars and minute incidents of the relation" (p. 344); but who also says, "I feel bound in candour to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt whatever" (p. 309); and who says, " The apostles might have baptized theii' Jewish proselytes according to the previous usage of their nation, because that mode was the most EXPEDIENT and USUALLY THE MOST CONVENIENT. In our age and climate, however, expediency would rather be a reason for spruikling or pouring " (p. 309); who admits that baptizein eis "is to immerse into" (p. 324); who says, " I have no objection to the translation, ' into Jordan ' " (p. 386); and who repudiates the vex'sion of ere to lordane, with the Joi'dan, instead of, in the Jordan (p. 326), The change of dx^ess sxxpposed to be requisite we shall subsequently notice. The cxxstoms of the East in regaixl to bathing we have already noticed. On the climate of Palestine, Di*. E. Jamieson x-emarks : " Warm and genial weather caxi genex'ally be reckoned oxi xxntil the twelfth of Decembex-, whexi the wixiter sets in ; even after that pei-iod, except during the pre- valence of cex'tain winds, the season is compax-atively mild, and, indeed, is so far fx'oxn ever })ax'takijxg of the inclement character of winter in mox-e northern latitxxdes, that in a calixi and settled state of the atmos- phere a kixxd axid exhilarating warmth is felt. While the monxxngs and evenings are excessively cold, the weather at noon is so hot that the inhabitants at that period of the day constantly keep their wixxdows opexx, take their xneals and x-ecreations out of doors, axid on the groxxnd, tlien covered with a caxpet of the lichest gx^een, and with the beaxxtiful tints of the hyacinths and violets, which ax'e not afx-aid to open their leaves during the gx-eater part of the season. Jerome, alluding to this mild character of tlxe winter in Palestine, in a letter to a fxiexid at Rome, wrote thus : ' I buy no wood, axxd am warmer than yoxx at Rome with the greatest abundaxice of fixel.' Axid a modex'n traveller sj^eaks of havixig taken his meridian i-epose on the fiat roof of his cax'avansaiy, and finding * Dr. A. Clarke having stated on Jolin iv. 2 that what the disciples of Christ did, "by His authority and command, is attributed to Himself," adds : "It is a common custom, in all countries and all languages, to attribute tho operations of those wlio are under the government and direction of another to him by whom they are directed and governed," — Com., on John iii, 22. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 343 it as genial as it usually with us is in the middle of summer," — Eos. Man.,X.T., pp. 59, 60. _ Dr. Livingstone testifies, in his Missionary Travels (p. 343), to the possibility of travelling in wet clothes in Africa without sustaining "harm," though injury may result from "inaction," the "clothing being wet." Dr. L. also says, respecting himself and his party: "We were forty nights sleeping in the o^jen aii", and suffered no inconvenience, nor experienced any evil effect afterwards." The manner in which our opponents reason on the import of hajytizo, if consistently carried out, would lead us to say on the above, that as Dr. L. and his party would certainly sustain injury, judging from our own country, therefore "nights " here means a small part of the night, — a few minutes, or a few seconds ! Or, being " in the open air " means simply that there was some fissure that let in a small quantity of air, as much compared with complete exposure as a sprinkling on the face is compared with an immersion of the body ! Dr. Pye Smith says : " In Judea, during the larger part of the year, persons in ordinary health anight plunge into the water and sit down in their wet clothes with safety, and often with great comfort and pleasure." — First Lines of Christian Theology, p. 670. Prof. Wilson sees no proof of immersion from baptism " being per- formed in a pool, or river, or even in the ocean" (p. 241). We deny not the possibility of sprinkling in these places, but we regard their selection as confirmatory of immersion. Instead of such quibbling, it would be more honourable to our opponents to adduce proof of sprinkling, as the burden of proof assuredly rests on all who admit even the pi'imary meaning of immersion. And, indeed, this brother can see that our arguments from the places " would have been plausible, if not convincing," " had the Scripture instances uniformly associated the ordi- nance with 'much water,' or had this condition been realized in the majority of cases" (p. 257). Does Scripture, after corroborating our sentiments from the Jordan and -^non, detract from this in mentioning any other place % The silence of Sci'ipture respecting the amount of water in other places can surely prove nothing against immei'sion. But it is thought, not^^dthstanding the above admission, that bajitism in some places would " be attended with difiiculties almost insuperable" (p. 259). Because God's Word says that baptisms (immersions) took place, and because Prof W. and some others, whose mental vision on this subject is equally injured by prepossessions, do not see how immersion in some places could take place without difiiculties almost insuperable, have we convincing evidence that baptism is not necessarily immersion, and that it may be, or probably was, pouring, or possibly sprinkling, yea, that it IS any application of water ? Prof J. H. Godwin says that "the multitudes baptized by John render it physically impossible that they should have been immersed by him;" and that " it may be safely asserted that it is impossible for one man to immei-se in the waters of a river so many as two hundred persons in one day" {Chr. Bap., p. 82). The objections he has conjured up, or has embraced from others, are heartily adopted by our Wesleyan brother. Mr. Stacey having before leaped to the conclusion, from haptizo being 84<4< IMPORT OF BAPTISIM. \;sed in the sense of what is strictly submersion, that it means the appli- cation of water in any way, has no quahns of conscience in coming here to a speedy conchision in favour of ,si)rinkling. He sees " a formidable difficulty" in the "tedious and laborious process" of immersion. The number that could be "immersed by a single individual" "Avould fall immensely short of the multitudes admitted to his baptism." He judges that "one million cannot be deemed an excessive estimate" of "the ordinary population of Judea and the vicinity of the Jordan." He kindly allows us to suppose that John immersed in the Joi'dan one- fourth, two hundred and fifty thousand; and then washes \is to "imagine this work, — tedious, toilsome, dangerous, — the labour of one man, and this man the greatest of the prophets." And finally oozes out his favourable regard to the switch, or something else, if we undei'stand the import of his words. He says, in conclusion : " The Baptist could easily have sj^rinkled such a number of individuals, as the priests were accus- tomed to sprinkle the water of sejmration upon the clean, and this would have left him both time and strength for the more important duty of jDublic instruction; but to have dipped them in the river Jordan would have been physically impossible" (p. 211). If the baptizing of John was "as the priests were accustomed to sprinkle," &c., we must refer to Xum. xix. 17-19. We there learn that hyssop v,ras to be dipped in the water of separation {not pure water), and that in this way there nnist be a sprinkling (not a baptizing) "upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shkll purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." We presume that our esteemed brother will not approve of the idea that subsequent bathing was required in order to the A^alidity of John's baptism, although the Scripture is quite as express on this as on John's sprinkling with a bunch of liyssop dipped in the Jordan. If we have mistaken Mr. S.'s meaning when he says, '■^ As the priests were accustomed," &c., and if he refers simply to the fact, and not to the manner of sprinkling, we have, in addition to a sincere apology, simply to reply that God's command under the huv "to .sprinkle the w^ater of separation u2)on the clean," supplies not the least e\ddence that baptism is sprmkling; that to adduce this command is not more appropriate than to adduce the promise of a poui'ing out of the Spirit as corroborative of the idea that baptism is either pouring or sprinkling; and that this command to the priests encourages as much the use of w'ater for baptism that shall have in it the ashes of a red heifer in prefei'ence to clean water, as it teaches that baj^tism is sprinkling, whether with hyssop, with the finger, or aught else. Can a Divine command in certain circum- stances, and at certain times, and to certain persons, to do a certain thing, be necessarily the same as any other command? or can such a command nullify or in any way alter or affect another command given in other circumstances, at other times, and to other persons, to do another thing ? Our opponents, with as much philological truth, might maintain, from certain New Testament commaiids, that baptism is FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 345 standing up, taking or making the bed, &c., as that it is to sprinkle or to pour, from certain Old Testament precepts on sprinkling and pouring. How much more correctly does Joseph John Gurney refer to the Old Testament, when he says : " Although the baptism practised by John, and by the apostles, did not, in all its circumstances, resemble those Jewish Avashiugs to which I have now adverted, yet it was precisely similar to them in that main particular of immersion in water." — Ohf?. on the Pecu. of Fr., p. 61. In reply to the objections that have been adduced, and to prove their utter worthlessness, we remark, 1. There is neither proof nor probability that John alone baptized, that is, that he did not baptize by means of his disciples. To maintain that John baptized by means of his disciples, instead of being an unwarrantable assumption, as some of our Ptedobap- tist opponents believe, is only to put an import on words and phrases in accordance with the import of such words and phrases in all ages and in every part of the world, so far as we are acqiiainted with the same, from the creation unto the present time. Not to demand that Cain did not with his OAvii hands build the city of Enoch, did Noah himself, and alone, build the ark ] God said unto him, " Make thee an ark of gopher- wood: rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch," &c. And "thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he" (Gen. vi. 13-22). By the same mode of reasoning that our Psedobaptist brethren adopt in regard to John's baptizing personally, and not by means of his disciples, it might be maintained, — it is required to be maintained, — that Noah with his own hands brought together the timber, and united it, so as to construct the mighty and afterwards floating edifice which God had enjoined; that one man "builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen" (Gen. X. 11, 12), no man assisting him; and that in the same waj' Abraham circumcised in the selfsame day " Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house" (Gen. xvii. 23); for not a word is said in these cases about the employment of servants. When we speak of Solomon's erecting of the temple, and offering " unto the Lord two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep," or of David's fetching of the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Moimt Zion, the place "that David had pitched for it," do we utter falsehoods unless we explain that these results were not wholly effected by the physical strength which they individually piit forth, but that persons acted by their authority and under their direction 1 When we speak of the conquests achieved by David, Nebuchachaezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, the Csesars, &c., do we belie all history, or utter unintelligible gabble? When we say that the Independents have erected this chapel, that the New Connexion of Methodists have erected that chapel, and that the Baptists have erected another chapel, can it be legitimately demanded from our phraseology, unless we particularly explain ourselves, that our language conveys the idea that in the erection of one chapel every portion of the work was performed by Independents, in the erection of another by the New Connexion of Methodists, and of the last by Bap- tists : and that if persons understood the language otherwise, they had 34-6 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. taken an unwarrantable liberty? Our evangelical opponents are unani- mous in their opposition to Dr. Pusey and the Pope. Many of them maintain with Dr. Halley that "the administration of baptism" is "in the New Testament restricted to no class." Dr. H. speaks of the " practice of the ajiostolic age, whea baptism might be administered by any who undertook to teach, to any who were willing to be taught." All admit that xmder Peter and Paul others baptized, as well as the disciples under Christ. Some, with Dr. H., can record their belief that the twelve mentioned at Ephesus, who kneAv only John's baptism, had been baptized by Apollos, a sentiment which we neither affirm nor deny; and yet rather than believe that John baptized by his disciples, some of them can believe that he used a squirt, a besom, a mop, or some such thing, for the baptizing of the numbers that came to his baptism ! We admit the express assertion of Scriptui-e respecting the Lord of glory, and we doubt not that in equal wisdom and goodness He refrained from the personal baptizing of any. In this respect He was distinguished from John the Baptist, and from the apostles. The "gratuitous assump- tion " of our opponents we maintain to be unsupported by a single fact or the least probabilitj*. A writer in the Congregational Magazine has exceeded Dr. H. by saying, " It should be remarked that it is exjjressly stated that the people were all baptized by him; not by his disciples." All who are conversant with Divine ti-uth will know that no such thing is expressly stated, as that they were all baptized " not by his disciples;" and all who are conversant with phraseology, sacred or profane, will be under no need of misunderstanding or perverting the truth recorded in the Oracles of God ; yea, every observant jiei-son may know that the con- versation of eveiy hour justities inspired declarations respecting John's baptizing, and also the queries of Dx*. Carson, who says: " We are told that ' Herod laid hold of John, and bound him, and put him in prison.' Did Herod do this himself? Did he perform the work of a constable?" (p. 335). Poole says : " As in our common speech, so in the language of Scrip- ture, there is nothing more common than for pereons to be said themselves to do, Avhat they do by others (1 Sam. xxvi. 11, 12; 2 Kings xxii. 16; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 24; Acts yW. 51)."— Com., on John iii. 22. Bloomfield : " By a common figure of speech Jesus may be said to have done what He caused and oidered to be done. Thus, what a Idng's servants do is ascribed to the king himself." — Crit. Dig., on John iii. 22. J. Siitcliffe (Wesleyan) : " It is probable that John's disciples assisted in baptizing the people." — Com., on John iii. 23. 2. We maintain it to be uttei-ly destitute of proof or of probability that more than twelve thousand per day Avere baptized by John. The statements of Holy Writ, in language the most natural that could be used, in perfect accordance with the usual Avay of speaking, convey the idea that great numbers were baptized by John. An understanding of the words in their most literal sense is as impossible as umiecessary, inasmuch as Jerusalem itself and the region round about Joi'dan could not move to John, and confess sins. It is characteristic of the sacred writers to use such Avords and plu'ases as Avere accustomed to be used to convey the intended ideas. If this had not been the case, hoAV could FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 847 the Bible have been a revelation from God to man, and one from which a wajrfaring man could with ease learn his duty and his privilege 1 The best Psedobaptist commentators have understood the evangelists as they are undei'stood by ourselves. Thus : " Yast numbers were induced to resort to John from all parts of Judea and from Jerusalem" (Scott). " Great multitudes came to him from the city, and from all parts of the country; some of all sorts" (Henry). "Many people from Judea. It does not mean that literally all the people went, but that gi-eat multitudes went. It was general" (Barnes). In John iii. 26, we read that the disciples of John came to him, and said: "Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all come to Him." Allowing that John was decreasing and that Christ was increasing at this time, and when " Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John," could these jealousies of John's disciples have existed if John had baptized such a proportion of the population as is maintained by several Pgedobaptist writers 1 If we understand Christ's baptizing and all men coming to Him, as many of our opponents inter- pret the facts recorded respecting John's baptizing of great numbers, how will it accord with Christ's coming unto His own, and His own receiving Him not 1 Or how will it accord with the following from the lips of Jesus : " Whereunto shall I liken the men of this genei-ation 1 They ai'e like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying. We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced ; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread, nor drinking wine; and ye say. He hath a devil" (Luke vii. 32, 33). We also read: "All the people and the publicans justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke vii. 29, 30). All these statements are intelligible and consistent, considering the inspired wx'iters to adopt such phraseology to convey their ideas as was used by others. Only thus is their language consistent or intelligible. But their language being thus understood, many fewer were baptized by John than Mr. Stacey and others suppose, even when they have so largely discounted the exaggerated estimation of Mr. Thorn. Indeed, the most extravagant assertions in regard to the numbers baptized by John and others would necessitate the belief that Jesus by means of His disciples re-baptized those that had been baptized by John, and that the disciples, after the Pentecost, again baptized those who had been previously baptized by John and by the disciples of Jesus. Our opponents, — at least many of them, — believe that John baptized men, women, and childi-en; and Dr. Halley, who is " content with a fourth, or a tenth, or even a twentieth of" Mr. Thorn's estimation, maintains that John baptized those whom he addressed by the appellation, a "generation of vipers" (Luke iii. 7); that he baptized not simply those who came, " confessing their sins," but all of every character (in addition to unconscious infants) who wished to be baptized. We believe that John's baptism required on the part of its recipient the profession of repentance ; that this was implied in the ceremony itself; and that on these accounts it was designated " The baptism of repentance." Whilst 348 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. rejecting one " perfectly gratuitous assumption," and another on tlie sub- ject of John's baptism, we fully admit that John was most eminent, morally and officially ; that he caused great excitement, and effected an extensive refoi'mation, however temjiorary in some this might be; coming "in the spirit and power of Elias," and turning " the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the justj" thus making "ready a people prepared for the Lord." -Luke i. 17. But, disclaiming the idea that John alone baptized, a sentiment more worthy of Dr. Pusey and the Pope than of dissenting Pfedobaptists, who believe with ourselves that no charm went forth from the hands of John the Baptist, that every man of piety and ability has a right to jH'each the Gos^^el, which is a higher privilege and honour than baptizing, and that every Christian man has a right to baptize believers, we maintain that "the language of hjq^erbole is not capable of arithme- tical calculation." Also, on the precise time when John entered on his work, we believe that inspiration is silent. Human conjectures may be probabilities, but they do not rank with inspired declarations; and that they should be allowed to overthrow the latter is peremptoi'ily denied. According to the calculation of propoi'tions applied to hyperboles by our opponents, yet " unauthorized by any principle," from the language of John we might adopt the figment that the world might contain one half of the books that might l^e written concerning Christ, if everything were written. But, further, and in the language of Dr. Carson: "Every hyperbole must be limited by impossibility; it cannot, in any case, be extended beyond what is possible. It cannot oblige John, then, to bap- tize in a certain time more than can in that time l^e baptized." Again : " Were the thing asserted admitted, according to the modal meaning of the word, to be impossible, to as.sign another meaning, not in proof, would not relieve Christians from the difficulty. The infidel might justly object to such a solution. 'I deny,' he might say, 'that the word has the meaning that you allege. The assertion, then, is a falsehood.' This objection, then, is the objection of an infidel. Were it a just objection, it would not give the word another meaning. It bears on the truth or falsehood of the Scriptures, not on their interpretation. Should a man report that in Poman Catholic chapels all the peojjle are immersed ; and when challenged, should defend himself by saying, that he meant that they wei'e sprinkled with holy watei', would his interpretation relieve him from the charge of falsehood f Also: "At this distance of time there may be in Scripture records many difficulties ajiparently incapable of solution, that, after all, may be perfectly true. We never give uj) the truth of the Scriptures for such difficulties, and we never solve them by denying the authenticated meaning of words." Finally : " The gi-eat difficulty in performing immersion is altogether iinfoundeel. Any way of putting the person under water is ecpially an immersion. . . . Instead of keeping Jolm the Baptist ten hours every day in the water, I will not oblige him to go into the water at all: he might have stood on the brink."' Philip and the eunuch went both into the water, and in many cases this may * It is tlie utterance of this sentiment which lias led Dr. Halley to declare himself, in i-egard to .John's haptizing into the Jordan, to he "a better Baptist" than Dr. Carson. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 349 be still necessary; but it is not essential to the ordinance of baptism" (pp. 336, 337). It may be liere mentioned that Mr. Tliorn calculates that there were still "greater numbers baptized in villages and cities" "by the despised and persecuted apostles of oiir Lord." He apparently believes that they baptized moi'e than two millions in the cities and villages of Palestine. But he does not " believe that John di})ped the people in the Jordan, any more than that Peter dipped the three thousand in the croivded streets of Jerusalem" (p. 11). Neither do we believe that Peter baptized the first three thousand, nor that the apostles baptized the next two millions. It seems necessary to Mr. T.'s argument against immer- sion from the " greater numbers," that they should be baptized by one pei'son. It may, however, be early enough to reply to the assertions of Mr. T. when we have a revelation from heaven informing us that the things which he has asserted are facts, and not mere imaginings. Indeed, the whole of our reply respecting the numbers baptized by John, whilst it meets all the contemptuous expressions respecting John as an "amphi- bious animal," &c., is unnecessary, and cannot be demanded by our opponents, if we are correct in maintaining that it is neither in evidence nor in probability that John baptized alone, and not also by means of his disciples. But, 3. We maintain that immersion would occupy little more time than sprinkling. We do not, however, adopt the idea that immersion might in some cases be more convenient than sprinkling. In repeating a very short formula in connection with the administration of this ordinance, more time is occupied than in the act of immersing or sprinkling. If the conjectures of some of our opponents had other than aerial founda- tion, we might be startled with some of them. For instance, if we wei'e bound to believe that John personally baptized twelve thousand persons per day, for six months together, we should be bound to believe that he received the confessions of eight persons during every minute, and administered the ordinance of immersion to eight persons during every minute for twenty-four hours together, during each day for the space of six months, or that, if he had any rest from this for the reception of food or the enjoyment of sleep during the twenty-four hours per day, he baptized so many more per minute. We do not wonder that the less reckless or the more cautious of our Pasdobaptist brethren are willing to diminish Mr. Thorn's estimate of the number baptized by John, as Mr. S. is Avilling to diminish it one-fourth, and Dr. H. a twentieth, and also to lengthen the supposed term of John's labours. But in immersion it is not necessary, although when only a few are baptized it may be veiy common, for one to enter the water for baptism after the other has come out of it. When those to be baptized go down into the water so as to be in a state of immediate readiness for the administi'ator, the length of time occupied by immersion, compared Avith the time requii-ed by si)rink- ling, is greater, if at all, to a most trifling extent. John immei'sing personally and by means of his disciples, would have sufficient time, whilst the hypothesis of sprinkling, as the substitute for immersion, neither meets the difficulties imagined by our opponents, nor accords with the declarations of inspired truth. But our opponents, on account 350 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of a supposed but unproved difficulty respecting deficiency of time and of physical strength, jvimp to the conclusion that, consequently, iiouring or sprinkling was the action used, and the "work woukl then be easy," yea, " every difficulty vanishes in a moment." It is asserted by Mr. E. A. Lancaster, that "if John's baptism was by dipping, then, of course, all the necessary arraiigements must have been previously made; such as the erection of booths and the preparation of dipping robes," etc. (On Ba})., p. 77.) We may ask. Are Sjni-ia and Iceland in the same latitude? Are booths erected in the polar regions for the administration of immer- sion? As demonstrable as that of Mr. Lancaster and othei's against immersion, would be the conclusion that baptism is not now practised in England because no man baptizes " clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins." 4. On the principle on which it is denied that John immersed, it mighb be denied that Abraham circumcised. It is recorded in Gen. xvii. 23, that "Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were bom in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised them in the self- same day, as God had said unto him." How could Abraham, it might be said, of Avhom we before read (Gen. xiv. 14) as having three hundred and eighteen trained servants capable of bearing arms, who had been born in his own house, besides those bought with money of the stranger (Gen. xvii. 27), how could he in one day circumcise all his males ] The pro- bability is, that of all ages, there would be neaily one thousand, and possibly there would be many more than this number. Reasoning as some do on ba]>tism, it might be said. These males underwent the opera- tion under Abraham himself, Ijecause it is not said that this was done by Abraham's orders, or under his superintendence, but that he " circum- cised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day;" therefore that which is rendered circumcision was another act, as he could not perform that operation on so many in one day. Some other meaning it might thus be attempted to attach to the word as there xised, however evident elsewhere that this was its import, and that circumcision was subse- quently practised. We maintain that the I'eason assigned why John had time enough for sprinkling, but not enough for immersing, is as prepcs- terous for a denial of the genuine import of baptism, as would be a denial of the genuine import of circumcision in Abraham's case, especially con- sidering the most trifling diflerence of time occupied by one action as compared witli the time occupied by the other. Can imaginary objec- tions, without a particle of evidence, weigh against the ])lain narrative 1 It is admitted, at least by Dr. Halley, and by many others, that at the time of the sacred writers haptizo is nowhere to be met with but in the sense of immersion, using the term in the sense of being dipped, flooded, or in any way covered Avith the submerging element, and that in this sense it is used by the sacred Avi'iters in regard to John's baptism of our Saviour; and yet, because of the increased time and strength that Avould be required for immersing the multitudes that came to him, compared with the time and ease of sprinkling (the precise numl)er that daily came to him, it being endeavoured to ascex-tain from the metaphorical language used), there is a reckless readiness to adopt a principle that Avould involve FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 351 all writing in inextricable confusion, and that would destroy the evidence of almost every fact historically recorded, it being maintained without the least proof that the word had altered its meaning, or that in God's blessed book it sometimes means one thing and sometimes another, every reader being thus at libei'ty to bend and apply it as a nose of wax. Why not avoid this dilemma by attributing to phraseology an import univer- sally recognized, by believing that John baptized by means of his dis- cijjles 1 By thus avoiding "violence and injustice to Vv-ords and phrases, the numbers baptized by John constitute no presumption against their immersion. "The advocates of sprinkling," says Mr. Craps, "do not draw their arguments from direct and positive evidence, but from imaginary diffi- culties and supposed improbabilities. Either the number was too great, or the water was too scarce, or the taste was too refined, to admit of immersion. If we cannot solve all these difficulties to their satisfaction, they imagine they have 'won the battle.' For the same reason the infidel might imagine he has won the battle against Christianity, for who can solve all the supposed difficulties of the infidel to his satisfaction ? Also in the same way crrcumcision might be disputed." Thus, Dr. Carson, in reply to Dr. Miller, who, in opposition to histo- rical and all other proof, had said : " There is no evidence, and I will venture to say, no probability, that John ever baptized by immersion," replies : " What evidence could he expect biit the testimony of the Avord ? If that signifies to immerse, then there is express evidence that the very action designated by the name of the ordinance is immersion. He might as well venture to say that there is no evidence, and no pro- bability, that Jesus rose from the dead. He might allege that the word resurrection has another meaning. On the same i)rinciple, when we read that such a person was killed in the field of battle, there is no evidence that he is dead. Is not this imported in the word killed? And if it is not proved by this, it is not proved at all by the document. Now there is no man who would reason with obstinacy so foolish in regard to our own language. Yet this is the very thing that Dr. M. and almost all our opponents do with regard to this word. In ascertainiog the evidence of its meaning, they receive not its own testimony." " There may be additional evidence and corroborating cu'cumstances, but the direct proof of what John did in baptizing, or any other man did in baptizing, must be the testimony of the word itself." " Besides, as the ground-work of his allegation of improbabihty, he assumes what is not in eA-idence, that Jolin must have baptized all his converts })ersonally, and all in the space of two years and a half" (p. 372). Dr. Halley is willing to take Mr. Thorn's computation of numbers baptized by John at one-twentieth. The time here given him is " two years and a half j" but Mr. T. says : " He was engaged in this work only about six mouths." To the repeated assertion that John's baptism must have been pouring or sprinkling, because it could not possibly be immersion, notliing is wanting but the proof. 5. The reasoning of our opponents against John's immersion, and against immersion as Christian baptism, is in opposition to all their admissions respecting the clearness of Holy Writ, and in condemnation 352 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. of all they thus advance in opposing the sentiments of Unitarians. Recent writers in advocacy of the vicariovis and sacrificial sufferings of Christ speak as theii- predecessors on the import of words and phrases selected by the Divine Spirit. Thus the Rev. E. Mellor, in " Reply to three Lectures by the Rev. Thomas Hincks," inquires respecting "moral sins," if they are not taught in the Scriptures he quotes, " What lan- guage would sviffice to teach this truth]" So may we ask, If immersion is not taught by pi-ecept and practice recorded in the New Testament, "What language would suffice to teach this truthi" He assures us that " the principles of interpretation which can succeed in twisting the following passages so as to give them any other meaning than that which makes the Father the appointer of the su.fferings of Christ, can play any tricks with language, and make impossible for any being, Divine or human, to utter an unambiguous proposition." We need not quote his passages. We say that the meaning given to baptizo by each of our opponents " is one, in sup2:)ort of which he cannot cite a solitaiy example from the whole range of Greek literature." — The Atoneni., pi"). 81-101, 2nd edition. The hypothesis advanced by our brethren as a substitute for imraex'- sion in the baptisms of John, deserves the sarcasm and censure in what follows : — "The Jews In Jordan were baptized:— ' Thei-efore ' ingenious John devised A scoop, or squirt, or some such thing, With which some water he might fling Upon the long-extended rank Of candidates that lined the bank: Be careful, John, some dro2)S do fall From ytnir rare instrument on all ; But point your engine, ne'ei'theless, To those wlio first their .sins confess ; Let no revilers in the crowd The holy sprinkling l)e allow'd. The Baptist had not time, y,'e dream. To dij) the iieople in the stream ; But, when awake, we must believe. It took more minutes to receive Confessions from the truly good. Than to immerge them in the flood." Salopian Zealot, jip. 16, 17. Also Mr. Booth says : ' ' That so grave an author as Dr. Guise should give such a puerile and farcical turn to the conduct of him who came in the sjtirit and power of Elijah, wheu administering a solemn ordinance of Divine worship, is matter of wonder. Nor can I account for its being ai)proved by others, but on a supposition that they feel themselves embarrassed when attempting to reconcile tlieir own practice M'ith the natural and obvious meaning of what the evangelists have said concerning John's administration of the rite. If, however, the credit of sprinkling cannot be supported without burlcstpiing the saci'cd history, and exposing in this manner one of the most exalted hiiman characters to the ridicule of infidels, it ought for ever to sink in oblivion. But what will not the love of hypothesis do, wheu cherished by any writer! To justify my censure, let the following things be considered. "This account of the fact represents him, who was more than a prophet, as less than a man — represents him, Avho was all severity in his manners, and all solemnity in his mini.stry, as acting the part of a playful boy. According to these authors, there was not lialf the snlcmnity in .Tohn's bajitism which there is in that annual FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 353 festival of the Eomish church, which is called The Benediction of Horses.''' After quoting Dr. Middleton's description of this Popish ceremony, he adds : "The priest of superstition in his white surplice, appears to act with more care and more solem- nity than the servant of God in his hairy garment. The former, though paid for his laVioiir at so much per head, cautiously sprinkles the cattle one by one : the latter, though mortified to secular gain, burning with zeal for God, and full of love to the souls of men, being all in a hurry to finish his business, casts water on half a dozen or half a score at a time. Of this haste it may be supposed, the conse- quence was, that the water was very unequally divided among the candidates. How many deep the ranks were, our authors, indeed, have not informed us ; but according to them there must have been more than one rank, because they speak in the jilural. It is plain, therefore, that the front rank must have had the most copious application of the liquid element: while many individuals, we may justly suppose, that were further distant from the administrator, had little or none at all. This presumed conduct of John, considered in one view, presents us with a merce- nary drudge in the service of God, who cares not how slovenly the solemnities of holy worship are performed, provided they do but ajipear in full tale : in another, with a icanton hoy, who makes himself sport by squirting water upon all that are near him : in every view, not only with something quite inimical to the character of John, but also to the solemn and gracious import of that ordinance which he administei'ed." — Vol. i., pp. 213-215. We much prefer believing that our fi-iencLs are blinded by prejudice to adopting and applying the words of the Pasdobaptist, Mr. Alsop, who .«ays; "When men are pressed with express Scripture, and yet are resolved (cost what it will) to adhere to their own conclusions, it is advisable to cast about, to turn their thoughts into all shapes imaginable, to hunt for the extremest possibilities" [Antisozzo, p. 549). It is, however, right that all take warning from the Pharisees and lawyers, who, not being baptized of John, rejected the counsel of God against themselves. The idea that John's baptism could not be immersion because he baptized so many, cannot be the idea of the numerous Psedobaptists whom we have quoted as testifying that primitive baptism, in accordance with the meaning of the word, was immersion. Many, as to the action of baptism, speak like Olshausen : " John's baptism was most probably like the Christian, not only in this, that, in it the baptizing party per- formed the immersion on the baptized," etc. {Com., on Matt. iii. 1.) On Christ's baptism by John, he speaks, as do others, of "the submersion" and "the emersion" (On Matt. iii. 16, 17). Even Dr. Clarke, Avho did not believe in the possibility of John's immersing the multitudes that by him were baptized, can, howe"\'er, quote with commendation the following from Dr. Lightfoot : " We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they, standing in Jordan, Avere taught by John that they were baptized into the name of the Messiah, who was now immediately to come, and into the profession of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning faith and repentance; that they plunged themselves into the i-iver, and so came out " (Conclu. of Mark's Gospel). On the striking agi-eement of the above with the sprinkling of infants we need say nothing ! Mr. K Mimpriss teaches that the locality of John's ministry "appears to have been chosen as the fittest scene for the ministerial labours of John, because," when overflowed by the Jordan, and laid under water, it AA 354 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. would afford the greatest facilities for baptism or immersion" {Treas. Har., p. 88). Our conception is that, independently of the overflowing of the I'iver, the locality was well selected "for baptism or immersion." The EcA'. W. Trollope, not doubting that John's baptism was immer- sion, but perhaps not sufficiently considering the difference betwixt the climate of Palestine and England, says: "Now winter does not seem a veiy fit or natural season for beginning to baptize, and entirely immerse in water, so great a multitude of converts, as appear to have flocked to Jolin ; so that it is much more reasonable to suppose that the revelation was communicated to John in the summer or spring, or about six months before the baptism of Jesus, in November." — Anal. Theol., on Luke ui. 1. Bp. Taylor teaches us, in Christ's baptism by John, to " behold an immersion, not an aspersion" {Due. JDuh., b. iii., c. iv.). Would that he had more sti'ongly deprecated the breaking of laws human and Divine by the Anglican church, of which he says: "In the Church of England there is a law that when children are baptized they shall be dipped in the water; only if they be sick it shall be sufficient that it be sprmkled upon them; but j-et the custom of sprinkling all does prevail" {Do.). Let the following have their merited consideration : — WiTSirs. — "It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practised immersion." — Econ. of the Gov., b. iv. , c. xvi., § 13. G. J. Vossius. — "That the apostles immersed when they baptized there is no doubt." — Disj). on Bap., Dis. i., § G. Archb. SuMXER. — "John was baptizing, i.e., immersing in water, those who came to him for this purpose, 'confessing their sins'" — [Eo'p. Lee, on John i., 19-28). He admits that the ordinance "is not now commonly performed by im- mersion," but, like others, would have us believe that "this does not affect its nature," and that consequently an adoption of the human substitute, in lieu of the Divine appointment, is not sinful. Neander. — "John's followers were entirely immersed in the water." — Life of Christ, p. 55. Fkitzsche. — "/ baptize you unto repentance means: I immerse (immergo)," &c. — On Eom., vi. 3. D. A. SciioTT. — "Were immersed (immergebanfur) by him in the Jordan." " I indeed immerse {immergo) j'ou in water ... he will immerse [immerget) 5'ou in the Holy Spirit and fire." "To be immersed {ut immergeretur) by him." " I have need to be immersed (ut immergar) by thee." "And Jesus, when He had been immersed {immersus fuisset)" {Transla. of Matt, iii. 6, 11, 13, 14, 16. 1839). More quotations are given by Dr. Conant, whose rendering we have followed in the above, from Schott and Fritzsche. J. SuTCLiFFE. — "The Jews . . . did baptize by dipping." — Coin., on Matt. iii. 7. Dr. Lange. — "John administered the rite of submersion." "His idea of repentance exceeded the outward requirements of the Mosaic law as much as his rite of immersion that of sprinkling." '■^ And loere baptized, immersed, in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Immersion was the symbol of repentance. According to Meyer, repentance was symbolized by immersion, because," &c. — Com. on Matt., vol. i. , pj). 1 ] 3, 1 ] 5, 1 18. Clark's edi. Contrast this honest statement of Dr. Lange with an apparent appeal to igno- rance of the import of a Greek word, and of the difference lietween the climate and- customs of Palestine and England in the following from the Rev. J. Burnet: "Were they all immersed without their garments? Were they immersed in the desert and left with their clothes wet?" — Ler., p. 88. Dr. Alford. — "The ba]>tism of proselytes was administered " "by immersion of the whole person." "It is most jirobable that John's Ijaptism in outward form resembled that of proselytes." — Gr. Tex., on jNIatt. iii. (5. J. D. Burns teaches that Christ and the Baptist "descended into the river, and the rite was performed. The pure Avaters have laved his sinless bod}', and the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 355 Saviour straightway coming up from the stream stands on the bank in prayer." — Faw. Treas., p. 242. 1861. Bp. Ellicott and others do not appear to believe that John sprinkled. The learned Bishop says: "The Foreninner descends with his Redeemer into the rapid waters of the now sacred river." — His. Lee, p. 108. Harvey Goodwin says: "When He went up out of the water, in which He had with such humility i^ermitted Himself to be baptized." — Com., on Matt. iii. 16, 17. We know the sentiments of Bj). Taylor, who said : ' ' Christ, who is our life, went down into the waters of baptism.". Nor need we doubt those of Ellicott and Goodwin on tlie baptism of Christ. After Christ "had been baptized, or washed with water," says Dr. G. Benson, "he was anointed with the sacred unction of the Holy Spirit." — His. of Christ's Life, p. 25. Dean Stanley speaks of the "bathing of the pilgi'ims in the Jordan," which also he designates "plunging" and "immersion," and as presenting a likeness "to the multitudinous baptisms of John." — iS'mai mid Pal., pp. 312-316. Bp. Browne. — "The language of the New Testament and of the primitive fathers sufiiciently points to immersion as the common mode of baptism. John the Bap- tist baptized in the river Jordan (Matt. iii.). Jesus is represented as 'coming out of the water' after His baptism (Mark i. 10). Again, John is said to have baptized in ^non because there was much water there (.John iii. 23; see also Acts viii. 36)." —In Dr. W. Smith's Die. of the Bible, Art. Bajj. § 10. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION FROM MaRK VII. 4, 8; LUKE XI. 38; AND HeB. IX. 10. Bp. Tait. — "Unless controversy be carried on in the spirit of love, it is essentially un-Christian." "To oppose error, except from a love to Christ and His truth, and the souls of our brethren, is only to be proudly bent on spreading our own opinions." — Danrj. and Safcg. of Mod. Theol., pp. 34, 35. C. Stovel. — "This Greek word baptizo, now called a 'faint and fading letter,' is found 'in the midst of a revelation whose bright and glorious characters he that nins may read, and the wayfaring man cannot mistake.' ... If a Greek word be so conteraiJtible as a means of communication in one case, how shall a Greek word become respected in another/ or, rather, how shall we respect the Spirit who hath chosen to express His Divine command by a word which even those who under- stand the Greek language cannot explain ? This plea of obscurity in the Word of God is the ground on which the Papal church has ever based her claim to official interpretation ; it is not confined to this one word baptizo, but extended to others, as occasion may serve. ... It implicates the character of the Lord himself, by supposing that He taught our duty in words which none of His servants could understand." — On Ui-sci., p. 4S5. T. Powell. — "It is a supreme rule of interijretation that what is obscure must be interpreted by what is clear." — Apos. Sue, p. 22. Dr. Carson. — "Truth is my riches: to contend for it in the sight of God is my highest glory. IMen of sincerity and men of God may be in error as to the meaning of Scripture, yet in no instance is error eitlier innocent or harmless." "This is self-evident. I state it, therefore, as a canon, or first principle of criticism, that in controver.sy a word occuRKiNt; frequently IN THE language IS NEVER TO BE TAKEN ARBITRARILY IN A SENSE WHICH IT CANNOT BE SHOWN INCONTESTABLY TO HAVE IN SOME OTHER PASSAGE. An acknowledged scuse is necessary as a foundation on which to rest the siipposition, that in the contested passage it may have the signification as.signed " (pp. 364, 89). Dr. Wardlaw. — "I think you wrong, far wrong. You think the same of me. It is an impera- tive duty that we tiy to set each other right : and even if we should not, on either side, succeed in the attempt, to prevent, as far as lieth in us, the adoption of our respective errors by others, and their injurious influence on the church and on the world. Even errors which may seem merely speculative are never harmless ; much less can these be harmless." — Let. to M'Neile. Baptizo or haptismos occurs in the following places where the New Testament institution is not referred to : — " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except i^nvpsontai) they tvash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except (bciptisontai) they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as (baptismous) the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables" (Mark vii. 3, 4). " For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as 356 JMl'ORT OF BAPTISM. {haptismous) the toashing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" (ver. 8). "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that (ou 2)rotou ehaptistJie) he had not first vKtshed before dinner" (Luke xi. 38). "Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers {haptismois) loashim/s, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." — Heb. ix. 10. It will be perceived that by our translators the term "wash" is given in Mark vii. 3, 4, to two distinct Greek words: first, to ni^ito in ver. 3, and then to haptizo in ver. 4. This Scripture is sometimes incorrectly quoted, or referred to; that is, as if haptizo occurred in the third verse, where the hands are mentioned. So Mr. Hall, ]Mr. Bayley, etc. Mr. Hall asserts: "The fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes of the Jews, was that they had not first been baptized before eating; that is, they had eaten with unwashed hands." We say that the facts of the case, however they may be explained, are not as stated by Mr. Hall, but that the disciples are charged as eating with unwashed hands, and that the Lord is charged as eating, xmbaptized. Mr. Hall, having (though, we believe, unintentionally) falsified the declarations of inspired tnith, can complacently say: "To my mind, here is, so far, demonstration, — proof which puts it beyond my power to doubt, — that sprinhling and pouring are scriptural modes of baptism." Mr. R. S. Bayley says: "We find that except they wash their hands, they eat not. The Greek has baptize." This is not a true statement. Dr. L. Woods, a transatlantic brother, teaches that the supposition of immersion " would be unreason- able, especially since one of the presci'ibed modes of cei-emonial jiurifica- tion, and, indeed, the most common mode, was the sprinkling of conse- crated water" ( IFor/cs, vol. iii., p. 446). And from such assumptions as these he can proceed in the next words to say: "Since, then, it apj)eai-s that haptismos, baptism, when used to denote ceremonial purification, did not by any means signify immersion exclusively, and generally signified some other modes of jiurification." AVliat is there that might not be proved after this fashion? Prof. Wilson, on Mark vii. 3, 4, says: "And hei'e the record of Jewish customs, it must be acknowledged, sujiplies no satisfactory infonnation" relating " to the mode of this baptism" (p. 225). Mr. Jerram says: " Do you suppose that every individual in a family, who had been in the mai'ket, immersed his whole body in Avater, before he sat down to dinner ? The fact is, as we read in St. John's Gospel, that waterpots were placed at the entrance of their houses for the j)ur- poses of purification; and these 2)urifications were performed by the guests as they approached the room for dining, and could consist in nothing more than the mere dii)ping of the fingers or hands into the water" (p. 128). Mr. Stacey is as oracular and illogical on these passages as most writers. He quotes Mark vii. 2-5, and Luke xi. 37, 38, and tells us that " the cases are jierfectly analogous in all but the terms used for the purifying process" (p. 193). His premise being, as we maintain, an unwarrantable assumption, what must his inferences necessarily be? That Mark vii. 3 speaks of the washing of hands is undeniable ; that the former part of vei-. 4 refers to the baptizing of the person, and the latter part to the ba])tisms of cups, Arc, and that Luke xi. 38 is a c;ise FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 357 paiullel to what is mentioned in tlie former part of Mark v-ii. 4, as it regards the action described, we regard as obvious to any one acquainted with the original, and as conhrmed by the rendering whicli Mr. S. has given. He liimself thus records the former })art of Mark vii. 4 : " And Avhen they come from tlie market, except tliey wash (baptize themselves), they eat not." This properly rei)reseuts the original, except that baptize, as an Anglicised word, does not convey so clearly and promptly to an English ear the original idea as the word immerse would. Also, in Lvike xi. 38, we have the passive form of haptizo, which, although literally rendered, would be, loas immersed, conveys the same idea as the middle voice in Mark vii. 4, which literally is, baptize themselves. Yet Mr. S. here, — as we l)elieve, through the infivience of prepossessions, — does not distinguish things that differ, bvit deceptively confounds them. Is a wasliing of the hands " perfectly analogous" to a baptizing of themselves? He adds: "In the one case ivash is given, in the other, bajitize." Is this a just or a partial and incorrect representation 1 He then says: " Does not this suggest their complete identity of meaning in these instances?" By no means. The use of two different words by the inspired Avi-iter suggests the idea of two different actions. The first case, in wliich Ave have the verb jiipto, not baptizo, speaks of the constant practice of the Pharisees and the Jews, namely, to wash their hands before eating: the second (Mark vii. 4) speaks of their conduct when they come from the market, namely, to immei'se themselves before eating. The record in Luke xi. 38 describes the marvel of the Pharisee that Jesus was not immersed before He "sat down to meat" with him. Yet Mr. S. can ask : " Who, free from the trammels of a theory, could doubt that the omitted baptism in tlie case of our Lord was the neglected washing of their hands in that of His disciples f We believe that when Mr. S. is emancipated "from the trammels of a theory," if we may use svich an expression, or, as we much prefer it, is delivered from tliose prepossessions which at present exert so potent and blinding an influence, he will be deeply abased before God and men that he has, to so great an extent, misrepresented and perverted Divine truth, and will desire to make all possible reparation. Dr. Stier, on John xiii. 10, says: "The e\T.dentIy antithetic leloumenos, which does not refer to the hands and face (for of these nipsastJud and niptein are used), but as the olos distinctly shows, to a proper bath." — Words, etc., vol. viii., p. 343. We will not follow Mr. S. sentence after sentence. Instead of con- ceiving that immersion in the promised land was a frequent, salutary, and pleasant operation, often I'equired by the Divine law, and more frequently demanded by human traditions, he describes it, and seems invariably to conceive of it, as " an irksome service," and " a yoke of bondage;" involving " immense labour and time," and " expen.sive prepa- rations of baths, (fee. /' we had almost said, as if because this Phai-isee expected that Christ would immerse, so, if the word has such a meaning, all the houses of the Jews are necessarily to be supposed as fitted u]) like the house of that Pharisee; and he concludes, with others of like prepos- sessions, that the waterpots mentioned in John ii. 6, in connection with which nothing is said about baptizing, prove that the baptizing mentioned in Max'k vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38 " 7?^?^ed is oljviously a jiortable one ; it is easy to take up, fold it together, and carry it from jilace to place, as convenience may require. The allusions in the Bible show that couches or beds in use among the Jews were of different kinds ; that they were more or less simple, more or less exjjeusive, according to the rank and circiunstances of different persons. Anciently, however, as at the present time in the East, the common peojile slept on a light mattress or blanket, with a pillow, perhaps, but without any other appendage" (p. 97). Prof. Paxxox says: "The Eastern beds consist merely of two thick cotton quilts, one of which, folded double, serves as a mattress, the other as a covering, and the natives sleep generally iu the clothes tliej' wear during the day." "An Eastern bed occasionally consisted of four or five parts richly ornamented." — Jlltis. ofScr'q)., vol. i., pp. 22()-228. Dr. Iv. Jamteson says: " Eastern beds being often no more than mattresses, are in the morning thrown aside into a closet or recess" {Eax. Man., &c., O.T., p. 502). Of King Ahaziah's bed, he says: "The bed on which he lay, and from which the prophet announced that he would never come down, was the mattress spread on the divan, which is only a cushion a little elevated above the floor, such as the beds of all the better class of Eastern ])coi)le consist of." — Do., p. 319. Ingkam C'oniiiN says: "Beds, a sort of mats, mattresses, or common carpets, carried upon luudles." — Co)n., on Mark vi. 55. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 359 Siu-ely, according to Paedobaptist hermeneutics on baptism, we must deny that the words "Take up," mean "take up," where we read, "Take up thy bed, and walk." The thing is impossible; therefore the word means, put it in a barrow, get it into a cart, or something of this kind ! Again, as sprinkling was "a rite of purification,"- — although not the spriiakling of pvire water xinder any circumstances, — " established by the law of Moses," so "the traditions of the elders" would by no means enjoin the washing of them in accordance with the washing of the hands, or the immersion of them in accordance with a bathing of the person, in order to their being cleansed or purified; therefore "from these two references to Phaiisaic baptism the proof ai)pears conclusive that baptize does not always mean to immerse "(!). Yea, "that sprinkling was the mode," "is probable almost to certainty" (p. 196). To record this is almost enougli to refute it ! Dr. W. Cooke teaches that "a man might baptize a cup or a pot by dipping it into water," but "surely he would not baptize his bed by dipping it into water, especially if he had immediately after to lie do-wn or recline upon it." With those who are ignorant of the Eastern climate and customs, of the import of the Greek word as it had invariably been used, and of the burden of pi-oof in all cases of de\iation from the primary meaning, and wdio withal are wishful to escape immersion, this may sufliice. Also, does God's Word say that they baptized these when immediately after they lay down or reclined upon theml Adopt Dr. C.'s reasoning in application to a taking up of the bed and walking, to a washing of the feet after a walk, &c., and let the climate and customs of Palestine be overlooked, and what will be the result ? Dr. Halley is niore discriminating and cautious on this subject than some of the writers to whom we have already referred; but he has his difficidties in believing that immersion is meant Avhere haptizo is here used. He associates Matt. xv. 1, 2, with the passages cited, as we have there a record respecting the washing of hands similar to that in Mark vii. 3. He inquii'es : " Why should more have been reqiiired from our Lord " than from His disciples, as if it was at all necessary to a know- ledge of the meaning of a word to know why a certain Pharisee should entertain the very strange idea that a teacher and master should exceed his pupils in what a Pharisee considered to be pious scrupulosity ! He is awai'e that, " according to the Rabbinical authorities, it was better to die than to eat without first washing the hands;" but he conceives that the immersion of the whole body "must have been regarded as an act of most scrvipulous sanctity and Pharisaic strictness ;" for Rabbinical authors who "treat so diflrisely upon the ablution of the hands before meals, say very little of the immersion of the whole body." Dr. H. says: "I know not whether our Baptist friends will regard as a concession what all ought to acknowledge, that the two kinds of ablution, the pouring of water upon the hands, and the dipping of them in it, might have been intended in the Gospel of Mark, where the former is called washing of the hands to the wrist, and the latter baptizing." We accept in this a concession from Dr. H. that baptizing even here is or may be dipping. Whether it refers to the hands or to the whole person, we shall take the liberty to judge for ourselves. He also can say : " Conceding w hat I care 3G0 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. not to deny, tliat the Pharis^ees, as early as the time of our Lord, practised immersion after contact with the common people;" yet he has a difficulty again with the Pharisee expecting the immersion " to he observed at his own house preparatory to the sitting down at his tahle." Dr. Kitto, speaking of Canaan, says that cisterns are quite general in cities, where every house has either one large or several small ones. The Avater is conducted into them from the roofs of the houses during the rainy season, and remains in them, by reason of much cai'e, clear and fresh through the whole summer and autumn" (Sc7-lp. Lands, p. 146). Our Piedobaptist friends can believe that thus in every house in their cities they provided and preserved the needful water for food; but that this distinguished Pharisee had provision in water for the ablution of the whole person, whether for Divine or superstitious purposes, is so hard to be believed, that it is preferred, without authority from any source except from beneath, to coin another meaning for the word haptizo. Dr. K. subsequently quotes fi'om Robinson: " The same cause which led the inhabitants to excavate cisterns, also induced them to build in and around most of the cities large reservoirs for public use. Such tanks ai-e found at Jervisalem, Hebron, Bethel, Gibeon, Bireh, and various other places; sometimes still in use as at Hebron, but more commonly in ruins " (p. 146). So Dr. "W". Smith's Biblical Dictionary speaks in reference to Jerusalem of the large reservoirs from which water was brought, which "seems at all times to have been sufficient for its limited population, aided, of course, by the rain-water, which was i:»robably always stored in cisterns all over the town."- — Art. Jerusalem. (J. Fergusson.) Surely, if the inspired writers had known the difficulty that Avould be involved in ascertaining the meaning of haptizo from this one rich Pharisee exjDecting that Jesus would have been baptized before sitting down to meat, they would have explained the marvel of his marvel ; or have told us for the confirmation of our faith that there was "some bath or lai'ge cistern in the house " of this Pharisee, wherein immersion was possible, and that clean water and every requisite for immersion belonged to the establishment of this Pharisee ! We do not need to be told of the possibility of convenience for washing of the hands, because St. John, in the second chapter of his Gospel, has informed us that, in connection with "a marriage in Cana, of Galilee," "there were set six water})ots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews " ! Nay, more, we beg pardon for previously hinting at difficulties, for from St. Johns record " we may certainly coiiclude " " that the Pharisee marvelled because our Loi'd did not pei-form the customaiy ablution, which could not have ))een immersion, of a guest before dinner " ! "■ This is the con- * The word ablution, which signifies washing or bathing, or cleansing effected by washing or bathinLj, is often used pro])crly by fnu- opponents for l)athing or washing, whicli, when used iibsolutcly in ai)plic;itioii to the ]>erson, usually refers to the whole person. Thus Dr. (iardnor, in Faithx af the World, says that ablution is "the ceremony of washing or batliing tlie body in water, which has been in .all ages and in .all coxintries, but ])articularly in the East, resorted to as conducive in a high degree to he.altli aiul comfort. . . . Tlie earliest instance of ablution recorded in Scripture was that of Aaron and his sons (Lev. viii. G), who were commanded to wasli their bodies before their inves- titure wit}i the sacred robes, and the otlier ceremonies of their eonseci'ation " (Art. Abliitiou). "SVliat is s;ud of tlie ablutions of the Hindoos, kc, indicates a washing of FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 3G1 elusion of our learned brother, who admits that on the person who maintains that a word has a second meaning, or is used in a secondary- sense, devolves the obligation of proof ! But because neither Rabbinical nor inspired writei's enable some of our Predobaptist friends to see why a certain Pharisee expected Jesus to be immersed before dinner, we are to believe that baptizo means to pour as well as to immerse, yea, to sprinkle as well as to immerse and pour ! Are we to disbelieve an inspired record if pi'ofane history does not vovich it, or if another part of the inspired record does not attirm the same ? Such provin'i.fi<'ntion after circumcision, dr., and in case of j^ollution by the dead" (On Bap., p. 122). He next refers to Strabo in proof of this mode of purification from uncleanness among the Babylonians ; and to the mode of purifi- cation expressly required from Jewish priests ; and in case of leprosy. Coming to the New Testament, he says : "In these most venerable records, which are the unerring rule of our holy religion, the word hojytizo is often used, but most commonly concerning the baptism of John, or the Christian sacrament, which is the subject of our dispute; but it is often without any circumstance which may determine how we must understand it ; Avhich, if it proves anj^thing at all, shows the word is used in the common sense only, and accoi'ding to the general accepta- tion ; for else it had been necessary to have apprized us of the new and particidar imusual sense : and nothing of this being done, it seems reasonable to give it the same signification in all those places as it has everywhere else. I think this is plain and undeniable; but jSIr. Wall believes he can jirove, by other instances, that it does not everywhere else signify to dip. To that purpose, he mentions only four, which he calls plain instances. . . . The first, and which he enlarges most upon, is St. Luke xi. 38, which our English reads thus : ' And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. ' The original word, he notes, is ebaiJtisthe; and comparing this place with St. Mark vii. 5, which speaks particularly of washinrj of hands, he infers, this is a plain instance, that they used the word to baptize /o?- any ordinary washiny, whether there were dipping in the case or not. To make this conclusion pass more securely, he had insinuated before, that their way of that washing tvas this: They hcul servants to jtour the tmter on their hands (2 Kings iii. 11); who poured water on the hands of Elijah, that is, icho waited on him as a servant. He says no more to prove this custom, but thus slightly passes over a point which deserved and unavoidal)ly required greater examination, considering the whole stress of his argument depends entirely upon it ; for if they washed their hands as Ave usually do now, by dipping them into the water, nobody need be told his instance turns against him, and makes considerably for us" (pp. 125, 126). In reply to Dr. Wall, he mentions, first, the "vast distance of time between the period referred to in the book oi Kings, and our Saviour's time," and consequently that the Avords cited " at most do but discoA-er AA'hat Avas the custom near a thousand years before, and signify nothing to the time Avhen the Avords, which are the ground of his inference, Avere spoken." Facts Avhich prove the jyossibilit.y of a change are addiiced. Secondly, it is maintained that "the words do not prove what Mr. Wall cites them for," as they might be "rendered who poured water for, not upon, the hands of Elijah; the HebreAV particle al often signifying /w/', in this sense, as Psalm xxxii. 6." After adducing and commenting on otlier passages, he obserA^es, thirdly, "If it is AA'orth Avhile to inquire Avhat Avas the custom so long ago, in a matter of this nature, it A\'ill Avith little search appear at least A'ery proliable, that their religious Avashing of their hands and feet Avas performed ]>y dipjuug them into the water. For when !Moses received directions from God concerning the utensils of the tabernacle, he aams commanded, among otlier things, to make a laA-er of brass, in Avhicli Avater Avas to be kept betAvecu the taber- nacle of the congregation and the altar, for the priests to Avash their hands and feet before tlicy entered the tabernacle, or Avhen they approached the altar to offer ; So they shall ■uris/i. their Iinnds and f eft that they die not (Exodus xxx. 21). The Avord hero used by the sacred penman in the original is rahhatz; AA'liich, as I before noted, gencrallj% and I think ahvays, includes dipping in its signification, and, therefore, too, makes it at least probable, tiiey Avere to Avash their hands and feet by dipping tlieni into the Avatcr. Had yat-.nk been used here, as in 2 Kings iii. 11, aliove cited, which signities to pour, Mr. Wall could scarce have omitted this pas- sage, but have thought it very convincing and strong on his side, as uoaa', I think, it must be allowed to be against him. The same AA'ord, Ave may observe, is used in 2 Chron. Ia'. 6, about the A-ast brazen sea Solomon caused to be made, AA'liich held two hundred baths, that is, near a thousand barrels of Avater; the bulk of it argues the priests were to go into it; the Avords express it also, the sea va.-< for the priests FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 369 to wash in. So again, in another instance (Exothis xxix. 4), concerning the conse- cration of the priests, which Jonathan renders tabal, thou shalt dij^ them in forty measures of spring water. ' ' Further, that this Avas the way our Lord took, when He washed His disciples' feet (John xiii. 5), seems veiy certain, both from the propriety of the words, and the manner in which it is reLated : After that he poureth ivater into a bason, and began to u^ash the disciples'' feet, &c. We see the water was not poured on their feet, but into the bason, before He came to tliem, when their feet were to be washed. The book that goes under the name of the Apostolic Constitutions, relates the action thus: After that, He poured tvater into a bason, and as loe sat. He came to ?«, and icashed our feet, and loiped them icith a foivel. The bason here is nipter, which signifies a vessel to wash in ; from whence it has its name, as the water they washed with, was also from thence called nimma, niptron, podoniptron, or cheironipitron, and the like; and so Eustathius upon Homer (Lib. iii. c. 19), explains cherniba, to mean the ivater lohich is j^oured out for, not itpon, the hands; by which their cus- tom, as well as the sense of the words is expressed. And to all this we may add, that (Mark vii. 3), unless they uxish, pugme, up to the elbow or wrist, must imply dipping" (pp. 128, 129). We cannot with propriety quote the whole of what Dr. Gale says. He cites Dr. Pocock as saying: "These things abundantly confirm what I asserted in the beginning, namely, that tabal (which answers to baptizesthai in the Greek) signifies a further degree of piirification than natal, or clterniptein, yet not so as necessarily to imply an immersion of the whole body; for the greatest and most notorious imcleanuess of the hands reached biit to the perek, or the wrist, and was cleansed by immersing or dipping them up so high." Also, he quotes Dr. Hammond as saying on haptizo, that the word signifies the "washing of any part, as the hands here, by way of immersion in water, as that is opposed to affusion or pouring water on them." — Anno, in Mark vii. 4. On what Dr. Pocock had said from the Rabbins, Dr. Gale, on Luke xi. ,38, says : " It makes nothing for Mr. Wall, but rather against hiju. For since it is beyond dispute, that the word properly and generally signifies to dip; and that the Jews did at least sometimes wash by dipping ; and that dipping also was thought a more perfect piirification, which, therefore, at least, some of the superstitious Pharisees very strictly adhered to ; it is very natural and even necessary, to believe the word means nothing less in the place before us, especially if it be considered it is a zealous Pharisee who is there speaking, who also, perhaps, looked for signs of the severest sanctity in a pei'son who set up for a censor and reformer even of the sect of the Pharisees themselves; who made such mighty pretensions to, and had gained so great a reputation for holiness, &c. Add to all this, that if any heed is to be given to the words themselves, the plain letter of the holy text, which implies to dip, is on my side ; while, on the contrary, ]\Ir. Wall produces no one thing to make it jsrobable, in the least degree, that the Pharisee, or if you please, St. Luke, did not mean to dip " (p. 133). Having referred to Dr. Pocock and to Jewish Eabbins, he says : " Wliat respect can such persons have to that awfid pillar and ground of the truth, who industriously make it bend and yield to the silly whimsies of these men? Bat againsst them and the Doctor I prodiice Vatalilus, a man so singidarly versed in the Rabbinical writ- ings, that even the Jews themselves, as M. De Thou tells us, greatly admired his lectiu-es, and attended them when he was public Hebrew Professor at Paris. Vatablus says: thei/\vashed themselves all over. And to j)ass by others I will only add the authority of the admirable Grotius, who ought never to be named without a mark of honour ; he says, on Mark vii. 4 : ' They were more solicitous to cleanse themselves from the defilement they had contracted in the market ; and, therefore, they not only Avashed their hands, but immersed their whole body ' " (p. 135). He afterwards speaks of the frecpient ablutions of the Jews ; of the Divine law commanding the jn-iests to wash their feet in water before eating, Lev. xxii. 6 ; of the sect called Hemerobaptistse, because of the daily washing of their bodies, and referred to by Josephus and others ; and he then says : ' ' Tertullian also plainly intimates the Jews used to wash their whole bodies, when he says : Thou(/h the Jews daily wash every part o*' the body, yet they are never clean. And Eabbi Benjamin, in his Itineracy, mentions the Chuthites or Samaritans about Naplosa, formerly Sichem, between Garizim and Ebal; and says, they still wash their BB 370 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. bodies every day. And what else but the washing of the whole body can be the meaning of the sacred text, when it is so plain, and beyond all possible ambiguity, that the washing of the hands is mentioned in the words immediately preceding, and therefore cannot without great absurdity be again so formally repeated here" (pp. 130, 137). Amongst other things in proof of this as the natural import of the words in Mark, as a mode of narration sufficiently methodical, he adduces Albei'tus Bobovius, chief interpreter to the Emperor Mahomet IV. , when describing Maho- metan washings as similarly relating, first, ordinary lustrations, and afterwards adding, that iipon greater and extraordinary pollutions the whole body is washed (pp. 137, 138). Dr. Carson, on Luke xi. 38, says: "Dipping is the thing expressed; washing is the consequence known by inference. It is dijiping, whether it relates to the hands or the whole body. But many examples from the Jews, and also from the Greeks, it is said, prove that the hands were washed by pouring water on them by a servant. . . . Though this might be the usual mode of washing the hands, it might not be the only mode, which is abundantly sufficient for my purpose. The possibility of this is enough for me ; but Dr. Gale has proved from Dr. Pococke that the Jews sometimes washed their hands by dijiping. Peojile of distinction might have water poured on their hands by servants, but it is not likely that this was the common practice of the body of the people, in any nation. The examples from Homer cannot inform \is with respect to the practice of the common people. But I say this without any view to my argument in this place, for it is evident that the word does not here refer to the washing of the hands. It may ap];)ly to any part, as well as to the whole; but whenever it is iised without the regimen expressed, or nnderstood in phrases much used, it applies to the whole bod3^ When a ])art only is dipped, the part is mentioned, or some part is excepted, as is the case with Jouo. The passage, then, ought to have been translated: 'And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he was not immersed before dinner. ' The Pharisees themselves, on some occasions, would not eat till they had used the 1)ath, and this Pharisee might expect still more emment devotion from Jesus " (p. 67). On Mark vii. 4, he says : " Here we are told that when they come from market, they eat not till they are dipjycd, or haptized. Dr. C'amjibeH's notion that nipto and baptizo here both refer to the hands, the one to washing by having water ])oured on them, and the other by dipping them, I do not approve." After further defending his sentiments, and referring to the different ideas which by different writers are attached to pugmc, he says : "I prefer . . . the explanation of Lightfoot, which is both most agreeable to the meaning of pugme, and to the Jewish traditions. He understands it as denoting the hand as far as the fist extended. This is agi-eeable to the definition of the word by Pollux: ' If you shut your hand, the outside is called pugme; ' and it is agreeable to the Jewish traditions, one of which he shows enjoins such a washing. The contrast then, here, is between the washing of the hands up to the wrist, and the immersion of the whole body" (pp. 68, 69). After exposing some errors of Dr. Ewing, he saj's : "'Many a passage may con- tain the disputed word in such circumstances as to affi^rd no definite evidence. It cannot in such a passage be used as proof: it is enough, if it admits the meaning contended for. This is a grand law of controversy, attention to which will save the advocates of truth much useless toil ; and keep them from attempting to ]>rove, what it may not be possible to jjrove, and Avhat they are not retpiired to prove. It will also assist the inquirer to arrive at truth " (p. 70). On Mark vii. 4, to a wi'iter whose language on the immersion of beds is, "he who can receive it, let him receive it," Dr. C. replies: "He who dares to reject it, rejects the testimony of God. This is a most improper way to speak on the sub- ject. If immershm is the meaning of the word, it is not optional to receive or reject it. Whether or not this is its meaning, must be learned from its history, not from the abstract iiroba1)i]ity or improbability of the immersion of Ijeds. If the history of the word declares its meaning to ])e immersion, the mere difficidty of immersing beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, cannot imjily that it has another meaning here. The ])rinciple, tlicn, of this objection, and the language in which these writers state it, cannot be too strongly reprobated. * . . . When a thing is * Let the reader see and remember tliat Dr. C. is not liere speaking of establishing au aflSrmativc, but only of answering an objection (p. 317). Elsewhere he says: "When FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 371 PROVED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, NO OBJECTION FROM DIFFICULTIES CAN BE ADMITTED AS DECISIVE, EXCEPT THEY INVOLVE AN IMPOSSIBILITY. This is Self- evident, for otherwise nothing could ever be proved. If every man's view of abstract probability were allowed to outweigh evidence, no truth woidd stand the test. The existence of God could not be proved. The Scriptures themselves could not abide such a trial. ... In tracing the history of Jesus, we shall see how much of the opposition to His claims was founded on the principle which my canon repro- bates. When He said that He was the bread which came down from heaven, the Jews murmured, and replied : ' Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?' (John vi. 42. ) Here was a difficulty that they thought insuperable. ' We are sure He was born among us — He could not, therefore, have come from heaven.' But there was a solution to this difficulty, had their jirejudices permitted them to find it. . . . The Arians still collect all the passages that assert the human nature of Christ, and take it for granted that this is a proof that He is not God. Let our bretliren take care that it is nob on the same principle they allege this objection to immersion in baptism. Were there no wish to find evidence on one side only, would it be supposed that it is absurd or incredible that the superstitious Pharisees immersed even their couches? Another striking instance of objecting on this prin- ciple we have (John vii. 41, 42), ' Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of tlie town of Bethlehem, where David was?' This would appear to them a noose from which He could not extricate himself — a difficulty that He could not solve. ... I will state further, that in proving that a thing is not impossible there is no obligation to prove that anj^ of the possiljle ways of solution did exist. The bare possibility of existence is enough" (pp. 71-73). Furthei-, in reply to Dr. Ewing, on Mai'k vii. 4 : "There is no absolute necessity to suppose that the Minai, or beds, were couches at table. The word, indeed, both in Scripture and in Greek writers, has this signification ; but in both it also signified the beds on which they slept. Now, if it were such beds that the Pharisees baptized, there is nothing to jirevent their immersion. They were such that a man coiUd take up from the street, and carry to his house (Matt. ix. 6). Besides, as it is not said how often they purified in this manner, we are at liberty to su])pose that it was only for particular kinds of uncleanuess, and on occasions that did not often occur. Mr. Ewing indeed says: 'There was, no doubt, a complete observance of the "baptisms " of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds, at the feast of the marriage in Cana of Galilee.' There is no doubt that at that feast there was a purification of all things, according to the custom of a wedding: but where did Mr. Ewing learn that it was during the feast that the couclies were purified ? . . . It is not said that all things were pui-itied in tliese waterpots. . . . I do not, therefore, find it at aU neccssaiy, with Mr. Ewing, to gauge these waterpots, in order to settle this question. Mr. Bruce informs us that in Abyssinia, the sect called Kemmont ' wash themselves /ro?/;. head to foot, after coming from the market, or any puljlic place, wliere they may have touched any one of a different sect from their own, esteeming aU such unclean.' Is it strange, then, to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Pharisees, immersing their couches for purification, or themselves after market ?" (p. 76). To Mr. Hall, he says : " Because the Jews were displeased with the disciples for not washing their hands before eating, and with Jesus for not baptizing Himself before dinner, therefore sprinkhug or pouring is a mode of bap- tism! Demonstration, admirable demonstration! Because the Jews had water- pots for purification, therefore sprinklimj and jwuring are modes of baptism!" (p. 407). Speaking elsewhere of a Paedobaptist writer on this passage, he says: "He assumes that every Scripture hiatoriccd fact must be aidhenticated by uninsinred history. This is not a sound first principle ; it is not essential even to an uninspired historian. But the Scriptures disdain it " (p. 398). "Can anything but the wildest fanaticism deny that the meaning of every assertion is the meaning of the words employed to express it ? . . . Let a man once know on which side, in every case, the meaning of a word is proved, and when a secondary meaning is not in proof, it is self-evident that in every situation it has its proved meaning " (pp. 406, 407). 372 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. the burden of proof lies, and let him adopt no jirinciple of interpretation but what is self-evident, and he will never, for a moment, consider immersion as assailable " (p. 400). "If an English traveller relates that on a certain occasion a particular people immersed themselves, and another, that on the same occasion they fumigated, instead of reconciling them, l)y making immersion coincide with fumigate, or fumi- gate with immersion, I will say, ' Either they did both, or one of the travellers relates a falsehood.' I will not allow any man to defend them by tampering with the English words " (p. 400). " If a modern ti-aveller relates that a certain nation immerses before meat after niarket, we shall not think of giving a meaning to the word immerses to suit our view of probaljility " (j). 419). "Views of probability, independently of the testimony of the word, are not a competent witness ; for they are often mistaken. What we might, previously to the hearing of evidence, judge 2:)robable, might, on the hearing of evidence, be proved most satisfactorily to be false. The meaning of this word mixst be known from its use, not from views of probability independently of this use." "When we hear that a certain pei'son has killed another, we may think the thing very improbable ; but shall we on that ground assert that kill does not sign if ij to take away life ? . . . luspu'ation employs a word to designate the purification of the couches which never signifies anything but immerse. . . This way of conferring meanings ou words is grounded on infidelity. It dictates to inspiration instead of interpreting its language. It would be imjiroper in ascertaining the meaning of words even in a profane historian. . . . When the profane historian narrates M-hat is thought imjirobable, his veracity is questioned, but his words are not tampered with," &c. (j). 453). "I am not speaking of what hi x>ossihle, j'trohuhle, or certain, independently of the testimony ; I am spealdng of the testimony of the word known by its use ; I am saying that a word in a certain place must have the meaning which it is found to have in other places, when no secondary meaning has ever been proved. JSIr. B. alleges not the testimony of the word, but imposes a testimony on the word. He forces it to take a meaning which use has never given it, ou the authority of what he thinks probable, utterly independent of the authority of tlie word. He tamjjers with the witness, and tells him M'hat he must say. I allow the witness to tell his own story, and believe him implicitly on his own authority, without regard to what I might think independently probable. Mr. B.'s conduct is the same with that of a jury, who, having heard the testimony of a numljer of competent eyewitnesses, with regard to the way in which a man was killed, decide in opposition to their evidence, on the aiithority of the conjectures of a sui'geon " (p. 452). Assuredly, if prejudice were banislied, and clieerful devotedness to Divine teaching were universal, it would be sufficient, where woi'ds are not used allegorically or figuratively, "to tind the meaning of the words," in order to ascertain the sense of Scri]iture. Dr. Judson, the eminent missionary to Burmah, who, by studying from the New Testament the Divine teaching on the subject of baptism whil.st voyaging towards India, became convinced of the unscriptural charac- ter of infant sjirinkling, and that believers' immersion is the ordinance appointed by Jesus Christ, afterw^ards writes : " It is said that we cannot suppose that the washings (according to the Greek, baptisms) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables, or those ablutions which the Jews practised before eating, were all done by immersion (Mark vii. 3, 4). "With regard to the former, it must be remembered that the Jews were com- manded in their law to cleanse unclean vessels 1)y immersing them ; ' whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must he put into water'' (Lev. xi. 'A2). What is more probable than that they abused the first institution of tliis ceremony by superstitiously immersing a variety of articles not included in the Divine command? That the Jews, on returning from market, immersed themselves liefore eating, may appear improbable to an inhabitant of the north of Europe or America ; but not to you, my brethren, who are acquainted with the customs of these Eastern countries, and witness the frequent ceremonial immersion of the natives. But that these Ixaptisms FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 873 were really immersions, and, therefore, that the use of the word, in these instances, instead of weakening, must confirm the belief that it always means immersion, a))pears from the testimonies of the learned Scaliger, and an eminent Jewish Eabbi."— On Bap., pp. 12, 13. S^CALiGEE. — "The more superstitious part of them (the Jews) every day, before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body." Hence the Pharisee's admiration at Christ (Luke xi. 38). — De Emend. Temp., 1. vi., p. 771. Maimonides. — " Whenever, in the law, washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dip])ing of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dip himself all over, except the tip of his little linger, he is still in his iincleanness" {Hilchot. Mikvaol, c. i., sec. ii. ). "A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dips it part by part, it is pure" [Hilchot. Celim., c. xxvi., sec. xiv. See also, to the same purpose, Ikenius, Antiq. Hebroicce, pars, i., c. xviii., § 9 ; and Mr. Stackhouse, His. of the Bible, b. viii., c. i., p. 12.34). Mr. HiNTON quotes from Maimonides: "In a laver which holds forty seahs of water they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure. If he dips the bed in the pool, although the feet are plunged m the thick clay at the bottom of the pool, it is clean. What shall he do with a pillow or a bolster of skin ? He must dip them, and lift them up by the fringes." Professor Ripley, quoted by Dr. A. Campbell, says, on Mark vii. 3, 4: " There is a difference between these two verses in the original, like what would be felt if they were thus translated : ' For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not ; and when they come from the mai'ket, except they bathe, they eat not.'" He says: "In conformity with this, too, were the conveniences among the Jews : accommodations for frequent ablutions were everywhere ready. Nor with their mode of dress would the practice be so cumbersome as it would be among us." He nevertheless notices .Jahn, Eosenmuller, Dr. G. Campbell, and others, who think that the immersion of the hands is meant in the latter verse, and vindicates the import which he has given. Also, after stating that the word l>ap)tismous ought to be rendered immersions in Mark vii. 4, 8, and Heb. ix. 10, he says: "It is by no means satisfactory to refer to customs among ourselves as suggesting difficulties in resjiect to what the Jews are said to have done ; and especially what they are said to have done by the influence of a misgiuded_ religious scrupulosity; for it was from religious, though mistaken considerations, that they practised these observances. Nor were such observances entirely without founda- tion in the statutes of Moses. In Lev. xi. 32, it is directed that any vessel upon which the dead body of an unclean animal had fallen, 'whatsoever vessel it be, whei'ein any work is done, it must he jnd into irater,'' in order to he cleansed. The only exception was in respect to earthen vessels, which, being thus polluted, were to be broken in ])ieces (ver. 33). Now, how credible it is, and how accordant with the language of Mark, that the superstitious spirit of the Jews, in subsecpient times, extended this requisition to other cases l:)esides that of pollution by the tovich of the dead ; so that even on ordinary occasions, when they thought religion required the ai-ticles to be cleansed, the cleansing must be performed Ijy immersing them in water. "And who can wonder if this same spirit led them carefully to cleanse by immersion even the couches on which they reclined at meals ? for it is these, probably, which are meant by the word translated tables in our version. It woiild certainly accord well with their sujierstitious disposition. And so far as the writings of distinguished men among the Jews enable us to form a judgment, those writings contribute altogether to the belief that there was usually performed an immei'sion of these articles when they needed s])ecial purifying. The Jewish rules which Dr. Gill quotes in his commentary on Mark vii. 4, are precise in requiring such articles to be cleansed by l>eing covered in water ; and the regulations are exceedingly strict in regard to this washing, so that should there be anytliing adhering to these articles, such as pitch, which might prevent the water from touching the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not be duly performed. The same Jewish authority recpiires even beds to be cleansed by immersion when they had become defiled." — In CamjibeU's Chr. Bap., pp. 394-399. Let the following concessions and testimonies from Psedobaptisfc bi'ethren be read in remembrance of such assertions as those of our 374 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Wesleyan Methodist brother, that it "is probable almost to certainty " "that sprinkling was the mode of these baptisms; yea, that from these two references to Pharisaic baptism the proof appears conclusive that baptize does not always mean to immerse" (p. 196). These testimonies ai'e also, in addition to what has been already adduced, a reply to some other Psedobajjtist assertions. Dr. Halley. — "I care not to deny that the Pharisees, as early as the time of our Lord, practised immersion after contact with the common iieople" (p. 298). "Admitting that the custom ascribed to the Pharisees by Maimouides, of immers- ing themselves whenever they were polluted by the touch of the common people, ])revailed as early as the time of our Lord, we may explain, consistently with the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, the baptism of the Pharisees in coming from the market " (p. 297). " There were, I admit, two modes of washing the hands observed by the Pharisees : one by pouring, and one by dipping ; and if our Lord had been subject to the gi'cater defilement, and His disciples to the less, the washing expected from our Lord might have been more complete than that of his disciples " (p. 296). "The Jews were undoubtedly most carefid and particular in tlioroughly washing the drapery and coverings of their seats ; and, if any one Avill take the trouble to study the various pollutions of beds and couches, as they are described in Maimon- ides and the Talmudic tracts, he must in candour admit that these articles of furniture were in some instances immersed in water" (p. 301). "I cannot rely so confidently \ipon these bajjtisms of funiiture as do many of my brethren" (p. 302). Calmet. — "Lightfoot explains the phrase by 'washing the hand as far as the fist extends,' i.e., up to the wrist; and Theophylact enlarged its meaning still further, ' up to the elbow.' We need little to fear that this eidargement of Theo- phylact should be too great, if these Kemmont might be the commentators; for they, it seems, wash themselves from head to foot cfter commretation, the words which, as rendered in the common version, are unmeaning, appear both significant and emjihatical ; and the contrast in the Greek is presei'V'ed in the translation. " — Kates, on Mark vii. 3, 4. Spencer, on the ritual laws of the Hebrews, says: "Some of the Jews, ambi- tious for the credit of superior jnety, frequently immersed their whole persons in water ; the greater part, however, following a milder discipline, frequently washed only their hands when they were about to take food. That the greater part, and especially the Pharisees, attended to this rite privately at home, and considered it a very impoi-tant part of religion, is sufiicieutly evident from Mark vii. .3, 4." Macknight. — "And when they come from the market, except they wash {hap- tisontai, dip themselves), tliey eat not." Knapp. — " To haptisma, from baptizehi, which properly signifies to immerse (like German tau/en), to dip in, to wash (by immersion). . . , Hence the washing of vessels with water is called hajytismoi (Mark vii. 4)." — Chr. TheoL, p. 425. Encv. Brit. — "Bathing among the ancients made, as it were, a part of diet, and was used as familiarly as eating and sleeping. " London Ency. — "In modern Turkey, as well as among the ancients, bathing makes a part of diet and luxuiy, so that in every town, and even village, there is a public bath." J. Roberts. — "When people had been to any iinholy place, they always, on returning, wash their persons, and change their garments. No man can go to the temple wearing a dirty cloth : he must either p)ut it on clean, or go himself to a tank and wash it ; or put on one which is quite new. Hence, near temples, men may be seen washing their clothes, in order to prepare themselves for some ceremony." — Orien. Illus. of Sa. Scrip., on Ex. xix. 10, pp. 42, 43. Lempriere, speaking of Rome under the emperors, says that baths "were used after walking, exercise, or labour;" and that " it became so fashionable to bathe, that without this the meanest of the people seemed to be deprived of one of the necessaries of life." — Lex. Art. Balnece. J. RoBiN.soN, in Antiquities of Greece, says that " every person who attended the solemn sacrifices was ])urified by w'ater. " " Before the worshippers sacrificed to the celestial gods, they washed their whole bodies; but before they performed the sacred rites to the infernal deities, a sprinkling of water Avas sufficient." AVheu "they ceased from sorrow and mourning, it was iisual to bathe and anoint them- selves. The ancient (ireeks commonly l)athcd after they returned from war, or ceased from any great fatigue." "If the sea was within a convenient distance, they commonly bathed in it rather than in rivers" (pp. 214, r)23). S. Burder, on Oriental Castvmx, says: " Thus also Homer represents Telemachus and Pisistratus as being entertained at the court of Meiielaus. After theii- intro- duction to the palace, he says : — "From room to room their eager view they bend; Thence to the liath, a beauteous pile, descend : Where a bright damsel-train attend the guests. With liquid odours and embroidered vests." — Vol. ii., }). 283. Dr. W. Smith's Biblical Diclionanj. — "There were bath-rooms in the later FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 877 temple over the chambers Ahtlnes aud Happarvah, for the priests' use (Lightfoot, Descr. of Temp., 24). A Lathing-chamber was probably iuchided in houses even of no great rank in cities from early times (2 Sam. xi. 2) ; much more in those of the wealthy in later times; often in gardens. (Susan, xv. ) With this, anointing- was customarily joined ; the climate making both these essential alike to health and pleasure " (Art. Baths. H. Hayman). Because we in England do not thus anoint, would it not be as reasonable to conclude that the C4reek word means to comb or brush the hair, as that haptizo has another meaning than to immerse? Prof. Wilson, from "the excellent Dictionary of Greek and Eoman Antiquities, published some time ago under the able superintendence of Dr. W. Smith," infers that Grecian bathing gives no support to immersion, as statuary and written records evince! "Going into the bath and coming out of the bath" are "no proof of immersion." He quotes from Dr. W. S. : "It would appear from the description of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Cii'ce, that this vessel did not contain water itself, but was only used for the bather to sit in, while the warm water was poured over him, which was heated in a large cauldron or tripod, under which the tire Avas placed, aud when sufficiently warmed, was taken out in other vessels, and poured over the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the asaminthos " (p. 157). Granted tliat tliis bath in the palace was of such a character, and that those who were able bathed sitting ia a vessel and having the water })roftisely poured by attending servants on their heads and shoulders, what does this " tell on every reflecting mind " in favour of sprinkling the face as being baptism, or bathing, or an ablution "2")erformed by pouring or affusion" ? Even if there were some 2)ublic baths provided as above, who that can estimate the expense of this bathing, and that is acquainted with their practice of plunging into the sea or rivers, will presume that such was the common method of bathing 1 Besides, if by this bath they were not put into the water, or did not put themselves therein, who doubts that they were covered with it, especially if " the term employed by Plutarch instantly calls up before our minds a lively portraiture of the parachutes., dashing or pouriug the water upon the parties who surrounded the louter" (p. 1G3). But the learned professor thus obtains a conviction " equally jjleasing and impressive " that there was "in the Grecian bath the pouring of water on the body, but no immersion of the body in water;" yea, .says he, "we would gladly be informed how large an afiiision would have sufficed for covering their bodies, so as to exemplify the modern Baptist signification of the verb " (p. 163). Indeed, our author apprehends that he adduces "irresistible proof that the ordinary system of bathing prevalent in ancient Greece knew no immersion, and embraced no covering of the body with water " (p. 163). Truly may it be said, " It were iinworthy of the cause of truth to gloze over any difficulty with the view of securing a temjiorary triumph " (p. 164) ; but the man who can speak of persons being "washed by sprinkling" (p. 165), and who will record a bath in which were four attendants as " the prevailing custom, at least among the middle and upper classes," and conclude that at least an approximation to this was " the ordinary system of bathing in ancient Greece," will have little difficulty with facts and evidences, whether presented on the page or preserved in artistic memorials. He subsequently states it as " most important " that Csecilius Plinius uses " baptisteriimi to denote not a bath for immersion, but a vessel, or lahrum., for poiiring water on the person of the bather" (p. 212). The words of this author are not given, but 378 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. the conclusion of Dr. W. is, " that in Greece and Egypt the ordinary mode of bathing in ancient times was by pouring, and not by immersion." We so far difter from Dr. "W. as to believe that the ordinary mode of bathing, whether Grecian or Egyptian, Irish or British, is and has been by plunging into the water. The manner in which the refined and wealthy have effected their bathing, or in present hydropathic establish- ments may have certain baths, affoi'ds no countenance to the idea that the bathing of a person is less than an encompassing of the person with the element, or that baptism is less than an immersion, by whatever way effected. If, instead of sprinkling the face, and calling it a baptizing of the f)erson, our opponents could appeal to their "dashing or pouring the water upon the parties " so as to surround the body with the water, their reasoning and practice, when compared, would be less despicable. But let it not be supposed, — whatever might be Dr. Watts's ignorance of ancient and recent bathing, when using the word figuratively he said, ' ' There shall I bathe my weaiy soul In seas of heavenly rest : And not a wave of trouble roll Across my peaceful breast," and whatever may be the ignorance of others when similarly using the word, — that our ojiponents are without object in endeavouring to enlighten us on this subject. It is intended to infer from the use of the Hebrew tabcd and of the Greek louo and baj)tizo that, notwithstanding the ingenuous rendering in 2 Kings v. 14, he "dipped himself," baptizo has not the confined modal signification within which Dr. Carson would limit the word ; ergo, a sprinkling of the face, or any ajiplication of water, is the baptizing of a person. The bathing of a weaiy soul or of a jaded body, when the impoi't of such an expression comes to be correctly under- stood, will aftbrd encouragement to the idea of pouring as the mode of bathing, and to sprinkling as the practice of baptism ! More seriously we say, let the in([uisitive reader who wishes to know more respecting the import of bathing and the character of baths, consult the dictionaries and cyclopaedias to which he may have access. It is pleasant to be able to record from Prof. Wilson, nf)twithstanding his horror of immersion, the following candid statement: "The baptism referred to in Mark we consider a general ablution, becaxise the occasion is more uncommon, and also because it is presented in contrast with a ^lartial washing" (p. 234). Dr. J. Brown. — "It was a custom among the Jews and other Oriental nations for persons to bathe their whole bodies previous to going to a convivial entertain- ment" [Dis. of our Lord, vol. ii., p. 354). Notwithstanding this fact, C. Taylor says, as many others in substance say: "Is it possil)le that they should expect our Lord should plunge himself before dinner? The thought is absurd." — Facts and Evi., p. 11. Olshausen. — "The term haiytlzesthai is different from niptesthai; the former is the dijjping," &c. — Com., on Mark t^ii. 1-23. W. Trollope. — '' N/jde-stliai signifies to wash simply, and is distinguished from haptlzesthai, which signifies to immerse, to dip (whence bapiismos, immersion, in the same verse)," &c. — Anal. TheoL, on Mark vii. 3. F. M. — '■^ Bapt., which denotes total immersion." "They who staj'ed at home washed their hands, pouring water over them; and they who had been in any cro-wd, 2}hinged them, cither 'with clenched fist,' or 'up to the wrist.' " — Notes on the Oos. and Acts, on Mark vii. 3. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 379 R. Watson. — "They ate not except they baptized, meaning, probably, bathed themselves." — Expo, of Matt, and Marl; on Mark vii. 4. Annota. Par. Bible. — " ' With detiled, or common.' As the law enjoined ablu- tion (Lev. XV. 11) after a person had touched anything ceremonially iinclean, the excessive formalism of the Jewish teachers at this period had imposed these ablu- tions whenever there was the least possibility of defilement. Hence a person sitting down to meals rinsed his hands ; and he washed himself more carefiUly on returning from 'the market,' or place of public concourse. 'Cups, vases, brazen-vessels, and dining-couches ' (not tables) were also required to be thorotighly washed. The later Jews even directed that the framework of the couches should be taken in pieces and dipped. — Watson." T. H. HoRNE speaks of the "splendid" houses of the rich and powerful in Palestine in the time of our Saviour, "built according to the rules of Grecian architecture," and quotes from Jahu's Arch. Bib. respecting the bath as "always very agreeable to the inhabitants of the East," &c. — Intro., vol. iii., pp. 384, 435. Bengel most erroneously says: "Baptism, also, among the Jews, was a thing to be shuddered at, inasmuch as the wliole body was dipped in a stream, however cold."— On Mark x. 38. It would have been tiiie, if he had restricted his shuddering to the baptism of sufferings. The fact of having a bath in readiness for visitors has not been confined to this Pharisee, to apostolic times, or an Eastern climate. In colder region.s it has been a loarm bath, according to the testimony of Thos. Wright, Esq., in his History of Domestic Mcmners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages. He says, on these mediaeval times : " The practice of warm bathing prevailed very generally in all classes of societj^, and is frequently alluded to in mediaeval romances and stories. For this purpose a large bathing-tub was used. People sometimes bathed immediately after rising in the morning; and* we find the bath used after dinner, and before going to bed. A bath was also often prepared for a visitor on liis arrival from a journey." J. W. Etheeidge thus renders the Syriac: "Unless they carefully wash their bands, do not eat, because they hold the tradition of the elders ; and (coming) from the market, unless they lave (baptize), they eat not." Dr. Stier. — "It was, generally speaking, customary before meals, especially for guests at a feast, to enter the bath. " — Works, &c. , vol. viii. , p. .343. Prof. Paxton says : ' ' The Jews regulai-ly washed their hands and their feet before dinner ; they considered this ceremony as essential. . . . When they washed their hands themselves they plimged them into the water up to the wrists ; but when others performed this office for them, it was done by pouring it upon their hands."— /««.«. of Scrip., O.T., p. 414. Dr. D. Davidson. — "For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not until they have washed their hands, by i>ouriug a little water on them, and, if they be come from the market, by dipping them." — Erp. Notes, on J.Iark vii. 3, 4. Wetstein. — ^^ Baptizestliai is to immerse the hands in water; niptesthai, to pour water upon them." EosENMULLER. — ^^ Niptesthcii is to pour water upon the hands, as baptizesthai, which speedily follows, is to immerse the hands in water." KuiNOEL, speaking of the opinion entertained by some, that a total ablution was performed in case of returning from the mai'ket, says: "But an immersion of the hands, duly performed, would have abundantly sufficed for this end. " LiGHTFOOT. — "The phrase seems to be meant of the immersion, or plunging of the hands only." Dr. A. Clarke. — " Excej^t they ivash, or di}). . . . The Jews sometimes washed their hands previously to their eating : at other times they simply dipped or plunged them into the water" (On Mark vii. 4). Under ver. 3 he says: "Bathing is an indispensable pre-requisite to the first meal of the day among the Hindoos ; and washing the hands and the feet is equally so before the evening meal." And yet without the least proof of varied meanings belonging to baptizo and baptismos, he 380 LMPORT OF BAPTISM. says, in eouclusiou : "The cups and pots were washed; the beds and forms, jjerhaps, sprinkled; and the liands dipped up to the wrist." J. SuTCLiFFE. — "They washed their hands, their pots, vessels, and beds. They washed whatever they bought in the market ; and they dipped their whole body in water." — Com., on Mark vii. Webster and Wilkinson. — ^' Pugme. ' The hand with the Avrist,' or with the 'closed fist.' So that tlie whole hand was immersed, not the fingers just dipped in water." — Gr. Tes., on Mark vii. 3. G. Wakefield. — "And when they come from the market, except they dip their hands in water, they eat not" (Tnins., Mark vii. 3). 8o in Luke xi. 38: "AVlieu the Pharisee saw that He did not dip His hands in water before dinner." And in the Notes on Mark vii. 4: ^^ dip tlwir hands in tmter: haptisontai : literally, dip themselves, whether the whole body or any part." To this note he also refers us on Luke xi. 38. More pi'operly, as we think, ScHOTT. — "Except they immerse (/wi?/ie)%9e;-//i^) themselves in water. . . . The immersing {de imniergendis) of waterpots, brazen vessels, and table-couches," — Trans, of Mark vii. 4, in N. T. , with Gr. Text and Latin Trans. Meyer. — "Moreover, ean me haptisontai is not to be understood of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immeision, which the word in classic Greek, and in the New Testament, everywhere means (compare Beza) ; i.e., here, according to the context, to take a hath. So also Luke xi. 38. (Comp. Sir. xxxi. 25 ; Judith xii. 7.)" — Crit. Com. on N. T., on Mark vii. 4. T. Scott. — "Except they washed or were baptized" (Com., on Mark vii. 3, 4). " 'Had not been baptized' (Gr. )." — On Luke xi. 38. Yet Dr. Gumming, on Luke xi. 38, thus sagely philosophizes, wishing us to "notice an instance irresistible of the word hapto or haptizo, the first being the word from which the last is dei-ived, being used not in the sense of immersing, but rather sprinkling or wetting a ])ai-t of the body, and not the whole. The literal translation of this passage is, ' When the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that He was not first baptized before dinner.' Well, now, how did a Pharisee baptize befoi-e dinner? He dipped his fiugers simply in water; and, therefore, to put a portion of the body in contact with water, is truly baptism" [Sah. Eve. Lee. on Luke, p. 238). We as much deprecate altercation and unfriendliness as Dr. G. does, but statements which are utterly opposed to facts we must refuse to accejjt. Also tlie assumptions and fallacies by which it is attemjited to sustain error we must sometimes expose. Hammond. — "i?«7>^/2C*///o/ (as it differs from nipfesthai, ver. 3) signifies not only the washing of the whole body (as when it is said of Eupolis, tliat being taken and thrown into the sea, ehaptizeto, he was immersed all over, and so the l)aptisms of cups, &c., in the end of this verse, is putting them into the wafer all over, rinsing them), but washing any part as the hands here, by way of immersion in water, as that is opposed to affusion, or pouring water on them." — Anno., on Mark vii. 4. Dr. R. Jamieson says that the Jews "practised 'frequent washings;'" and that "the contemporaries of our Lord" carried "their precautious against what tliey thought ceremonial defilement so far" that, "at their ordinary meals, which, after the Oriental fashion, they partook of without the aid of knives and forks, they were accustomed to subject their hands and face, the vessels thej^ate from, the couches on which the head reclimd, and every article which had been touched, to ablution, both before and after meat " {Eas. Man., &c., N.T., pp. 50, 51). Again, "in the East," he speaks of their "subjecting their feet, which their sandals leave exposed to the dust, as well as every article oi their dress, to frequent abhitions" (p. 10,3). He speaks of the Egyptians "bathing in the river, which their habits rendered scarcely less essential to their existence than food." They "washed in the river on the least contact with any species of defilement " (0. T. , ])p. 186, 187). Yea, there was, througliout the East, water enough, and there were conveniences, too, for the ablutions of the dead as well as the living. Hence, "Tabitha ha\nug died, her cori)se, as xisual, before being wrapped in the grave-clothes, was subjected to a careful ablution. This practice was universal in the warm countries of the East ; and to enable all persons to jjerform an office that was deemed indispensable, baths or cisterns, large enough to admit a Iniman body at full length, were gener- ally provided at the common ex[)ense of the neigliI)ours: so that every family in the circle, which death had dejjrived of one of their number, possessed the means of reudei'iug this amiable attention to the person of their departed relative" (N.T., FUTILITY OF OBJECITIONS. 381 p. 275). How little should we have heard of the scarcity of water and conveniences for baptizing the three thousand if there had been no desire, liowever latent, to retain a human substitute for the Divinely-enjoined immersion ! It was evidence of the abundance of baths, as weU as of the frequency of loathing, that led Dr. Carson to say: "In Judea, where the law forced them so often into the water, baths mitst have been as common as ovens in English farm-houses" (p. 416). "Bathing," says * Dr. W. Smitli's Dictionary, "was a practice familiar to the Greeks of both sexes from the earliest times." — Art. Bahieum. Tertullian sjieaks of its being the practice of his time to bathe every day. It is variously testified respecting Eastern jjractice, ancient and modern, that " bathing makes a part of diet and luxury, so that in every town, and even village, there is a public bath." — London Encydojicedia. Lord Bacon says: "It is strange that the use of bathing, as a part of diet, is left. With the Eomans and Grecians it M^as as usual as eating or sleeping; and so it is among the Turks at this day." Archbp. Trench, on j^luno, nlpto, louo, says: "We have but the one English word, 'to wash,' with which to render these three Greek words. We must needs confess here to a certain poverty of language, seeing that the three have severally a propriety of their own, — one which the insjjired writers always observe, — and could not be promiscuously and interchangeably used. Thus, ^j?««e/;» is always to wash inanimate things, as distinguished fi'om living objects or persons; garments, most frequently (lieimata. Homer, Iliad Jixii. 155; liimation, Plato, Charm. 161 e; and in the Septuagint continually, so stoJas, Eev. vii. 4) ; but not exclusively these, which some have erroneously asserted, as witness the only other occasion where the word occurs in the N. T., being there employed to signify the washing or clean- sing of nets {dicfua, Liike v. 2). When David exclaims, Pliinon me apo tes anomias (Ps. 1. [li. ] 3; cf. ver. 9), these words mixst not be cited in disproof of this assei-tion that only of things, and not of persons, plunein is used ; for the allusion to the hyssop, which follows presently after, shows plainly that the royal penitent had the ceremonial aspersions of the Levitical law jirimarily in his eye; which aspersions would find place upon the (jarments of the unclean person (Lev. xiv. 19; Nell. xix. 6), however he may have looked through these to another and better sprinkling beyond. Kiptein and louein, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons ; although with this difi'erence, that niptein (which displaced in the later period of the language the Attic nizein), and nipsasthcd almost always express the wash- ing of a 2mrt of the body, — the hands (Mark vii. .3), the feet (John xiii. 5; Plutarch, Thes. 10), the face (]SIatt. vi. 17), the eyes (.John ix. 7), the back and shoiddcrs (Homer, Odyssei/ vi. 224); while louein, which is not so much 'to wash' as 'to bathe,' and louMhai, 'to bathe ones-self ,' imply always, not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the vjhole* (thiis, leloiimenoi to soma, Heb. x. 23; cf. Acts xix. 37; 2 Peter ii. 22; Rev. i. 5; Plato Phml. 115 a). This limitation of niptein to persons as contradistinguished from things, which is always observed in the N.T., is not without exceptions, although they are very unfrequent, elsewhere; thus, in Homer, Iliad -sxi. 229, depas; Odyssey i. 112, trapezas; Lev. xv. 12, skaios. A single verse in the Septuagint (Lev. xv. 11) gives us all the three words, and all used in their exact propriety of meaning: kai hoson ean hapsetai ho ffonorrues kai tas cheiras ou neniptai hudati, plunei ta hinmtia, kai lousetai to soma hudati. The passage where it is most important to mark the distinction between the last considered words, the one signifying the washing of a part, and the other the washing of the whole, of the body, and where certainly our English version loses something in clearness from not possessing words which should note the change that linds place in the original, is John xiii. 10: 'i/e that is washed [Iio Moianenos] needeth not save to wash \^nipsasthai\ his feet, but is clean every whit.'" — New Tes. Syn., pp. 183-185. These concessions of Psedobaptists are in accordance with what others have stated on the import of haptizo. Thus, Alstedius : " Baj^tizein, to baptize, signifies only to immerse; not to wash,, except by conseqvience." ^' Would that certain Psedobaptists would mark this ! 382 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Altingius : "The word jjroperly signifies immersion; improperly, by a metonymy of the end, washing." Bailey : "Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that kind of ablution or washing which consists in dipping." BucANUS : " Bai)tisni, that is, immersion; dipping; and by conse- quence, washing." GoMARUS : " £a2)tismos and hajJtisma signify the act of baptizing ; that is, either plunging alone, or immersion, and the consequent washing." MiNTERT : " Ba2)tizo, baptism ; immersion, dipping into, washing, washing away ; proj^erly, and according to its etymology, it denotes that washing which is perfoimed by immersion." Venema : " The word haptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scripture for sprinkling; no, not in Mark x'n. 4, otherwise than appears to some." In conclusion, we qtiote from Dr. J. Foote, on Luke xi. 37—44 : "We learn from this passage the unla^vfulness of attempting to impose ceremonies of human invention on others, and of complying with such ceremonies ourselves. . . . What useless, cumbei'some, and unlawful additions have been made to the beautifully-simple ordinances of the Gospel ! . , . Whatever may be imagined to the contrary, there can be neither acceptance with God, nor benefit to man, in any observances not of Divine appointment." — Lectures on Luke. Another jiassage, namely, Heb. ix. 10, similar to Mark ^^i. 4, 8, sup- plies the noun haptismos without ap])lication to the Christian ordinance, and by some is vauntingly adduced as opposing the idea that baptism is immersion. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divei's (haptis' mois, immersions) washings, imposed on them until the time of reforma- tion." C. Taylor asserts that the avithor of the Epistle to the HebreAvs " says expressly, that under the law there were divers kinds of baptism ; and of these, we know, from the law itself, that hj far the greater i)ai-t were not plungings ; the word, therefore, cannot possibly be restricted to that import " (Facts and EvL, p. 6). What Mr. T. teaches to be expressly Avritten, is as distant from oiir vision as his unfounded conclusion. Buck's Dictionary, edited by Dr. Henderson, says: "The tei-m sprinkling also is made use of in reference to the act of purifying ; Is. Hi. 15; Heb. ix. 13, 14; Ezek. xxxvi. 1b\ and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification" (Art. Pa'dohap^. Suppose that we say purification was by the sprinkling of blood, tire, as well as by bathing in water, therefore bathing is one mode of sprinkling ! It seems never to have occurred to the minds of some of our opponents that, under the law, there were enjoined a sprinkling of blood on the vessels of the tabernacle, tfcc, a pouring of oil on the head, and a bathing of the person in water. To confound these together as one act is as illogical, as it is glaiingly presumptive to assert that the apostle is referring to anything but the enjoined immei-sions. Dr. Williams says : " Here is full proof that the Scripture uses the word baj)tismos, baptism, in so general and large a sense, as evidently to com- prehend sprinkling, if not chiefly to intend it. Sprinkling, then, in the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 383 judgment of an insj^ired wi-iter, is an authentic and Divinely-instituted manner of baptizing.'" He also adds : " It is with consuminate frudence our opponents, while consulting the safety of their cause— the essentiality of di2:)ping — sHghtly pass over, or at least, very tenderly touch this passage" (vol. ii., p. 77). Dr. Wai'dlaw says: "As to the verb rhan- tizo, I shall only observe that, amongst the ' divers washings ' (baptis- mata, baptisms) of the old dispensation, referred to in Heb. ix. 10, must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification, and consequently, the rhantisinata, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous" (p. 148). If we could accept Dr. W.'s dictum that baptisma "must surely" mean or include rhantisma; and "that, in Scriptural phraseology, sprinkling is equivalent to washing," the very word which the translators under King James have here given to baptismois (not baptismata), we should speecUly settle matters with the Paedobaptists ; bvit the import of baptisma and bajitismos, as well as every rule of inter- pretation, forbids what Dr. W. demands. What but prepossessions could cause this learned and estimable brother to jump to his conclusions % Also Dr. Bennett, on the Jewish law, asserts: "We are sure that the majority of its 'divers baptisms' were sprinklings" (Cong. Lee, p. 199). But he gives no proof that one Jewish sprinkling is here, or in any part of God's Word, designated a baptism. We do not wonder at Mr. Thorn teaching that this expi-es- sion of the apostle proves that " the washings, sprinklings, purifications, and anointings, under the law, were, in their nature and results, actual baptisms" {Inf. Bap., p. 382). Of course, "divers baptisms" cannot mean "divers immersions!" Baptism is "the ministerial sprinkling" (p. 504). Dr. Miller, across the Atlantic, whose assertions on baptism remind us of a Mr. Thorn on this side, says : " Now we know- that by far the greater part of these ' divers washings ' were accomplished by sprinkling or affusion, and not by immersion." Dr. L. Woods, another transatlantic brother, says: "The divers baptisms or abkitions, men- tioned Heb. ix. 10, doubtless inckided all the difierent ablutions or ceremonial cleansings prescribed in the Mosaic law. These were per- formed in different ways, but chiefly by sprinkling consecrated water" {Worhs, vol. iii., p. 445). Quite impossible, of course, for baptisms to mean simply immersions ! The absurdity of the idea must render it incredible ! Dr. Halley will not give up this passage as destitute of an argument in favour of sprinkling. He says : " I think the divers bap- tisms of the Jews, mentioned iii the Epistle to the Hebrews, include, if they do not exclusively denote, the purifications by sprinkling per- formed in the Jewish temple" (p. 302). Professor Wilson objects here to divers immersions, because the epithet divers appears to him bereft of its customary force and distinctness ; but, says he, " This difficulty does not press on the interpretation of Stuart, who understands by the baptisms Jewish ablutions in general" (pp. 215, 216). Divers immer- sions is here a very improper phrase, but divers ablutions is altogether proper ! The learned professor refers to the connection of this verse, after the example of some other Pcedobaptists, and at leng-th he proposes the query, " Does not the comparison of this verse distinctly identify sprinkling as one of the ordinances of the flesh? and if so, it must 384 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. belong to the class of divers bai)tisms " (p. 219). The emphases are ours. To say nothing of the propriety, or of the correctness, of the English translation, sprinkling is one of the " clivers washings ;" or, according to the rendering of Dr. Tui'nbiill, of the " various ablutions." "■ Under the law," says Josiah Conder, "there were, as the apostle speaks, 'divers baptisms.' Ablutions constituted one species of ceremonial purification, and were no doubt designed to impress the Israelites with the necessity of moral cleanliness" (On None, vol. i., p. 440). Whether or not assent be given that Robert Hall truthfully speaks of the "legal Jewish puri- fications, the greater part of which consisted in a total immersion of the body in water," the following, from Dr. W. Smith's Bib. Die, may possibly be accepted : " Bathing — This was a prescribed part of the Jewish ritual of purification in cases of accidental, leprous, or ordinaiy uncleanness (Lev. xv. pass.; xvi. 28; xxii. 6 ; Num. xix. 7, 19; 2 Sam. xi. 2, A; 2 Kings v. 10); as also after mourning, which always implied defile- ment, e.g., Ruth iii. 3 ; 2 Sam. xii. 20. The high-priest at his inauguration (Lev. viii. G), and on the day of atonement, once before each solemn act of propitiation (xvi. 4, 24), was also to bathe" (Art. Bath., by H. H.). That this bathing was, and that bathing generally, in every country, is, and has been, no less than a covering of the whole pei"son with watei-, we doubt not; although Ave admit that in Greece, Rome, and places of special luxury and refinement, there was the bath — especially among the middle and higher classes — without plunging, or being plunged, into water. The fear of immersion, and the desire to alter the common and common-sense import of the word bathe, appear to be in some so strong that we might ask them if Archbp. Trench, whom we have recently quoted, has written in sanity ; if Dean Stanley knows the meaning of the word when he speaks of the present "bathing of the pilgrims in the Jordan;" which he describes also by the words " plunging" and " immer- sion," and of which he speaks as " pi-esenting the nearest likeness that cain now be seen in the same general scenery, to the multitudinous ba})- tisms of John" (Sinai and Pal., pp. 312— 31 G). Nor shall we wonder that Mr. Stacey, in this passage, sees "further evidence" that sprinkling is one of the baptisms of Holy "Writ. The substance of the reasoning on this passage in oi)position to immersion as the alone import of bap- tism, if we are able to comprehend it and do it justice, is the following : First, it is maintained that the conjunction "and," uniting "divers washings" with "carnal ordinances," being Avanting in many manu- scripts, is an interpolation. Secondly, that "the expression ' canial ordinances ' supplies a charactei'istic description of the Avhole" services previously enumerated. It is further maintained that the apostle is here contrasting the JcAvish and Christian economies, "the former .sanc- tifying only to the i)urification of the flesh, the latter purging the con- science from dead Avorks to serA'C the living God;" and that the divei'S washings " must be the baptisms of j)ersons, and not of things." It is then asserted that, " of these l)aptisms, the apostle, in the thirteenth Averse," " specifies sprinkling " " as one." And " the proof of this lies, not only in the general coiirse of the reasoning, but in a remarkable similarity of language in the tenth and thii-teenth verses." And " the apostle speaks, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 88o not only of a plurality of baptisms, but of a plurality distinguished by diversity. How could there have been a diversity of immersions'?" "The only diversity j^ossible was one of outward form" (Stacey, pp. 197, 198). To attemjjt to disprove what has "the most satisfactory demonstration," docs not, as we think, argue consummate prudence. To attempt that which is not jjosnible nuist end in failure, and from first to last be very perplexing and discouraging. We at fii'st thought that a reply to Mr. S. would be a reply to Dr. Halley ; but we find it necessary or equitable to notice, in opposition to one of Mr. S.'s must bes, that Dr. H. says : " My conviction is, on reading the whole para- graph, that the divers baptisms included the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats ujyon the altar, and the sprinkling of the unclean with the water of sepai'ation, in which were mingled the ashes of the heifer" (p. 302), He does not leap quite so precipitately and daringly to his conclusion as Mr. S. He says : " There were divers immersions, and divers sprinklings, among the Jews. The divers baptisms must refer to the one oi- the other, or to both." We are happy so nearly to agree with him in one thing, as to be able to assert a conviction that the last sentence is true. But when he subsequently represents a])os- tolic reasoning on the supposition that ba2)tismois must be confined in import to immersions, we say — however unintentional on his part it may be — that he, by omissions, unfairly represents " the reasoning of the apostle," on our exposition. Dr. H. deems it not "credible" that the several parts of the Levitical service should be enumerated, to the exclusion of sprinklings ; and that then, as if they liad been men- tioned, he should "make these sprinklings the strength of his argument, and the only jiart of the type which he specifically notices; and that, on the other hand, he sliould introduce immersions into the enumeration of the Mosaic types, and make no application of them to the evangelical service " (p. 303). He thus reasons — and so do other Pa-dobaptists — as if it were a self-evident fact that, where we read in ver. 12, " Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, &c.," the pith of apostolic argumentation was not in contrasting the blood of goats and calves with the blood of Christ, but in contrasting the sprinklinrj of the blood of goats and calves with ! A connection in the suljject of which the apostle is treating in vers. 12—14, with what precedes and with what succeeds, there undoiibtedly is; but our Psedobaptist brethren grossly beg the whole question of controvei-sj^ between us and themselves, and grossly misrepi'eseut apostolic reasoning by demanding, without evi- dence, that certain words be regarded as emphatic; and that certain ideas, though not again mentioned or referred to, must be in the apostle's mind till we have come to such a verse, at which precise spot, where it best suits the convenience of our Psedobaptist brethren, the application terminates. Do we not read in vers. 21, 22,- " Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry : and almost all things are by the law purged with blood"? According to the reasoning of our friends, we might here say, first, sprinkling with blood and purg- ing with blood are so mentioned that they are evidently interchangeable, and, consequently, must be of the same import. Secondly, as the apostle in ver. 10 has mentioned divers bajjtisms, as belonging to the Levitical cc 386 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. service, and as the blood of Christ cannot be literally sprinkled on the believer for the remission of his sins, therefore, we have proof that the Christian ordinance is sjH'inkling! But, as our opponents may deem these conclusions too severe and too precipitate, we will not imme- diately dismiss this proof that baptism is "significant of an ordinance rather than descriptive of a mode, and therefore not more proper to immersion than to affusion or sprinkling" (Stacey, p. 199). If we were to grant, for argument's sake, that, in this place, " baptisms " is used loosely in reference to sprinklings and pourings, as well as to immer- sions, it would not follow that sprinkling and ])ouring are equally proper with immersion, in the Christian ordinance. We shall not dwell on the fact that there are few terms in most languages "that are not occasion- ally u.sed in a lax meaning — a meaning different from their native, obvious, and ordinary acceptation;" and that, "were we at liberty to interpret the grand enacting terms of a Divine laAv according to an occa- sional and singular use of those terms in some passages of Scripture, we might easily model any institution or precept of Christ," and evade the true sense of any doctrine or promise. Yet we admit that if our opponents, in this passage — where Christian baptism is not mentioned, but Jewish purifications — could prove that haptismos is used in a sense that includes sprinkling and pouring, as well as immersion, an important point would be gained. In opposition, however, to such a conclusion, we maintain that the Scripture quoted, and its entire connection, are entii'ely destitute of such proof; and we would remind our readers that, though our opponents endeavour to elaborate an argument in favour of sprinkling from what they conceive to have been in the apostolic mind and aim, one of them has previously taught us that the express injunction of Christ is to irnmerse into the luxme of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But to the connection of the words, " divers washings " (baptisms). The apostle, it is said, on the reasoning of the Baptists, has iiitroduced baptisms, and has made no subsequent use of the same. And what of thisi Has he made any subsequent use of "meats and drinks"? Are they not as expressly mentioned, whether they "have respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dispensation," or " to the meats and di^inks offered to the Lord"? Were they not a i)art of the service in the law of Moses? What necessity is there that the apostle, in his argumentation, should identify the sprinkling of "blood," or of " the ashes of an heifer," with baptisms, more than with " meats and drinks," "gifts and sacrifices," also before mentioned? The argu- ment of vei-s. 13 and 14 is, that if the sprinkling of blood under the law served to purify ceremonially, much more does the blood of Chi-ist purify from sin. That which is wanting to our opponents is proof, either that the apostle has designated the sprinklings a baptism, or that his argument reqidred this. A writer in the Congregational Magazine only went a little further in the same logical direction, who adduced Num. viii. 5, and xix. 20, as instances of baptism, along with Ex. xxix. 4, and xxx. 19. We say not that Ex. xxix. 4 sjjeaks not of the immersion of the body, and that xxx. 19 speaks not of the immersion of the hands and feet, but Ave say that the tAvo former FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 387 passages speak of sprinkling. What can be more preposterous and unjust, in pro\T.ug tiie meaning of baptism, than to say tliat, because the blood of biills and of goats was sjn'inkled, under the law, vipon the akar; because Moses sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry, therefore baptisms included sprinkling? If the apostle had told us that by these sprinklings, whether of persons or things, he meant the baptisms which he mentions in Heb. ix. 10, the argument would be complete. " If such things are the baptisms referred to by the apostle " — a designation not given to sprinklings in the law of Moses, or elsewhere — it must be evinced " from the meaning of the word independently ascertained." And though Dr. H. leaves "to the study of the candid reader" the '' ai'gument in favour of sprinkling, from the use of the epithet diaj)ko- rois, divers," which some Psedobaptists "excogitate," Mr. S., instead of abandoning this, says: "How could there have been a diversity of immersions'?" and he is confident that "the only diversity possible was one of outward form." As if the immersions of vessels and of persons, of the hands, of the feet, and of the clothes (though we know not how clothes can be washed without undergoing an immersion); immer- sions for the priests and for the people ; and immersions in order to purification from uncleanness of various kinds and from vax'ious sources ; immersions in water, and immersions in fire (see Num. xxxi. 23), could not 2>ossihly be designated divers immersions ! In Deut. xxii. 9, we read, " Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds." In 2 Mac. xiv. 21, this divers is used where they placed different stools for each, the import apparently being that Nicanor and Judas, instead of sitting on the same chair of state when they sat in conference, had each a chair for himself, — a different seat. So well supported is the proof that divers washings includes sprinkling! It has been said that the apostle "speci- fies here what washings (baptisms) or puiifyings he speaks of; and the only ones which he specifies are here performed with blood, and with the ashes of an heifer, sjJi'inJcling the unclean." We say that none of the thmgs referred to are a specification of the baptisms, and that the ajjostle does not call the sprinkling of blood a baptism, or a washing of any kind. Even " washing and purification are very different. The latter is a generic word, of which the former is a species. All washings are purificatiolis, but all purifications are not washings. Washing is performed by means of water ; purification may be pei'formed by means of blood, fire, sulphur, &c. Even on the supposition that the word here signifies washing, and that in the ordinance of Chi-istiaa baptism it has the same sense, if the person to be baptized must be washed, it will be quite as objectionable to our opponents. I thmk immei'sing a pei'son is the easiest way of washing him " (Carson, p. 328). But what we main- tain as the apostolic affirmation is, that divers immersions, in the Divinely-appointed Jewish service, existed before the coming of Christ ; and that ver. 13, instead of giving a specimen of the divers baptisms, contrasts the efficacy of the blood of Christ with that of the blood of bulls and goats; or of the water of separation mixed with the ashes of an heifer, which were sprinkled under the law. That the apostle should be expected or required to explain the 388 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. divers baptisms, or make some further application, is required by- nothing he previously or subsequently asserts, nor by any reason. The idea of the excellent Dr. AVardlaw, " that amongst the ' divers washings ' of the old dispensation, referred to in Heb. ix. 10, must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification ; and consequently, the rliantismata, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," only shows how a good man, under the influence of prepossessions, can falsely reason from assum2:)tion. He assumes washings, Avhich is a generic word, to be a correct rendering of haptismos. If the word has been proved to mean only immersions, it can include no modes of purification but by immersion. The very word adduced by Dr. W., rhantismata, is a word that speaks against him. No other words in the New Testa- ment are used for sprinkle and sjijrinkling than rhantizo and rhanlismos, excepting 2^^'oschusis in one instance (Heb. xi. 28). These are never used for baptize and baptism. The words iised for baptize and baptism ai'e never rendered sprinkle or sprinkling; and are never used by any writer that we have observed, in relation to such an act, till more than two hundi'ed years after the death of Christ, when a deviation from inmiersion in the Christian ordinance began, from a desire that persons on the bed of afHictiou should be baptized. It is an evidence that the apostle does not refer to sprinklings, becaiise, instead of using the woi-d rhcmitismata, he uses the word baptisnioits ; and in this very chapter, thrice speaking of sprinkling, he uses in each instance another word — a word belonging to another family — ver. 13, rhantizotisa ; ver. 19, errantise; ver. 21, erraniise. Proof is needed that hcqytismous can include sprinklings; and the attempt to educe it from the connection, from the word " divers," or from subsequent verses, we maintain to be a total failure. It would be as correct, we do not say as plausible, to maintain that circumcision is included in the divers baptisms. If the apostle had mentioned, in ver. 10 and in the jireceding verses, CAcry legal ceremony, every purifying rite, with the exception of sprinkling in certain cases, we might have judged as to his motive in the omission, but we should not have been justified in wresting the meaning of the apostolic words. Let the Pcedobaptist reader suppose that the apostle had used rhantisma instead of haptismos, and that the Baptists had attem2)ted to prove that various rhantismata jiroved that the Greek o-hantisma meant, and from a connection in Avhich haptismos occurred was confirmed as meaning immersion as well as sprinkling, and you have a specimen of some of the lucubrations of certain Ptedobaptist philologists. Various immersions include sprinkling and pouring as much as A'arious sprinklings include pouring and immersion. We have now examined the connection even on the supposition that the conjunction " and " Avas expunged, and Ave regard ourselves as bound to receive the apostolic declaration, that among the carnal ordinances of the Mosaic economy there Ave re divers immersions. On the right to regard the conjunction as the interpolation of transcribers Ave give no opinion. The confidence of our opjionents, whilst perA'crting the meaning of haptismos, by maintaining on the most insufficient and Avorthless grounds that sprinkling is included in its meaning, Ave account for on a principle that ever disposes to leap to conclusions and to blind to what FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 389 alone is legitimate. To Dr. H.'s reasoning in favour of the Greek word liaving the meaning of merge, or immerse by any mode, and also of applying water by any mode, — a meaning not jiossessed, that we know of, by a word in any language under heaven, — we know not how to do justice, except by exposing the nonentity of the diihculties that he adduces, and then re])eating his words, "Let the difficulties have their full weight, but ahvays with the reserved possibility of a solution, could we learn more of the particvilars and minute incidents of the relation " (p. 344). Here we are at no loss, for in his own words, which every Piedobaptist writer, as we conceive, knows to be true, although every one will not make the assertion, "there were divers immersions . . . among the Jews" (p. 303). Dr. Ralston also says: " iSome of these washings required the immersion of the whole body." All who maintain that baptismos is here used with a secondary or unusual meanitig, are bound to prove that the apostle did not mean immersions. In conclusion, we refer the reader to the meaning of the word used by the Spirit of inspiration, as given in lexicons, to its meaning as evinced from iuvai'iable use, and to the following from Pa^dobaptists, that he may judge whether every oj^ponent does not, in the words of Dr. Chalmers, "frame a speculation from the gratuitous fancies of one's own spirit." Dr. J. Alting. — " Washings, the apostle calls cUaphorous haptlsmous, divers baptisms ; that is, various immersions, for bcqitismos is immersion, since tlie whole body is immergecl ; hut the term is never used concerning aspersion. The Seventy use bajjfo or baptizo for tahal, lie dipped, he dipped into, he immercjed ; whence bap)- tismos, with the Hebrews, is called tabelah. The word ha-.ah, he sp)rin]ded, they never translate baptizo, because it signifies more than is expressed by that Hebrew tenn; but instead of it they use rhaino, 2}erirraino, j'^rosra'tno, rhantizo, jyerii^ran- tizo, to sprinkle. The verb rahhatz, he tvashed, is frequently used, either alone, or with the addition of the word flesli, and the whole flesh, which is haiitism. Tt is often used in connection with the washing of tlie clothes ; whence the Jevv^s observe that, whenever a command occurs for washing the clothes, the washing of the Avliole body is either added or understood. Further, those .Jewish baptisms were manifold ; as of the high priest (Lev. xvi. 4) ; of the priests, at their consecration (Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. viii. G) ; and of the Levites, when about to be ajjpointed to their office (Num. viii. 7, 21); of all Israel, when the Covenant was to be pi'omul- gated (Ex. xix. 10, 14); especially of those that were defiled by the carcase of an unclean animal (Lev. xi. ) ; by the leprosy (Lev. xiv. );" &c. — Opyera, torn, iv., Com. in Epis. ad Heb. , p. 260. Beza, with others, says: "Nor does baptizein signify to wash, except by eonse- cpience." — On Mark vii. 4. Dr. KiTTO. — "The Mosaic law recognizes eleven species of uncleanness from positive defilement, the purification from which ceased at the end of a certain period, provided the unclean person then imshed his body and his clothes; but in a few cases, such as leprosy, and the defilement contracted by touching a dead body, he remained unclean seven days after the physical cause of pollution had ceased. This kind of ablution for substantial uncleanness answers to the Moslem — ghash." (In this the body is wholly immersed; not a single hair must be omitted.) Dr. Jahn. — "It was one of the civil laws of the Hebrews that the bath should be iised. The object of the law, without doubt, was to secure a proper degree of cleanliness among them (Lev. xiv. 8; xv. 1-8; xvii. 15, 16; xxii. 6; Num. xix. 6). We may therefore consider it probable that public Ijaths, soon after the enactment of this law, were erected in Palestine, of a construction similar to those which are so frequently seen at the present day in the East." — Bib. Antiq., sec. ISO, chap. xi. Webster and Wilkinson, — " Diajth. bapt. The various ablutions enjoined 390 IMPOBT OF BAPTISM. on priests and people as purifications" [Gr. Tes., on Heb. ix. 6-10). "As the Jews were ceremonially purified, so Christians are emblematically washed by the purifying water of baiitism." — Do., on Heb. x. 22. E. BiCKERSTETH. — "We have a further instruction in baptism in the washings APPOINTED BY THE LAW OF MosES. Aarou and his sons, on their being consecrated to the priesthood, were to be wholly washed with water, as well as sprinkled with blood, at the door of the tabernacle (Ex. xxi;x. 4, 21). And whenever they went into the tabernacle, they were to wash their hands and their feet at the brazen laver (Ex. xxx. 18-21). Eor cleansing from various ceremonial uucleanness, also, the Israelites were dhected to wash themselves (Lev. xiii. .54-58 ; xiv. 8, 9 ; xvi. 4, 24 ; xxii. 6). . . Christians are a royal j^rksthood ; they have an initiatory washing, the ordinance of baptism, to consecrate them to their high and holy office." — On Bap., pj). 6, 7. Olshausen having remarked, on Mark vii. 1-23, that " baptizestJiai is different from nijytesthai; the former is the dipping," &c., adds that " baptismos \s here, as at Heb. ix. 10, ahlution, washing generally." — Com. Dr. Macknight pi-operly inserts immersions, instead of washings, for baptis- mous, both in his translation and paraphrase. Storr and Flatt not only see in buptismous nothing else than immersions, but they venture to assert: "The reason why Christ prescribed immersion in baptism, from which the several figures found in the New Testament are taken, seems to have been that some of his first f(jllowers were already accustomed to religious washings of this kind ; especially the Jews, who had been used to Levitical wash- ings (Heb. ix. 10), and to the baptism of Jesiis and John (John iii. 22, &c. ; iv. I), and perhaps also to proselyte baptism." — Bib. Tlieo., p. 216, Ward's ed. Whitby and Grotius give immersions for baptismous in accordance with the import of the word as explicitly acknowledged by lexicons of the language, already quoted, and abundantly proved from use. These ''clivers baptisms" under the law, says Dr. "Wall, "were upon new occasions of uncleanness, &c., many times repeated." True; there were baptisms for vaiious reasons, or under various circumstances, which might involve its frequent repetition to the same person or thing. To us, however, there is but ''one baptism," one immersion, as a practical declaration of faith in Christ Jesus, and devotedness to him. § 11. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AS ENJOINING IMJIEESION. Paul, the Apostle. — " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." — Gal. i. 8. Tertullian. — "I adore the fulness of Scripture." Dr. .J. Bennett. — " In the Di\'ine wTitings alone we ' hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.'" "If it be not written, let him fear that woe that is destined for those who add anything to the Word of God, or take anything away." — Cong. Lee, pp. 43, 62. Dr. S. Davidson. — " A church has no power to decree rites and ceremonies, though they be not contrary to the written Word of God. ... To add any new ceremony must be iinlawful, because men are incapable of discerning what is an acceptable part of Divine worshi]). To God alone it belongs to ajipoint whatever is to be done in the assemblies of Christians : for He alone knows what is worthy of himself and proper to be presented by His creatures. . . . All must be made known by Heaven itself. Imperfect and erring man cannot determine what things, indifferent in them- selves, are fit to be made use of in religion. Hence the Deity has revealed, with sufficient fulness, all necessary parts of religious worship. To institute additional ceremonies, — still more to impose them on others" [or even to recommend and defend them, say we], — " is totally unwarrantable on the part of man, whatever pretence of decency or solemnity may be offered in favour of them." "The introduction of new rites and ceremonies ... is an insolent attempt to offer to the Divine Majesty, without His permission, things trifling aftd mean. ... No pretext of solemnity or edification can justify it." — (Jong. Lee., pp. 317, 318. J. A. Jajmes. — " Affect no false candoin-, no spurious charity, as if all sentiments were equally unimportant. This is treason against truth, and the God of truth. Let not all the various sects, denominations, and creeds appear in your eye only as so many beautiful colours in the rainbow. It is a false and bad figure, and is the very germ of infidelity. But, at the same time, guard against the opposite extreme of a want of charity toward those who differ from you."— Founts Man's Guide, p. 131. J. Gilbert.—" Few there are who need to be informed that, when the import of a phrase, or a customary form of expression, is the question, if there be undeniable evidence of the meaning con- FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 391 veyed by such form, it is worse than trifling to go into all the senses in which a particle, a preposi- tion, or some other individual word in that phrase may, under other circumstances, be employed." — Cang. Lee. p. 324. Bp. BuTLEB. — "There is ground for an attempt of showing men to themselves."— In Words- worth's Chris. Ins., vol. i., p. 520. On this we shall be more brief than from its importance we should have been, had we not, in connection with prepositions, previously dwelt on it. (See pp. 302-315.) In designating Matt, xxviii. 19 the com- mission, we do not forget that John's baptism was from heaven, and that Christ, during His ministry, had baptized, that is, by means of His disciples. But here the mouth of Christ solemnly enjoined it; and His language, as we think, implies that it should be observed by His disciples " unto the end of the world." "VVe enter into no controversy with Prof. Godwin and others who regard Matt, xxviii. 19 as not recording the institution of Christian baptism. But we accept not the professor's translation : "Go forth, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them for the Father," &c. {Chr. Bctp. , p. 1 5 1 .) We wholly repudiate his attempted vindication oifor as the rendering of eis. We differ as strongly from his assertion that " the words of our Lord mean, Purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (p. 154). We opjjose as decidedly his assumption that this baptism was " the moral purification of their souls by the Gospel of Christ" (p. 154). Nor do we see the consistency of this with the following: "The apostles had before this purified by water the persons of Jews; and now they were to extend this purification to all nations. They had made disciples, and baptized them by water; and they were to continxie the observance of this initia- tory sei'V'ice" (p. 156). He says, on Matt, xxviii. 19: "In no other place are the apostles said to baptize the minds of men " (p. 159). Again : " The real parallelisms to this passage confirm the conclusion that it applies to the purification of the minds of men by the ministry of the Gospel" (p. 160). And yet, "after the general commission given by our Lord to His apostles, to make disciples of all nations, two directions are expressed: they "^ere to baptize the converts, and to teach them to observe whatever He had enjoined" (p. 153). The reader may ask, If the apostles had before, in baptizing, purified by water, and now this purification was to be extended to all nations, had they thus baptized (purified) the body or the mindl Do we in God's Word, or in any human production (Prof. G.'s excepted), read of the soul being piirified by water"? Is not such an idea worthy of a place among Popish miracles? And yet from the words, " make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," to infer "the purification here mentioned is ritiial and corporeal, and not real and spii-itual," is an assumption, is not just, and is contrary to truth I (p. 256). Indeed, "there are eight texts in which the word baptize and baptism occur, with obvious reference to what is of great importance: Matt, xxviii, 19; Mark xvi. 16; Rom. \d. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 12; 1 Peter iii. 21. The importance attributed to some baptism in these passages is considered to support the opinion that the administration of the rite is the means of regenerating the soul. To this it may be replied that there is no proof that these statements refer to the Christian rite at all" (p. 342). He mentions that "various considerations have been stated, which tend to prove that 392 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. they relate, not to tlie punficatioii l)v water, in the introdnctory ceremony of the Christian religion, but to the moral purification of the mind." Yea, he imqiialifiedly asserts: "In none of these passages is there any reference to water, to the body, or to anything belonging to an external service" (p. 342). This is the extension to all nations of purification by water which the apostles had previously practised ! He has before said : " It should be observed, that in all his [John's] declai-ations resjoecting the baptism of the Spirit, Jesus Christ is spoken of as the agent " (p. 127). Thus reasons the living advocate of piiritication in opposition to immer- sion as the import of baptism in Chi'ist's commission and in all God's Word, the Rev. Prof J. H. Godwin. The language of Dr. Halley is explicit that baptizein eis is to immerse into (p. 324:). This seems to be admitted by jNIr. Stacey. But because eis hudor is not expressed, the immersion enjoined is carried aioay, and there is left in its place sprinkling, or poui'ing, or any ajjplication of water which you please. " With such a licence he must be dull indeed, who cannot make the sacred writers support just what he wi.shes" (J. Gilbert's Cong. Lee, p. 321). When we can immerse a person into God's name by sprinkling a few drops of water on the face, we shall believe that prejudice cannot make good and learned men sometimes unconsciously violate grammar, repudiate lexicons and use, and dishonour common sense. We fearlessly ask. Would any "Greek scholar, having to translate" into English Matt, xxviii. 19, — not to Anglicise the Greek words, but faithfully to translate them, — could he, " according to the laws of the Greek tongue established by the highest authority," render baptizontes anions eis otherwise than immersing them into ? If the words were so rendered, which of us coiild profess discii)leship to Jesus, and pi-actise or defend sprinkling as baptism ? Mr. It. A. Lancaster, on the Nature and Design of Baptism, says : "When our Lord commissioned His disciples to 'Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 8on, and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt, xxviii. 19), they could* not understand Him to say that they must go, dipping all nations, because all the necessary arrangements would have to be made for that purpose; whereas they had previously been told to ' provide neither two coats nor shoes ' (Matt. x. 10); therefore it is not to be expected that they would provide a dipping coat, or high boots, for the use of the baptistery," &c. (p. 83). Mr. L. might think that the climate and habits in Palestine were the same as in England, and that immersion is and was, and ever and everj'where will be, impracticable or unadvisable without the things he s])ecifies. Our present object is not to attack or defend modes or incidentals of baj^tisni. We plead for the reality of baptism, and remember the direction. Let all things be done decently and in order; and we think that j\Ir. L. and some others might as well have informed us that the word caniiot mean immersing, because there is no mention of bathing-machines in which to dress and \indi-ess, and to be taken into the water. The command of immersion no more required directions concerning the mode, than its obsei'vance, whether in the torrid zone, the polar regions, or any other part of God's earth, required the abandonment of common sense. Mr. Thorn gives a considerable number of meanings to the Greek FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 898 verb, and, when needful, selects at pleasure that or those best approved for the occasion ; whilst Dr. Wilson thus animadverts on ]\Ir. Stovel : " In ex20onnding the term baptized, Mr. Stovel may make his election between initiated and immersed ; b\it to represent baptizo as standing for both, and doing twofold duty in the same instance, is ai'bitrary and apocryi^hal" (p. '21 G). Dr. W. teaches that the commission enjoins hajJ- tism into the name, &c., that "the oixlinaiy ellipsis is nncalled for or inadmissible. If we inserted eis liudor after the participle, we should have, — Baptizing them into water into the name, Ac.,^ — a collocation of words which, we venture to say, is without parallel either in sacred or profane literature." He further teaches that, "if the verb denotes dij), and nothing but dip, the commission requires us to dip a disciple ' into the name of the Father^ &c. The entire force of the verb is tlms expended on an act which every one must admit to be spiritual." Yea, he lias an " assurance that the Baptist cannot draw from the structure of the language one particle of wari'ant for his mode of employing the water." And, finally : " The real ellipsis of the commission, which may be learnt by consulting 1 Cor. x. 2, corroborates our view. It is stated by the apostle that the fathers of the Jewish church ' were all ba^^tized {eis) into Moses {en") in the cloud and in the sea' " (pp. 312-314). We accept the professor's instruction that in the commission water is not mentioned but understood ; and that if we supply the ellipsis from other passages wherein water is mentioned, and supply it in the same manner, we must supply en, not eis, and as we read in the cloud and in the sea, we must say in water. How does this militate against immersion ? Is it an anachronism to sjjeak either of immersion in water or dipping in water? Would every Baptist blush, — if capable of blushing, — on reading, Immer- sing them in water into the name, &c. % Does not the English language admit and use in or into just as the Greek admits and uses en or eis ? (See Matt. iii. 11, and other occurrences of haptizo in the New Testament ; also its occurrences in Greek writers previously quoted. See in rubrics previously quoted the association of therein and ivherein with baptism.) Dr. Wall adduces it as evidence " that our reformers and compilers of the liturgy" intended dipping to be practised, "as appears both by the express order of the rubric itself, and by the prayer used just before baptism: Sanctify this loater, &c., and grant that this child now to be baptized therein, hiciil1"— Young Man's Guide, p. 129. J. A. Haxdanb. — " If we believe that he spoke intelligibly, or with a view to be understood, we must believe also that he used the word in an acceptation witli which the hearers were acquainted. Dodwell himself saw the propriety of this rule of interpreting when he said : ' It very mucli con- firms me in my reasonings when I find an interpretation of the Scriptures not only agreeable to the words of the Scriptures, but agreeable also to the notions and significations of words then received. For that sense which was most likely to be then understood was, in all likelihood, the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost himself.' " — So. Wor., pp. 140, 141. C. Taylor. — "I rest my interpretation, then, on the obvious construction of St. Luke's words; but I support it by tlie consent of the churches, Latin and Greek, in the early centuries of Christianity." — Facts and Evi,., p. 36. Dr. JoRTiN. — "In general precepts the obvious and usual signification of the words is to be supposed the intention of the lawgiver." — Rem. on Ecc. His., vol. i., p. 161. W. Jay. — " A difliculty apparently inexplicable may not be a contradiction, but be solved by an extended view of tlie subject." — Autobi., p. 167. Bp. Butler. — "If a truth be established, objections are nothing. The one is founded on our knowledge, and the other on our ignorance." Paley. — "We should never suffer what we knotv to be disturbed by what we know not." West. — "Presumptions are of no weight against positive evidence." — Trial of the Wit., p. 50. Prof. J. H. Godwin. — "We all read the same Bible, but everyone can see there, in reference to some subject, what is not really to be found; because, instead of simply receiving that truth which is ever one and the same, he reflects upon the Scriptures the opinions he brings to them, and so he sees associated with the truth of God the copy of his own mind." — Chr. Bap., p. 45. Dr. Halley. — "I admit that I have no right to reason from the difficulties of the disputed practice, if the usage of the word be clearly, distinctly, and uniformly against me" (p. 290). Mr. Thorn, spealdiig of the " tliree tliousand purified on the day of Pentecost" (p. 20), among other things, says: " ISTow supposing the twelve apostles to have been engaged In this work, and supposing immer- sion to have been the mode, it must have been a most laborious, disagree- able, if not an impracticable undei'taking, to be accomplished in the course of five or six hours. It should be taken into the account, moreover, that at least twenty-four robing-rooms and a dozen dipping-places must have been obtained for the purpose. And if more agents assisted, and lightened the labour of each, a proportionate increase of both kinds of conveniences must have been provided. Kow, in Jerusalem itself, there was neither a river nor fountain of water." " In a word, immersing such multitudes on these occasions, without the intervention of a miracle, — which appears never to have been wrought in furtherance of baptizing, — was a thing incredible, and the very next step to an utter impossibility" (pp. 20, 21). Dr. Miller says : " The man, therefore, who can believe that the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accommodating his belief to his wishes." On this Dr. Carson says: "To speak of a facility in accom- modating our faith to our wishes, is speaking not only without evidence, but contrary to self-evidence. How many thousands of those who are the most zealous for immersion have received it, not from their fathers, nor their sect, nor from their temporal interests, but in opposition to all these ! What advantage can it be in this world to any man 1 To oppose infant sprinMing is the heaviest part of the cross of Christ. Why, then, should we wish it true, when it is our interest to be convinced that it is false ?" (p. 371). He concludes a defence of the immersion of the three thousand by saying: "Had we nothing but human testimony for the fact, to reject it on the ground of improbability would be unwarrantable." We should not fear results if the various hypotheses adduced were allowed to testify who are the persons that have a wondei'ful facility in accommodating their belief to their wishes. Prof. J. H. God^vin says : " If it does come within the limits of 396 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. possibility that tln-ee tlionsand men and women slionld he dipped into some pools or baths at Jerusalem, in one afternoon, by the apostles and their assistants, this is all that can be said " (p. 108). So, witliout doubt, when this is associated with other facts and ditFiculties, Peter said: *' Ilepent, and be purified each of you" (p. 109). Indeed, the views of the Baptists involve "a series of improbabilities seldom surpassed" (p. 110). The worthy professor, who believes that in Matt, xxviii. 19 nnd seven other places where Christian baptism is mentioned, the baptism of the soul is meant, believes that here that of tlie body is intended. He nevertheless assures us that " Christian baptism, like all other baptisms, was a purification by water" (p. 185). Ml'. Stacey admits that the immersion of the three thousand, "if distributed among the twelve apostles and those of the one hundred and twenty disciples who were competent to the work, is 7iot itself ahsolutely inconceivable." What Baptist will not thankfully accept this admission ! But "it is yet extremely improbable," and the su^jposition that many w^ere engaged in baptizing "is j)erfectly gratuitous. No ground of infer- ence is given that they went into the water, and stood thei-e until the protracted and painful labour was accomplished." This is written by one who believes hajdizo to mean to immerse, to pour, and to sprinkle, and that water was the element of baptism. He then speaks of the time which Baptists "now" occupy in "preliminary inquiry," &c., which; of whatever weight as an argumentuni ad liominem in regard to present preliminaries, is irrelevant as proof resjiecting the baptism of the three thousand. He next asserts " that Jerusalem ordinarily afforded no supj^ly of water equal to the immersion of so large a number in a jieriod so brief, particularly during the summer." A city in which there was a .sufficient supply of water for all the domestic and ceremonial purposes of a million and a half of j^eople, had not water sufficient for immersing in eight hours three thousand persons ! For all the bathings of purifica- tion needed by all its inhabitants, and needed by the hmidreds of thousands that at some of the feasts flocked to Jerusalem, it had water in abundance, and in no siege was deficient in water; but it had not water for the immersion of the three thousand ! On this we hope shortly to say more, which will ajjply also to the truthfulness or falsehood of some of Mr. Thorn's assertions. We now observe only that Mr. S. is not ignoi'ant of the numbers that were accustomed at the Jewish festivals to repair to Jerusalem, since, when speaking of John's baiDtisra, he says that " Josejjhus gives nearly three millions as the number of people present at Jei-usalem during the passover" (p. 216); and yet ordinarily the city did not sujiply water enough for the immersion of three thousand persons ! He then speaks of the publicity of the baptism on the day of Pentecost as being greater than that of the multitudes baptized by John : '' The ceremony was performed in the heart of a crowded city, and, therefore, though the number baptized was less, the publicity of the occasion would be greater." A person might think from such language, that they were baptized, as is mentioned by Mr. Thorn, " in the crowded streets." Is it a fact that baptisms in a town either arc or ever Avere more public than in the country where a river is used? Are those baptized in Ijondon more exposed than those ba])tized in the Calder ? FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 397 Thus, with Mi\ S., the supposition of immersion is "encumbered with difficulties wliich onlj acciimulate as the narrative is carefully examined." And he concludes with what appears to us to vilify the Lord of glory, and which is far from heing peculiar to one page. He says: "But let sprinkling take the place of immersion, and the difficulties immediately vanisli, as baptism, according to this mode, Avhile perfectly easy in fact, .would be scrupulously delicate in form" (pp. 212-214). Why did not the Head of the church, in the Book of books, use rhaino or 7-hantizo iu enjoining and describing this ordinance, in order that the form "scrupulously delicate" might be understood'? Do Mr. S. and the Pajdobaptists generally believe that the inhabitants of Palestine dressed as do we in England in the nineteenth century of the Chi-istian era? Professor Paxton says that "many of the Ai-abian inhabitants of Palestine and Barbary wear no shii'ts, but go almost entirely naked, or with only a cloth cast about their bodies, or a kind of mantle. It is not improbable that the poorer inhabitants of Judea were clothed much in the same manner as the Arabs of those countries in modern times, having no shu'ts, but only a sort of mantle to cover their naked bodies " (Illus. of Scrip., O.T., pp. 293, 294). Let not this excite astonishment. Remember the climate of Judea, of which we have already spoken, and shall speak again. If Mr. S. had maintaiiaed that sprinkling, and not immersion, was the meaning of haptizo, instead of maintaining that immersion, pour- ing, and sprinkling, are all included in the import of the word, we should not have charged him with degrading the Divine Pedeemer. He has told us that his " whole argument, indeed, aspii'es to little more than" a plea for liberty, aud that he has " no wish to vindicate the exclusive authority of any specific mode" (p. 174). If he is honest in these state- ments, why does he again and again utter his unfounded and evil insinuations respecting the indelicacy of immersion % We hope that in re-examining this repeated cahnnny, which, with his admission respecting the import of haptizo, reaches, however unintentionally, the great Redeemer, as well as that portion of his disciples called Baptists, whom Mr. S. can recognize as a part of the "universal" church, however " much larger " in number the P3edoba2:)tists be, he will at once deplore and resolve to terminate its existence. Dr. W. Cooke treats this portion of God's Word in which the com- mand to immerse, and the fact of immersion are recorded, as the infidel treats at pleasure any portion of Divine revelation. After speaking of baptism as "a rite enjoined upon all nations," and as "a duty devolving Tipon persons of all ages and in all conditions of life;" and after teaching that baptism is not immersion, because in certain regions there ai'e seasons of the year when immersion is not practicable, and that because there are conditions of the body when immersion is unsafe, therefore baptism is not immersion; and that because immersion, under some circumstances, "would not be becoming," whilst "sprinkling or pouring comports with decency or propriety," therefore "the refined religion of Christianity " requires not immersion : he teaches respecting the baptism of the three thousand that " even sprinkling or pouring would occupy all the time; but the idea of so many people being immersed over head, one by one, in so short a time, requires more credulity than we have a 398 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. conscience to demand." He does not believe that the word which had always meant to immerse means to immerse, because of imagined difficulty respecting time. But he can assert u.nqualifiedly : " These persons did not come prepared for bathing; they had no bathing-dresses with them." The sceptic and infidel who reject evidence, do often in other things believe without e"\ddence. He asks, as if oblivious of ablutions daily practised by myriads: "Were they, then, plunged over head in their usual, clothing?" Could the tens and hundreds of thousands so frequently pi-actising the bathing of themselves in water be certainly unprepared, and during half a day find the decent practice of immei'sion to be an impossibility 1 Further, he asks: " Were they unclothed for the purpose, and that amid thousands of spectators in a crowded city?" Does he suppose that the immersion of the thi-ee thousand would render it neces- sary that they should undress and be immersed in the streets'? Does God's Word say that there were "thousands of spectators" when they wex-e baptized? After conjuring up such items as these, the doctor thus con- cludes respecting the immersion of the three thousand : " Is not the supposition utterly forbidden by facts and by all propriety, especially by that religion which is the very essence of modesty 1" Dr. Halley's words we should quote verbatim, but for want of space. He does not know, he says, though " the inquiry has been often pro- posed," that it has ever " been fairly answered — how and where could so many persons haA^e been immersed in so short a time?" This very inquiry is in defiance of all rules respecting the burden of proof. By some writers these rules may not be known. By Di*. H. they ai-e given and approved. By these rules the inquuy that, to the Baptists, "has been often proposed," is an impertinence; from the fact of its devolving, not on the Baptists, to prove either water or time for the immersion of the three thousand, but on their opponents to i)rove that either of these, or any other requisite to the immersion of the three thousand, was wanting. He speaks of water as a scarce article in Jerusalem and its environs, and of Josephus as saying that the fountain of Siloam " often failed, as well as all the springs without the city"; and yet he says that at the Pentecost, "the commencement of the seascm of the long drought," "I do not say there was not abundance of water in the private and public reservoii"s ; " but in dii'ect opposition to the (jreater puhlicity of this baptism than that of John, on which Mr. S. has animadverted. Dr. H. conceives that if they were immersed, they " must have separated, and resorted in little parties to a great number of private houses, scattered over the city." And of this he says, " Such a private baptism would have been very unlike the public ministrations of John, and of Jesus at the Jordan and at ^non." Let the su})positions of Dr. H. and Mr. S. stand one against the other. We are not aware that Scri])ture sj)eaks expressly about either the publicity or the ])rivacy of baptism. He further deems it " exceedingly improbable " " that the apostles went from one company to another, each immeising about two hundred and fifty in dillerent places," "especially as each family, even now the city is so much smaller, care- fully preserves its own resei'voii-." And since the record of their immersion says not a word about difficulties l:)eing surmounted, or being in their way, the good doctor concludes " that they were purified by FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 399 some easy mode of ablution," wliicli "would seem to be in accordance with the style of the narrative" (p. 317). ^rgo, baptism is any con- venient application of water ! He thus proceeds with one unnecessary supposition after another. What need have we to suppose that they were baptized by the twelve "? Did Peter baptize Cornelius % Did Paul baptize all the disciples at Corinth ? Did not Philip baptize in Samai'ia 1 And what proof of scarcity of baths and of water at Jerusalem, in apostolic times, is there in the present condition and conveniences of the city '? Whatever may be the present condition of Jerusalem, or of its suburbs, scarcity of water does not appear to have been known there in the days of Hezekiah. See 2 Chron. xxxii. 3, 4. He says : " There was, it must be acknowledged, a gi'eat deal of water used in the temple sei'vice;" but he doubts its accessibility to the disciples. Is there not similar evidence of abundance of water and of conveniences for all requu-ed ablutions, to what there is of water used in the temple service] But notwithstanding this admission of the abounding of water in the temple service, and though he does "not say there was not abundance of water in the private and public reser- voirs," he tells us that " at this very time water Avas" needed, and that " it was always precious luitil the works of Titus relieved the city " by the construction of an aqueduct under Pilate. And then the unexpected character of the baptism supplies a difficulty respecting change of raiment ! Just as if bathing, required by health, by custom, by comfort, by Divine law, and by many human traditions, was a thing for which the people in Jerusalem, men or women, residents or visitants, for the purpose of worshipping God according to law or tradition, could be unprepared ! To the idea of unpreparedness, mentioned by Dr. Halley and othei's, we might apply the words of West, in his T7'ial of the Witnesses, " As this story has no evidence to support it, so neither has it any probability." The arguments of our opponents against immersion lamentably resemble those of inlidels against the truths of Holy Writ. If we knew nothing of the piety of our opponents, we shoiild believe that they would not scruple to adduce anything that, to the ignorant, might be plaxisible against immersion, however sophistical the reasoning, and however improbable the invented suppositions. With all these objections against immersion the doctor becomes animated, and says, " The alternative we indignantly repudiate. Even in an English town, if it be not by the side of a con- siderable river, would it be easy, without preparation, to immerse three thousand strangers decently, in one afternoon, or five thousand in one dayl" Thus does Dr. H. reason from English towns and present customs, as if in these we certainly had a parallel to Jewish customs and the city of Jerusalem ! What can be more just than that " we indig- nantly repiidiate " his supposed alternatives ] It is not necessary, in the words of Dr. J. Bennett, to say, " But who needs to be informed that there are myriads of facts, recorded in history, and believed by all soimd reasoners, which d, 2^1'iori arguments would have pronounced fables 1 The reasons which render the whole affair credible and natural are often hidden in the darkness of a remote age" (Cong. Lee, vol. viii., p. 138). In the language of another Psedobaptist, we may say that he " is taking for granted the very point in question." " We are but very 400 IMPOET OF BAPTISM.' imperfectly acquainted with the state of things at Jerusalem. . . . Arguments, arising from supposed difficulties, arc always to be received with caution ; for, in affairs so remote, there may be circumstances of which we are ignorant, but which, if known, would make all plain." " It is surely very improper to allege any difficulties whatever, in oppo- sition to ex^iress Divine testimony." "By whatever rule of interpreta- tion this is denied, the most important facts and doctrines of the Gospel may, in like manner, be set aside" (Haldane's So. ?Fo?'., pp. 140-149).* "It is," says West, "no vmcommon thing for men to catch themselves and others by such notable acute questions, and to be led by the spright- liness of their imagination out of the road of truth and common sense " {Trial of the Wit., p. 52). To do" justice to Dr. H., we must not, how- ever, forget the two crutches he has brought with him from the baptism of the Spirit and the baptism of the Ked Sea, however little sujsport it may appear to us that he derives from them ; nor must we overlook his note at the close of all, respecting imagined difficidties in immersing the three thousand; for, in this note, he says, "I do not wish, in our ignorance of all the tacts, to press this objection too far. To find sufficient water for the temple service, before the construction of the aqueducts, has always appeared a matter of extreme difficulty. I must candidly, as I do cheerfully acknowledge, that there must have been abundance of water in the city to have washed away the blood of two hundred and lifty thousand lambs, slain at one passover. How to reconcile the suffi- ciency of water for such a sacrifice with the accounts of its scarcity, may not be easy; but that sufficient water must have been in Jerusalem, I am bound to acknowledge." Also, — which is a reply to disparaging assertions respecting the estimates of Joseplius, — "Josejihus estimates the number of persons present in Jerusalem, at one passover, as two millions seven hundred thousand ; at another, as three millions. Such commentations may appear vague and dubious, but as they are founded upon the number of lambs slain at the altar, two hundred and fifty -six thousand five hundred, allowing about twelve persons for each lamb, they deserve much more attention than mere conjecture" (pp. 313, 314). Again, " Considering the multitudes in Jerusalem at the feasts, there must have been means of preserving vast quantities of Avater. How, without large supjelies, could they have sustained their long sieges, although they often sufiered severely from scarcity ? I have no doubt of the sufficiency of water; the practicability of obtaining the use of it for so great an immersion, as it was preserved in reser^^oirs, is a greater difficulty." This is the proof that hapti^o has a secondary meaning, and from no less learned and eminent an individual than Dr. Halley! (pp. 216—218.) The false principle on which our o2)ponents object to the immersion of the tliree thousand, would enable a person in Man- chester, or elsewhere, who has never seen a grave or tomb into which a living person can enter, to deny that Jesus was ever put into any grave or tomb because Peter and John went into the place wliei-e the Lord had lain. But in the A]>pendix Dr. 11. again refers to this baptism, and says, " I cannot imagine how three thousand persons were immersed in * Mr. H. was a P;vdoljai)tist when he wrote his work ou Social Worship, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 401 one day, in Jerusalem, at the season of the Pentecost, without any pre- vious arrangement ; as I do not believe it could now be done with decency and propriety in Manchester" (pp. 343, 344). As / do not believe, (fee. ! It is with difficulty that we refrain from strong language, from what would prove oftensive epithets, in condemnation of such pretended argumentation. It is, however, worthy of the cause, though not worthy of the man. What could more indicate the nakedness of the land, than a resorting, by such a person, to such contemptible and Avorthless assertions? He has but just said that "whoever assigns to a disputed word a secondaiy meaning, or any variation of usage, is bound to the proof of it;" and that "Dr. Carson has also induced me to con- sider more carefully the danger of pressing historical difficulties in refer- ence to events of which, as they occurred in a distant age, we must be ignorant of many circumstances " (p. 343) : and yet he cannot imagine the immersion of the three thousand to have taken place, because it could not NOW be done with decency and propriety in Manchester. He has said, " I admit that I have no right to reason from the difficul- ties of the disputed practice, if the usage of the word be clearly, dis- tinctly, and uniformly against me " (p. 290). That the disputed woi-d had clearly, distinctly, and uniformly been used in the sense of encom- passing and covering the object baptized, he has admitted. He apparently seeks to display all imaginary dithculties under an inVard consciousness of their irrelevance and worthlessness. In the same page, he expresses his " wonder at the disingenuous artifice of learned men," and reasons from "Palestine as now we know it" (p. 312); whilst, in the next page, he says, "In the brief sketch of the Gospels there may be omitted many facts and incidents which, if we knew them, might solve or lessen the difficulties." If it is not needed by Dr. H., it may be serviceable to some others, to be reminded that Bishop Butler mentions that "the prince who had always lived in a warm climate, naturally concluded, in the way of analogy, that there was no such thing as watei"'s becoming hard, becaiise he had always observed it to be fluid and yielding." Also Mr. Locke speaks of a Dutch ambassador who told the king of Siam that water in Holland would, in cold weather, become hard enough to allow the elephant to walk on it, if he were there; which led the king of Siam to reply, " Now I am sure you lie." The bath, according to the testimony of Jahn, was a common luxury with both sexes in the East. He says, "The bath was always agreeable to the inhabitants of the East, on account of its cooling and refreshing qualities, and its tendency to promote cleanliness in a climate where there is so much exposure to dust (Pvuth iii. 3; 2 Sam. xi. 2; 2 Kings v. 10). The bath is frequently visited by Eastern ladies, and may be reckoned among their principal recreations. The Egyptians, who lived at the earliest period of which we have any record, were in the habit of bathing in the waters of the Nile (Ex. ii. 5; vii. 13-25; Herodo. ii. 37):'— Arch. Bib., p. 182."- With all our convictions of truth and evidence being wholly on our side, we despair of " affording the slightest relief " to some of our * See also the corroborating statements of Drs. Kitto, Brown, Jamieson, Pye Smith, and others, at pp. 343, 373-381, 389, Stc. DD 402 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. opponents. We wish not to be chai'gecl with overlooking the difficulties adduced, or the concessions granted, by him who says, " I am, however, bound to acknowledge that these difficulties may be attributed to our ignorance of the circumstances; and therefore, while on the one side the difficulties ought to be considei-ed, on the other our ignorance ought not to be disregarded " (p. 344) ; whatever notice we may take of some of his less intelligent or less candid brethren, who, magnifying and inventing difficulties, appear to wish nothing else to be seen and con- sidei-ed. Joseph Stennett has pi'operly said, " The supposed improbability that the three thousand converts above-mentioned could have clothes necessary for their immersion in a little time, soon vanishes, when 'tis considered how much bathing was in use among the Jews, on a sacred as well as civil account" (Answer, &c., p. 123). Dr. Gill says that baths in private houses, for the purpose of jiurification by immersion, were so numerous in Jerusalem, that a digger of cisterns for such uses and others was a business in Jerusalem. Dr. H. admits that "there can be no reasonable doubt whatever" "that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion," and that " the apostles might have baptized their Jewish proselytes according to the previous usage of their nation " (p. 309). Wei'e the three thousand Gentile or "Jewish proselytes"? Dr. H. teaches that, for apostolic baptism, immersion " was the most expedient, and usually tlie most convenient." Did the apostles not do that which "was the most expedient"? Did the vietrojJolis of the kingdom — to which the people resorted by thousands and millions — of all places, afford the fewest facilities for immersion ? Or is there something in the number formidable at such a place as Jerusalem ? The facts already conceded are a sufficient reply to the somewhat celebrated inventor of popping as the veritable import of baptizing, who says that all the pools in Jerusrdem would have been quite inadequate to immerse the three thousand ! The Rev. E. Bickersteth says, " It was the general habit in Eastei-n countries to bathe frequently, so that bathing was to them as customary as washing is to us" (On Bajy., p. 27). Yet he asserts on the same page that it is " highly improbable that the three thousand bap- tized at once in Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, wei'e immersed"! We believe Divine testimony to the immersion of the three thousand to be explicit; although we cannot say, as Dr. H., in starting from the inspired record, says, " We here find that three thousand persons were baptized in the after-part of one day, in the city of Jerusalem" (p. 31G); and we believe that, while the difficulties of our opponents exist pi'in- cipally in imagination, the smallest reality is indefinitely magnified by prejudice. In answer to all assertions respecting scarcity of water and insufficiency of time, we reply : 1. It belongs to our opponents, as is in-efragably proved, and as is by one or more of them admitted, to evince the insuperable character of difficulties in the way of immersion, or otherwise to prove that baptize has here a secondaiy meaning. The demand from us to tell the number of baths and conveniences for immersion, to gauge the ponds and reser- voirs, or to prove a sufficiency of time for immersion, is a gross dis- regard of all rules respecting the burden of proof. We claim here, respecting probability, and even the possibility of water and conveniences FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 403 for immersion, an application of Dr. Halley's worda, "It may be said, I cannot prove all these particulars, but their probability, even their possibility, is sufficient for my purpose" (p. 158). Let it be proved, we say, that sprinkling was practised as baptism, or the supposed "argu- ment against us falls to pieces" (p. 159). "This court," as West says, " sits to examine evidence, and not to be entertained with fine imagina- tions."— Trial of the Wit, p. 15. 2. We maintain, fiom Holy Writ and from Pfedobaptist writei's, that Palestine and Jerusalem, instead of being places where water was scarce, abounded in water. God's Word says, " Tlie Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of bi-ooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills " (Deut. viii. 7). Hence, it is also called "a good land," "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex. iii. 8; see also Deut. vi. 10, 11; Neh. ix. 25; Ps. Ixv. 9-13). Yea, it was " the glory of all lands " (Eze. xx. 6). In the reign of David, the result of a census is thus stated : " And Joab gave the siam of the number of the people unto Da^T-d : and all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword, and Judah was four hundred thi'eescore and ten thousand men that drew sword" (1 Chron. xxi. 5). Could these men represent a population of less than six to seven millions of persons ] Yet they were main- tained by a country whose superficial extent is about eleven thousand square miles (Kitto, p. 45.3), a density of pof)ulation exceeding that of England, Belgium, or China, the most populous countries of the world. The country must have been well watered and productive then, as well as when, in the days of Solomon, " Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry" (1 Kings iv. 20). The following are testimonies to the subsequent and present conditions of the promised land : — Dr. Paxton says of Palestine : "It surpassed all otlier countries in fertility and pleasantness. Abounding with the most delicious fruits and precious grains ; diver- sified with beaiitif ul hills, plains, and valleys ; enriched with fountains and brooks of excellent water; adorned with delightful groves and forests; ci'owded with populous towns and wealthy cities, blest with a sweet and salubrious temperature, and placed in the very centre of the earth, from whence the light of true religion might radiate into every part of the world ; it was assigned by Jehovah for the habitation of his chosen people, where redeeming love was to put foith all its glories." "A land of hills and valleys, clothed with woods; beautified and enriched with fountains of water; diversified by rivers, streams, and brooks, flowing cool and piu-e from the summits of their mountains, and — with little attention from the cultivator — exciting the secret powers of vegetation, and scat- tering plenty wherever they came." "The streams of cool and limpid water that precipitate themselves from the rock, or trickle dowTi the narrow vales to refresh the parched fields on their way to the sea, produce an air of liveliness which delights the traveller."— //;««. ofScrij)., vol. i., Geof/., pp. 264-270. Dr. W. M. Thomson, who visited JPalestine along with Dr. Robinson, says: " Remember that this is a climate almost tropical, where water is fertility and life, and the absence of it sterility and death, and the greatness of the blessing is vastly enhanced. The number of these fountains and depths is prodigious. Many of those whose imited contributions make up the Jordan we have looked into diu-ing these last few days; but the whole land is fiUl of them." "We might go all through Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, and enumerate hundreds of them — powerful fountains — the permanent sources of every river in the coimtry. I have visited them often, and always with admiration and astonishment. Nor need 404 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. we wonder that so mucli is made of them in the Bible ; they are the glory and the life of the land, and they abound to an extent almost incredible." — The Land and the Book, p. 2G2. So EcHARD, in describing the superlative excellence of this land, mentions its "aboiinding with the most delicious fruits and choicest grains, replenished with beautiful hills and fountains, with luxurious vales and plains." — Eccle. His., p. 2. Ency. Bkit.- — "Palestine, from its northern latitude, is without the range of the tropical rains, and has in their stead the early and the latter rains, in spring and autumn. These are generally cojnous, though they sometimes fail. The heaviest rains fall generally in December, which in January spread a covering ly for the l)urpose. ' ' There is not the least reason to suppose that they would not easily find baths and jiools enough. The pools of Siloam and of Bethesda were clearly accessible to all (John V. 2, 3 ; ix. 7) ; and those vast reservoirs, the Upper and the Lower Pool, were close at hand. Public and private baths must have been common: for Jerusalem being at this time a proconsular city, and the metropolis of a Roman ])rovince, had constant intercourse with Greece and Italy, and in both these countries the bath was a very common indulgence. ' The Greeks were familiar with the use of the bath as a source of health and jilcasure long before it came into general practice among the Romans. It was customary for the Greeks to take two baths in succession : the cold first, and afterwards the warm. Thus, in the Iliad, Ulysses and Diomedc both liathe themselves in tlie sea, and afterwards refresh themselves with the warm bath, called asamiitt/ios, "the asaminth." This was a vessel in which the leather sat while warm water was poured upon him. But this must not be confounded M'ith the hahtece, or thermce, in which were plunging and swimming- baths, and in which numbers bathed together. The Athenians had public baths, loiUrones, attached to the gymnasia ; which were more used by the common people than by the great and wealthy, who had private baths in their own houses. The balnece were ])ublic cold baths ; and these, under the empire, were succeeded by the therince, which included hot and cold baths. These public baths became very com- mon in Italy. Tcanum, a small town of Campania, had its balnece for men and its FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 407 balnece for women; and Pompeii had its public batlis, cold and hot. In Pompeii the cold bath was circular, twelve feet ten inches in diameter, and about three feet deep. The water ran into the basin through a spout of bronze, and was caiTied ofiF again through a conduit on the other side. Eat we may judge from the names given to the cold baths that they were often deeper than that at Pompeii. They were called not only j)uteiis, "the well," bat also natatlo, and natatorium, "the swimming-bath," and piscina, "the pool" (for bathing) ; * not only ?OMSichem, the i)resent Neapolis or Kaliulus, are identical, Dr. E. considers to be proved (p. 133) ; but what shall we think of Dr. Halley's candour when we read from Dr. E., "Nabulus i.s furnished with v/ater in singular abundance in comjjarison with the rest of Palestine. On the east is the large fountain of Defneh, running off east and turning a mill. On the west are the similar fountains by which we were encamped. In the higher part of the city itself are two large fountains, and another in the ravine aliove on the .side of JNIount Gerizim. The water of these three flows off west, partly along the streets of the city, and partly in a canal, from Mliich gardens are irrigated and several mills s\ipplied" (vol. iii., p. 134). "The region round about Nabulus, within tlie valley, is full of fountains. They seem to break out in all directions ; and water from some of them runs through the streets of the city" (p. 131). Yea, from Jacob's well, "only a few rods distant, is a mill, the copious stream of which comes from the foimtain of Defneh above in the valley" (p. 132). Tlie testimony of Dr. Hackett, wlio also has visited this place, is like that of Dr. Robinson, and, except that he is a Bajitist, is similarly caleidated to cover with confusion those Paxlobaptists who, in avoiding a covering for once with water, con- jure up tlie idea that this was an arid region, and that thei'c was but one well of suitable drinking water for a multitude of inhabitants, and then jump to the conclusion that Philip's ])aptizing of the men and women who believed, was a spi'iukling of them. Having spoken of " the great northern roail from Jerusalem to ,S;vmaria and Galilee," and of the country, he mentions " where stands Nal)ulns, the ancient 8hechem or Sychar. A more lovely S])ot than that which greets the eye liere it would be difiicult to lind in any land. Streams which gush from perennial fountains impart a la-ight and constant freshness to the vegetation. T!ie deep vei-durc which clotlics the gardens and orchards produces the more pleasing effect because it has its foil, so to speak, in the sterile as])ect of the adjacent mountains. It is no wonder that the patriarclis ■\\ere fond of jjitching their tents here, and jiasturing their flocks on tlie neighbouring ]>lain. . . . But that which gives to this locality its most sacred interest is the continued existence here of the "vvell where our Saviour held His memorable conversati(ui with tlie woman of Samaria." Amongst otlier things, he says: "Other wells, of easier access, must have been at hand." "The I'ecord niay imply tiiat the woman was well known in Sycliar; it does not say that slie resided tliere; she maj' have lived where she was nearer to Jacob's well than to any other wells of the city. -Secondly, the fact that it was Jacob's \\ell may have given a value to the water, in the eyes of the Samari- tans, which made tliem anxiotis to oljtain it occasionally, though at the cost of some l)articular trouble. Thirdly, the depth of the well may have rendered the water cooler than that of fountains nearer to the surface ; and, finally, Sycliar prob.ably extended further east towards the plain than the modern town, so that the greater distance was trilling when the object was to obtain water so much valued. It has FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 421 been deemed surprising that any one slionld ever have thought o£ boring a well to such a depth through the solid rock, when there are so niauy natural fountains in the neighbourhood -which furnish an easy and abundant supply of water. Dr. Robinson urges this fact very ja-operly," &c. — lllus. of Scrip., pp. 170-184. Dr. Stanley, speaking of Sychar in connection with Samaria, says: "Six miles from Shechem, following the course of the same green and watered valley, the traveller finds himself in a wide basiu," &c. (Sinai and Palestini', p. 2-4.S). Of Jacob's well he says : It " has been well oliserved that it was dug by one who could not trust to the fresh springs so near in the adjacent vale, which still belonged to the hostile or strange Canaanites " (p. 241). Dr. KiTTO, speaking of the "fertile plains or basins " of Samaria, says : " These plains and valleys are watered by numerous streams, which contribute greatly to their fertility." Speaking of the city of Samaria, he says: " Tli.3 enclosed valley which surrounds the central hill is very beautiful, watered liy running streams," &c. (P/c. His. of Pal., p. cxvii. ) Again: "The town of Nablous, — the Shechem of the Old Testament, and the Sychar of the New Testament, — is about foiir miles from the ruined city of Samaria. The long narrow valley in which it stands has already been described as extending its length from east to west between tlio mountains of blessing and cursing, the fertile Gerizim and the barren Ebal. So aljundantly is this valley watered that, ])opularly, it is said to be enriched by three hnndi'ed and sixty-live springs" (p. cxviii. ). We can admit, witli Dr. Kitto, that Judea Avas naturally le.s.s fertile than Galilee and Samaria, that the water, too, was in some places more brackish, and that " tliis inconvenience has rendered rain so precious to the inhabitants of the frontiers, that they have in all ages taken care to collect it into wells and caverns closed; hence, among all ruins cisterns are the first things we discover;" and can admit what Dr. Halley quotes from Di'. Chandler respecting Eastern women resorting to fountains " each with a large two-handled earthen jar," without being oblivious of the fact that by some means they had water for their food, and water for their abundant ablutions, and without seeing a tittle of evidence that haptlzo, the Greek wonl for immerse, must mean also to poui', or to sprinkle, or to use water in any convenient way. Additional extracts which we had quoted from H. IMartineau on Eastern Life, J. L. Stephens's Incidents of Travel in Egypt, Arabia Petra'a, and the Holy Land, and others, we shall omit in remembrance of the apostle's words, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."- — 1 Cor. xiv. 38. § 14. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF THE EUNUCH. J. B. Patteksox. — "Among the most common and most vexations arts of controversy, is that by wliich a disputant selects what is in reality but a part of an opponent's argument, and iiuder- takes to refute it as if it were the whole." — Lcc. on Kat. Hel. Est., p. 3. C. T. — "With the scriptural, influential Christian, no duty is nei;lected, no virtue is cultivated to the omission of other virtues. There is respect to all God's comman. 370]. The baptism of the eunuch being more particulaiiy narrated than that of any other baptism, after the commi.ssion given by Christ to His apostles to disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of Father, 422 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Son, and Holy Spirit ; and being so clearly confiiTiiatory of immersion ; and having been referred to in dwelling on the prepositions in connection mth baptism; it was intended here to omit a further exposure of objec- tions to his immersion. The following may suffice on that baj^tism, which, supposing it to be " a dipping of the Avhole body," is designated by Prof. J. H. Godwin, as "inconvenient, indecent, and unparalleled" {Ghr. Bap.,-p. 112). The reader will tind, in previovis pages, remarks applicatory to the convenience of the eunuch's baptism by Philip ; to the change of raiment with which the ti-easurer of the Ethiopian queen must have been supplied ; to the safety with which the eunuch could, after his immersion, prosecute his journey; to the certainty of inspired testimony to his going down into the water in order to be baptized by Philip, and his coming up out of the water after his baptism ; and to every word in the inspired record as not only being consistent with immersion, but confirmatory of the fact that baptism is immersion. See pp. 31 5-331. Also, at i^p. 139, 140, 142, 143, 148, ai-e Pfedobaptist concessions from Vossius, Alting, Cahdn, Lightfoot, Towerson, Dodchidge and others. On the safety and decency of immersion we shall subsequently speak more particularly. See also Dr. Pye Smith on bathing in Judea, Dr. Jamie- son on the climate of Palestine, and Dr. Livingstone on bathing in Africa, at pp. 342, 343. Let the reader who cannot say with Calvin on this passage, " Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water," attempt a reply to the following from the Rev. A. Booth : " How comes it that these expx'essions, or others equivalent : Peter, or Paul, or Philip (for instance), fowred loater into a basin, and hajytized such a one, are entii'ely unknown to the New Testament? How came the inspired page to speak, not of basins, but of rivers; not of a little, but of much water ; not of bringing water to the candidate, but of his going to, and into the water; not oi wetting, but oi burying ; when the administration and the design of the ordinance are described 1 Were one of our opponents to publish a history of his own pi-actice in regard to baptism," he must either use different langiiage from that of inspiration respecting this matter, or expose himself to a violent suspicion of having deserted the cause he once espoused. His character would certainly appear prob- lematical among his brethren, and his conduct bear a dispute, whatever he might intend. If, therefore, the sacred historians practised aspersion, their conduct as wi-iters was extremely remai'kable ; for though, on that supposition, they set the example which our opposers follow, as to the mode of administration ; yet, in their narrations, they adopt such expres- sions, and mention such circumstances relating to baptism, as would make a very singular figure from the pen of an English Pcedobaptist when describing his own conduct and -sdews in reference to that institu- tion. Were my reader to peruse a narrative of baptismal practice, penned by a foreigner, or by any anonymous autlioi', of whom he had no knowledge but what was obtained from his writings, — were he to find him speak of choosing a place for the administration of baptism, in pre- ference to others, because there was much water there ; of his baptizing in a river; oi going down with the candidate into, and coming up out of tJie water, — were he to find him reminding baptized pei-sons of their FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 423 having been btcried and raised with Christ in baptism ; and were he to obsei've that the author always uses a word for the ordinance which, in its primary acceptation, signifies immersion, but never talks of bringing water to the candidate, or of using a basin, as preparatory to the admin- istration, he would, I presume, be ready to say : ' This author, whoever he be, writes like a Baptist. He sj)eaks the language of one that con- siders baptism as notliing short of immersion.' ... A similarity of practice, in other cases, usually produces a similarity of language, when that practice is narrated." — Feed. Ex., vol. i., pp. 208-210. § 15 — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMJIEESION OF PAUL. Hon. and Rev. H. M. Villiers. — "Which, from want of a better name, I must designate as the Dangers of Plausibility ; I mean those which arise, not from any wilful perversion of the truth, but," &LC.—EX. Hall Lee, p. 261. 1851. H. W. Beecher. — "The church is God's window; and if it is so obscured by errors that its liglit is darkness, how great is that darkness ! " — Life Thoughts, X). 21. Dr. Anuus. — •" 1. Nothing should be made a matter of faitli which i.<5 not a matter of revelation. 2. In studying the Bible, there must be an indifferent judgment till tlie truth itself decides. Allow no bias but that which is received from the Scriptures themselves ; otherwise, our knowledge will be only inclination and fancy. 3. The same prominence should be given to each doctrine, as is given to it in Scripture. 4. Where the doctrine of Scripture is important and necessary, the Scripture will be found full and clear. Where Scripture is not full and clear, the doctrine is either in itself not important, or the certain knowledge of it does not belong to our present state. 5. The Bible, being inspired, cannot really contradict itself." — Bi. Hand-Bonk, p. 310. T. H. HoRNE. — "It is evident that we proceed on just and rational principles, in comparing together passages that have some degree of resemblance ; and in applying those, the meaning of which is clear, to the illustration of such as arc involved in some degree of obscurity." " Wherever any doctrine [or meaning of a word] is manifest, either from the whole tenor of divine revelation or from its scope, it must not be weakened or set aside by a few obscure passages." — Intro., vo\. ii., pp. 377, 412. The Holy Spirit thus testifies respecting Paul's baptism. *'And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales : and he received sight forthwith, and ai'ose, and was baptized" (Acts ix. 18). Again, " And now, why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (xxii. 16). The con- nection of these quotations the reader can examine. It is said by on© of our opponents that " the case of Paul is equally conclusive " with that of the Samaritans. To this we do not object. But it is added, "He was evidently baptized in the room where he was sitting. He was ordered to stand up (not to go away, but) to be baptized there-i~ight" (Thorn, p. 19). The propriety of reasoning with those who so glai'ingly add to the Word of God might be more than questioned, if we believed it to be wilful, and if we did not wi'ite for the sake of others. Certainly the Scriptures do not say, and we think do not make it evident, that he was baptized in the room where he was sitting. He adds, " This act is called washing away his sins (ceremonially, of course), which was always done by sprinkling the penitent offender with blood or water." We deny that sprinkling with water (alone) had any place in the law of Moses. If this had been the case, it is also true that the writers of the New Testament, and the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament, and all classic writers with wliich we are acquainted, never use baptizo when they speak of sprinkling. Dr. Halley is silent respecting Paul's immersion ; but Mr. Stacey says, " St. Paul's baptism appears to have taken place in a private house, in which we are not at liberty to say there was a bath large enough for immersion." Mi". S. ignores the proof that baptizo means to immerse; 42-i IMPORT OF BAPTIS^f. or reasons on ilie supposition of its being proved tliat it means tlie appli- cation of water in any way ; or is regardless of tlie fact that the burden of jjroof that tlie word has another meaning than immerse — and if tliis is the case, tliat it is nsed here in a secondary meaning — devolves on liimself. Such is the meaning of the word, even accin-ding to liis own declarations, that it belongs to him to pi-ovc that Paul was not immersed, and not to ourselves, or to any one, to prove that thei'e was in that house a batli large enough for immersion. He adds, " Moreovei-, it occurred while the apostle was sick both in body and mind" (p. 219). On what authority does Mr. S. affirm the bodily sickness of Paul ] This is more than affirming a belief in his comparative feebleness and exhaustion from fasting and mental anxiety. Must we commend those who thus " attempt to evade the established meaning of a word, and confer on it a meaning that cannot plead the authority of a single example"? In the words of Dr. Carson, we say, " Were wo to admit, as a canon of interpretation, that difficulties and views of probability ought to set aside the usual meaning of words, and give them meanings for which there is no other sanction, what facts in history could stand their ground '? Every fanatic, every religionist, every heretic, would give words whatever meaning they pleased. In all cases of contested meaning, we must proceed on the authority of ascertained examjjles, without any deference to the authority of previous probability. If Paul was baptized in a state of exhaustion, before partaking of refieshment, we are not from this to deny the meaning of the word, but to learn that baptism ought to be attended to immediately on believing. It is connected Avith the faith that saves the soul, and ought as closely as possible to Ije connected with it in practice" (p. 356). The Baptists, as we think, are blameable in many instances for their delays in connection with baptism. If Paul was baptized, as Mr. S. asserts, in a state of exhaustion, and before par- taking of food; instead of scarcely supposing "that in such circumstances dipping would have been safe," why not learn that baptism should be attended to withoiit delay by every believer in Christ Jesus ] If Paul, in these circumstances, was baptized, rather than conclude with ]Mr. S., ought we not to conclude that clinical circumfusion and clinical sprink- ling, the invention of human polic)', ought never to have been a sub- stitute for bai)tism ; and that the advocates of sjn-inkling instead of immersion for the sake of convenience, ought to be ashamed] But Mi'. S. can scarcely think that dipping " would have been so described " ! And Dr. Miller says, "there is no hint that Paul changed his raiment"; to which Dr. C. says, " No more is there any account tVom wliat point the wind blew on the occasion" (p. 374); a reply deserved, as we think, by those who thus trifle with and oppose God's ordinances. Dr, C. adds, and his remarks are a reply to some of Mr. S.'s objections, as well as those of Dr. M. : " Is there no evidence that such a man was hanged, because there is no account whether he wore his ordinaiy dress or obtained one for the occasion] There may be honesty in this sort of I'oasoning, but there is no logic. But our author has not yet done with this species of logic. ' There is no account,' it seems, ' that Paul and Ananias went out of the house to a neighbouring stream.' What need of such information ] When I hear that Dr. M. is immersed in FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 425 New York, I shall never inquire whether it was in a river, in a pond, or in a bath. . . . Adverting to Paul's situation, he asks, ' Can it be imagined that a wise and humane man, in these circvimstances, would liave had him carried forth and plunged into cold water 1 ' The wisdom and humanity of Ananias had nothing to do in the matter ; he had the express command of God. If Dr. M. has any charge against the wisdom and humanity of the institution, no doubt its Author, in due time, will • give him a sufficient answer" (p. 374). Also, says Dr. C, "I can, however, see nothing in Paul's situation that would render immersion either dangerous or disagreeable " (p. 374). But Mi'. S. informs us that " as soon as Ananias commanded, he rose from his couch, and was bap- tized;" and he conceives that a baptism "so described" must have taken place in the room, no space of time intervening betwixt the standing up of Paul and his being baptized ; just as if we might say tliat God's command to Moses, " Rise vip early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh," naturally, if not inevitably, teaches that no time would intervene between his rising up and his standing before Pharaoh. Or as if the language of Moses, " Now rise vip, said I, and get you over the bi'ook Zered," implied that no time could intervene between the command and the action in. those who were obedient; or perhaps implied that they inust have been in the brook Zered when such language was used. It is not necessary to mention the fact of Ulysses i-eturning to the ship with a stag, throwing it from his shoulders, and saying to his hungry companions, " Rise and eat," as jjwving that the stag was eaten before it was skinned or cooked; and as proving, contrary to the fact, tliat it was not eaten in a diffi^rent place from that in which the address was given. What need have we of information as to Paul's going- out of the house, and as to the place, and kind of place, &c., where Paul was baptized? If the want of these facts proves that he was sprinkled or poured, what is there that camiot be proved ? Does the context, in any volume, sacred or profane, alwai/s afford a confirmation of the true meaning of a word 1 Do the records of immersions, in Ba])- tist pei'iodicals, always or usually mention the place where the baptism took place, and give details respecting the taking off of sandals or shoes, &C.1 Can we in charity hope that learned Paedobaptists write from entire ignorance, or sheer forgetfulness of Eastern customs, that they know not, or remember not, that one of the first acts of hospitality was to furnish guests with a bath for the feet, or for the whole l)ody (Luke vii. 44)? We doubt not tliat some of them have read of the ship- wrecked Ulysses, " weak and exhausted with three days' fasting and excitement," found on the coast by the king's daughter, and conducted immediately to a place where he could "bathe his fainting limbs." Further, whilst scarcity of water is not pleaded here, Paul being in that part respecting which the renowned Syrian who dipped himself seven times in Jordan, said, "Are not Abana and Pharimr, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?" we maintain that the connection is confirmatory of immersion rather than opposed to it. If baptism was immersion, might Hot Ananias, in allusion to it, appro- priately add, "and wash away thy .sins"? Does not immersion suggest and justify the term wash, which is subsequently and immediately used by Ananias 1 Is it an improvement to say, Arise and be sprinkled, and 426 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. wash away tliy sins; or, Arise and be ponred, and wash away thy sins; or, Arise and be washed, and wash away thy sins] Tliese questions are justifiable in ourselves, although they ai'e not needed, since the burden of proving that immersion did not or could not take place, devolves on our opponents. Finally, which is also unnecessary, we remai-k, that the expression. Arise and, or Rise and, is idiomatic, both with ourselves and in the East ; and that thus, a- ery frequently, nothing is conveyed by the tei-m different from, or in addition to, the action mentioned in the subsequent verb. Thus, what should we think of the man who attempted to prove that the prodigal was seated, or was laid down, when he said, and because he said, '^ I v.iill arise, and go to my father," &c. The word arise is oft a participle in the Greek, as in this case, and without the conjunction and, in accordance with the Greek idiom, and with the fre- quently occurring sentence rendei'ed,' He "answered and said." In Luke's writings the verb arise similarly occurs in Luke xvii. 19; xxii. 46 ; Acts ix. 11; x. J 3, 20 ; xi. 7; and xxii. 10. When the Greek is not a participle, and when the conjunction is expressed, more than earnestness and authority is expressed. When there ai-e two distinct imjjeratives in Greek united by the copulative conjunction, the meaning is — do this, and, do that. But we are never misunderstood when, in accordance with the translation of the participle without the conjunc- tion, we say in English, " Aiise, and act like men;" "Rise, men, and let us do our duty;" or when we exhort sinners to adopt the resolution, "I will ai'ise, and go to my father." In this common imjiort of the term did Ananias address Paul. Let it not, therefore, be again argued that this passage proves clearly that Paul was baptized in the rooin; and baptized standing, and conseqiiently, not immersed. Wliilst the phrase " arise " proves nothing in favour of our opponents, we might assure them that Paul could have been sprinkled sitting, and that their assumptions and inferences from this Scripture prove, as we think, the inveterate and blinding prejudice with which good men may be swayed. How different from some sentiments which we have quoted are those of the Rev. Geo. GilfiUan : " The scales which fell from his eyes were only t3q?ical of the prejudices which were abandoned, the passions which subsided, and the false confidences which were relinquished, during that memorable agony of three days. Not a sadder, b\it a gladder and a wiser man, he submitted to the healing and teaching of Ananias ; and in fine, was, we doubt not, immersed in one of those lucid rivers of Damascus, and rose \xp like an eagle 'newly bathed,' to pursue a flight of unequalled sti'ength and swiftness, till the close of his career" [Alpha and Omega, vol. ii., p. 321). Does the sarcastic reader say. And, like Saul among the prophets, is Geo. Giltillan among the Baptists 1 JMight we add, Was ever Saiil in better company 1 Did he ever appear to greater advantage? It has been recorded, and as we believe truthfully, that " Damascus, at the present day, abounds in water, and all the better houses have a reservoir in their court, or stand beside a natural or an artificial stream." On the safe, the refreshing, and invigorating chai-acter of immersion, and on the special frequency and advantage of bathing in the warmer climates, we shall have occa- sion again to speak. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 427 I 16. — i-UTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF CORNELIUS. Bp. Gibson. — "Be sm-e that you have a mind sincerely desirous to know the will of God, and firmly resolved to comply with whatever shall ajjpear to be his wiU." — Pas. Let., p. 4. Dr. Ch-anning. — "I wish to conform myself wholly to the Bible. Let me read it with the docility and simplicity of a child, sensible of my blindness, and praying for light." " Let me strive to discover the errors of the party to which I belong." — Memoirs, vol. i., pp. 117, 118. Dr. Cabson. — "A good conscience is a good thing; but a good conscience may be married to very bad logic." — In Tes. of Em. Pa:, p. 8. J. G. Manly. — "Nothing that can guard the truth from corruption, that can elucidate its mean- ing, that can multiply and diffuse its accurate transcription and translation, its due rehearsal and exposition, and that can worthily promote its prevalence, should be neglected by the church of Christ."— Bode, p. 253. Dr. E. Vaughan. — " There are no doctrines so obvious in themselves, or that can be so clearly stated, as to be secure from gross misconception." — Cony. Lee, p. 14. The Word of God informs us that Cornelius, " a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," under Divine direction sent for Peter, who came and preached Christ to him and them that were with him; and that while Peter preached, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word," and they were heard to " speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man foi-bid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as wel And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts x.). Here the word baptize occurs twice, and twice in the following chapter, where the same event is also spoken of; but, as we judge, without anything in the context to illustrate the action which is included in baptism ; although it is thought by some of the Piedobap- tists that, as Peter said " Can any man forbid water," it may be inferred that water was brought. Hence, one says that nothing is here said about the " candidates for baptism beiug led out of the house to a river or pool, for the purpose of being dipped," as if anytliing more was requisite than informing us that they were baptized. But Dr. Miller thus interprets the sacred record; "Can any man forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be aj^plied by pouring or sprinkling]" If we take such liberties with the unerring document, when shall we be at a loss for proof? We do not affirm that water was not brought, even to fill a bath ; but we maintain that the apostle's words do not prove that water was brought at all. The apostle's words teach plainly his conviction of the undoubted suitability of these persons for baptism; that the element in which baptism was to be administered was water ; and that these persons by Peter's direction were bajDtized. The expres- sion, " Can any man forbid water," we regard as equivalent to. Can any man forbid baptism 1 If the language of Peter proves that water was broiight, it appears to us that the command of Ananias to Paul that he should " arise," proves that Paul went to the water. But we believe not in this pretended proof from one or the other ; although Mr. Stacey says that Peter's question " directly imi^lies, not that the individuals who had received the gift of the Spuit were to be conducted to the water and plunged in it, but that the water was to be brought to them, and in some convenient manner employed in their baptism" (p. 221). Similarly rea- sons Dr. Wardlaw. And whilst we deny that the question of Peter proves any such thing, Mr. S. asserts, "This is certainly not the form into which his thought would have shaped itself had immersion been 428 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. intended." He says that "to proliibifc water is to AvitLliold it," Arc, and that " the verb in such connection belon^'s always to tlic person or thing forbidden, and is so construed in every instance of its occurrence in the New Testament." Some instances he adduces. But these, however accordant with liis faUacioiis introduction of 2^g7-so)is along with things, are irrelevant, because they are all instances of the verb in coiinection with persons, not tilings. Are the same things implied — the same capability of understanding the prohibition and of yielding or resisting — when the verb of prohibition is applied to inanimate objects, as when it is applied to human beings or to the ever-blessed God 1 Can we sup- pose action or movement in water just the same as in persons'? Do any of our opponents suppose that the apostle meant literally, Can any man give a precept of prohibition to the water? Is a precept of prohibition to the coat supposed, when our Saviour says, " Forbid not the coat " (Luke vi. 29)] Does the Rev. J. Sutcliffe, when saying "he could not reasonably deny them baptism," mean, he could not reasonably deny baptism to be brought to them ? If the prohibition had respected the bringing of water into the room, would it not have been directed to the persons, and not to the water .' Supposing that tlie apostle's words were granted to be elliptic, which we do not believe, and that the ellipsis being supplied they would read, Who can forbid water to be brought ? this would not prove that immersion did not take place, although it does not appear to us that it would be so "convenient." Under such circumstances, if the word bap- tizo had been previously proved to mean to sprinkle, we should admit, on supposition of proof that water was brought into the room, that sprinkling was on that occasion more probable than immersion. But some of the pre-requisites in favour of sjorinkling which the laws of interpre- tation peremptorily demand, are continiially being ovei'looked, and the laws of interpi'ctation are almost incessantly being trampled on by the advocates of sprinkling. Besides, if Peter's query implied that water Avas to be brought, why were not Peter's next words a command that water be brought, instead of being a command that these persons be bap- tized. His immediately commanding them to be baptized comports with the idea we attach to his previous words, that no man, regai'ding the clearest indications of God's will, could forbid their baj^tism. ruithor, the import of the query is exemplified in the conversation of every day. The pliysician forbids wine, forbids the bath, ttc. ; that is, he forbids to liis patient the use of wine, the use of the bath, (fee. So here to forbid water is to forbid the Christian ordinance. As water was the element of baptism, and as ba^jtism was an ordinance that had not been adminis- tered to Gentiles, and as an objection might be made to the baptizing of Gentile believers, the apostle, as we think, appealed to the Christian Jews that w'ere with him in regard to the certain propriety of bai^tizing these to whom God had granted unequivocal tokens of his approval. They had been immersed by the Divine Being in the Spirit ; it was .surely pro})er that they should be immersed by man in Avater. Tliis conviction by the apostle of the undoubted suitability of these persons for baptism, is well worthy of consideration by all; and especially by those who advocate the baptism of infants, and of the imconverted. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 429 But " the connection of baptism with the pouring out of the Holy (Spirit, in this passage, is not unworthy of notice; as the mode ascribed to one may be deemed suggestive of the mode pi'oper to the other. . . . The Spirit had been poured out ; why not the like operation be pei'formed Avith water? That some such association of ideas was in the apostle'.s mind seems all but certain from the inquiry, ' Can any man forbid toater, that these should not be baptized ^ This is certainly not the form into which his thought would have shaped itself had immersion been intended. , . . The prohibition has reference immediately to the water, and not to Cornelius and his friends" (Stacey, pp. 220, 221). It seems a pity that our Ptedobaptist brethren cannot find one manusciipt that, to the words of Peter, Can any man forbid water? gives the needed addition, to he hrouyht. It is not comfortable to build our faith on clauses which human suggestions have added to the Divine Word; nor is it commendable to regulate our practice by these instead of "the oracles of God." With such a supposed addition to Holy Writ, how impossible it would liecome for any one daringly to assert that nothing can be plainer than that this was simply an appeal to the Jews who accompanied Peter, and who might, but for Peter's language and what they had witnessed, have been inclined to object to the baptism of these Gentile converts ! That the apostle was reminded of the day of Pentecost is certain. How could it be otherwise, Avhen, according to his own Avords, "The Ploly Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning"? There was anotlier bajjtism of the S[iirit. And Peter remembered Christ's words, "John incleed immersed in water; but ye shall be immei-sed in the Holy Ghost." We have, as we think, already shown that the pouring OTit or shedding forth of the Spirit is distinct from the baptism of the (Spirit, and is never in itself designated the baptism of the Spirit; yea, that the baptism of the Spirit, as recorded in Acts ii., is confirmatory of immersion as baptism. It has been shown, there being no mode in the operations of the Spirit, — the pouring out of the Spirit being an expression in accommodation to humanity, not an action literally verified in regard to the uncreated S}nrit, — that the gift of the Spirit may be figiiratively spoken of under any mode of communication, there being a correspondence between the selected figure and the effects described, as between water and pouring out, and that the gift of the Spirit is spoken of under the various modes of the motion of water. This cannot imply that any one of these motions is the same as any other. And there is no proof that all these may be called a baptism ; nor from this source is there proof that any one of them may be called a baptism of the Spii'it. If the meaning of baptism must not be ascertained in some other way, our ideas of the philosophy of language are egregiously erroneous. We think it has been shown that whenever mode is ascribed to the Spirit, the phraseology is accommodated to the emblem ; not that mode is employed as an emblem. Talent associated with piety, when that talent is perverted in its application by the blinding influence of pre- possession, may beautifully elaborate a system founded on conjectures, an edifice of aerial basis; but piety Avill not knowingly renounce the oracles of God for an adoption of the traditions of man. 430 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. Wardlaw says : " According to Peter, tlien, baptism was effected by pouring out. Till better authority be provided, I desire to bow to this" {Inf. Baj)., p. 144). Yet this does not afford to spriakliug the least countenance; nor indeed to pouring, unless it be in such abundance as thoroughly to encompass the subject. If our Ptedobaptist brethren will pour, after the example of the pouring out of the Sjiirit on the day of Pentecost, and when Cornelius Avas baptized, let them by pouring fill the room or the vehicle in which is the candidate for baptism, till the baptizing element completely surrounds him. Then, with at least a better grace, they may talk of bowmg to Peter's authority. Dr. Alford reasons with similar fallacy, and even maintains the cer- tainty of water being brought because they were in the house. To his greater credit he says: "The article should here certainly be expressed, ' Can any forbid the water to these who have received the Spirit]' " (On Acts X. 47.) If the poui'ing out of the Spii'it, independently of the abundance being such as distinguished the day of Pentecost and the day of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, could be proved to l)e baptism, still sprinkling, when weighed in the balances, would be found wanting. But if to pour out and to baptize are words of the same import, we are taught as plainly that the Holy Spirit was baptized as that the apostles were bap- tized. For can any man then forbid the conclusion that God has said, I will baptize my Spirit upon all flesh: I will in those days baptize my Spirit (Acts ii. 17, 18)? There may be the apjDcarance of profanity in this language, but we I'egard it as a legitimate deduction from the jire- mises to which our oj^ponents lay claim when they gravely teach that baptism is pouring, because God has been graciously pleased to pour out His Spirit. If God has given us a command respecting the use of water, if Ave act rationally, we judge respecting the manner in which God wills that Ave use the Avater, from the import of the word which God em|jloys when he gives us the commandment; and not from some action of tlie Almighty himself, Avhich is no more connected Avith our duty than it is dependent on our aid. What is the Avord Avhich God uses when He records His command, and when He records instances of obedience to this command 1 It is invariably baptizo as a verb, and bap- tisma, or baptismos, as a noun. Reason and godliness inquire. What is the meaning of these wovdsl And the reply involves man's duty, interest, and honour. When in the connection there is nothing to indicate what baptism is, an English reader should go to those passages where the context indicates this Avith sufiicient clearness ; as is the case Avith the baptisms by John, mentioned in the Gosjielsj the baptism of the euniich, mentioned in the Acts ; and the declaration of St. Paul in Romans, that Ave are buried by bcqytism, and in Colossians that Ave are buried in baptism. The man that can i-ead the Greek characters needs only consult, toithont bias, any Greek lexicon ; not excepting the one written by the zealous Panhibaptist Avho found out that popping was the identical thing meant by baptism. We would further remark respecting Cornelius, that it is uttei'ly improbable that the Roman captain, Avhose income enabled him to give " much alms to the people," whose household was so large that he could FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 431 send two of his men-servants as messengers to Peter at Joppa, and who lived in latitude tliirty-two and a half degrees, where bathing was very- frequent and refreshing, would be without the comfort of a bath in his house. It would have been well if apostolic explanations and reproofs, more or less dii-ect, had always been attended with the same I'esults in Christians, as wei'e the explanations of Peter. " When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God." They did not continue to quibble, to fancy, and to refuse obedience. How much more candid and correct is Dr. Bloomfield than some on whose quotations we have commented ! He says : " On further considera- tion, 1 cannot see reason to agree with those expositors (including Mr. Alf ) who regard the expression, kolusai used with to hudor, as proving that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates (for baptism), not the candidates to the water. No 2>^'(('Ctice can be inferred from a single case so extraordinary as this. Besides, the veiy same expression, ti koluei me haptisthenai, occiirs supra, viii. 36 ; a case where it is plain that baptism by immersion was employed." "At any rate, the bringing the water is by no means implied in me kolusai; the annexed injvinction that they should be baptized does not imply that baptism was adminis- tered on the spot. It might be elsewhere, at a convenient place " {Gr. Tes., on Acts X. 44). I. Cobbin, on these to whom water could not be for- bidden, says: "They were manifestly the subjects of Christianity, the distinguishing mark of which they ought now to bear " {Domes. Bible, on Acts X. 47). Dr. J. A. Alexander admits that "nothing can he 2yroved from this expression " {Coin., on Acts x. 47). He, however, takes to him- self a little encouraging unction therefrom. It would have been to the honour of some, if they had simply, on this passage, remarked after the example of the Rev. W. G. Humphry: " To hudor. — The water of bap- tism could not be refused by man, when the gift of the Spirit had been already conferred by God. These persons had received the extraordinary gift of the Spirit, such as fell upon the apostles at Pentecost ; there could therefore be no dovibt of their fitness to be admitted into the church by baptism, and to receive the spiritual privileges attendant upon that rite" {Com. on Acts, on x. 47). To some of our opponents, who can infer much as to the water being brought, but who can leai'n nothing from the Greek word used to designate the ordinance, we think the words of Mr. Gilbert might be applied : " This is, at least, as arbitrary a way of building a notion as any we know of" {Cong. Lee, p. 320). Also Dr. W. L. Alexander teaches that it is better for persons "to take their ideas of what is due to Scripture from obser\TLUg the jjractice of the apostles, than to attempt to force by violent and arbitrary interpretations that practice into an accordance with certain preconceived notions of their own" {Cong. Lee, p. 46). Dr. Halley uses the phrase of forbidding water, as we maintain that Peter used it, and as we doubt not all would admit, were there no desire to escape immersion. "Whoever forbids water to any," says Dr. H., "incurs a fearful responsibility" {Cong. Lee, vol. XV., p. 17). What can the doctor here mean but whoever forbids baptism] Dr. Norman Macleod says: "If now He conferred on the Gentiles the baptism of the Spirit, which we at an earlier period received, then the baptism of water can, and durst, not be refused." 432 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. G. V. Lechler thus expounds : " Can any man forbid the water? . . . If no one has been able to hinder the Spirit from coming upon these people, so also can no one restrain the water which wills to flow over them at baptism. In other words, every scruple re^jtecting the baptism of these Gentiles is, in fact, removed by their bajjtism of the Spirit." In Dr. Lange's Coin., on Acts x. 23-48. g 17. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF LYDIA. Dr. AVardlaw. — "It is not victory that sliould be our object, but solely the discovery of truth and duty." — On Inf. Bap., p. 129. M. Henry. — "In plain texts keep to the plain sense; in difticult ones be modest and humble in your remarks, and 'keep to the proportion of faith,' expounding them by them that are more plain." Dr. J. r. Smith. — " The two positions cannot both stand : one destroys the other. One of them must be an error ; only one can be right." "Difficulties appear because we see only detached jior- tions of the truth." — Cong. Lcc, p. 15. J. A. Ualdane. — "Any other use in the apostles, therefore, must have been as unprecedented and unnatural as it would have been improper, and what could not fail to lead their hearers or readers into mistakes." — So. Wor., p. 126.* W. G. HuJirHRY.— " The Jews held their prayer-meeting outside the city, that they might not be molested — by th3 river's side, because in their ceremonies they v^'ashed often." — Com. on Acts; on xvi. 13. The baptism of Lydia and her household is deemed " a further illustration" of the bringing of water, and of its being "in some conve- nient manner employed in their baptism." Dr. Alton, on St. Paul and the localities visited by him, says that Lydia was baptized " no doubt with water from tlie river," by the side of which they were seated. With similar confidence other Pjedobaptists give utterance to similar assumptions. The in.spired record says: "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side, where ])rayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and sj^ake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us ; whose lieart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things that were spoken of Paul. And when she Avas baptized, and licr household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us" (Acts xvi. 13-15). Our Wesleyan brother S. on this, amongst other things, says, "As in other examples, the mode of baptism is a matter of inference, not of proof. The mention of a river side determines nothing, implies nothing." If by the expression, " mode of baptism," he had meant mode of immersion, we should agi-ee with him that it is "a matter of inference." But if liaptism at the time of Lydia's heart being oj)ened, and for about two Inindred years afterwards, was not known either theoretically or practi- cally to be anything else than immersion — which we regard as satisfac- torily evinced — the idea intended to be conA'eyed by Mr. S.'s words is a false and "gratuitous assumption." The use of the word jiroves immer- sion to have taken place. It is neither determined nor implied by the mention of the river. Nor does silence in other places respecting a river or water determine or imply that the baptized were not immersed. If the import of hajitizo is proAcd to be to immerse, the lecorded fact Ajiply this to every New Testament record of the practice or ordinatiou of l)ai)tism. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 433 of baptism is sufficient proof tliat somewhere water siifficieiit for immer- sion was found. This rejection of the river as determining or implying anything, although perfectly correct, comes with a bad grace from our opponents, who make in other instances so miich of imagined scarcity of Avater. But in this jilace, where there was a river, the grand pi-oof, in "the judgment of candid and unbiassed reason," that baptism is pouring or sprinkling, is that "a sense oi propriety and a knowledge of Asiatic delicacy " would never have suggested immersion ; that the immei'sion of this matron by a man " in a place of piiblic resort, and with no other jn-eparation than what was accidental to a casual visit to the river side," is not conceivable; and that "a greater improbability cannot well be imagined" than "such a trial of feminine delicacy" (pp. 221, 222). Dr. Halley has given the same ideas in many of the same words. Our friends occasionally assume, as Dr. H. in his Appendix is candid enough to acknowledge, from what "coiild now be done with decency and propriety in Manchester;" and thus they make void God's Word, and pervert the facts of inspired record. The difference between Eastern and Western customs is sometimes overlooked and sometimes noticed. Nothing is said of the difference in latitude and climate between Philippi and Manchester, Halifax, London, or Sheffield ; and of the rapidity with which heat would, at Philippi, absorb water from the person or the clothing, as compared with the slowness of this operation in England. It might be also that Asiatic ladies were as little accustomed to bathing as one of the practised ablutions, and as little prepared for it as are the people of England, or of the United States of Ameiica. It might be that they wore the same kind of clothing at PhilijDpi and Thyatira (with the exception of head-dresses) as at Manchester and New York ; and were just as unjjrepared for an ablution, although the very spot is believed to have been selected from the convenience for this afforded by its contiguity to a river. If the mention of a river proves nothing, does the omission of everything relative to the preparedness or impre- paredness of Lydia and her household for .immei-sion, prove anything? What more is needed than the fact of baptism % We otherwise learn what baptism is. To pervert facts recorded, by inferences from what is not recorded, is most deplorable. Also they who admit that the word for baptism in God's Word means an encompassing of the object, reflect on the Divine author of baptism when they speak of immersion as inconsistent Avith a sense of propriety and a knowledge of delicacy. Dr. H. says that Lydia " no doubt observed her devotions, veiled and covered like a woman of Thyatira." And to him "it seems impracticable to have immersed a woman in an Asiatic head-dress, as it was shameful to baptize her with her head uncovered ;" her immersion is therefore " incredible under the circumstances." Accord- ing to this reasoning, if the imagined head-dress would not allow of poiiring, but only of sprinkling, baptizo here means neither to immerse nor to ijour, but only to sprinkle. What will become of any fact recorded in sacred or profane history, if the meaning of words is tested in such a crucible '] If some writers on baptism had told us that they wished to excite in their hearers a disgust of immersion, we could have believed them. The Eev. Jacob Stanley expatiates on the indelicacy of a female FF 434 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. iindressing and di'essing herself in sucli a public situation; just as if immersion was an impracticability without iu delicate exposure; and from this imfounded hyiDothesis concludes that baptism is not immersion. We emphatically deny the necessity of this supposition, upon which our most moderate 02:)ponents aj^parently love frequently to dwell. Dr. H. supposes that Lydia would " divest herself of at least a part of her dress." Dr. Carson replies to an opponent in these words: "With respect to Acts xvi. 15, I certainly can have no objection to the opinion of the writer, that Lydia was baptized in the place where Paul preached : the sooner the better. As to her dress, and anything that is not matter of Divine prescription, I leave to the discretion of those concerned on the occasion. I shall neither be the master of the ceremonies myself, nor allow my opponent to undertake that service" (p. 359). Without saying how near Lydia was to her own house, or to any other house, — although remembering the record that when she was bap- tized she besought Paul and his companions to come into her house and abide thei-e, and that when they went ovit of prison they entered into the house of Lydia, — we adduce the foct recorded by Mr. Buckingham, that when travelling iu the East he frequently plunged overhead in his clothes, and found himself greatly refreshed by it, although he suffered his clothes even to dry upon him. Our conviction is that nothing in this passage warrants a doubt that baptizo has any other meauing than to immerse. This meauing is given to the word as its pi-imary import, even by the most ignorant and violent, as well as the most learned of the opponents of immersion. It is admitted by the most candid and enlightened to be the certain and invariable meaning of the word unto the time of Chi'ist. It is allowed by others to have been the only meaning for luxndi'eds of years afterwards. It is proved to have been regarded as the meaning of the word, and to have been the practice of the universal church, for more than the first two hundred years of the Christian era. Lydia's conversion takes place by the river side, the jjro- seuche, or place of prayer, being frequently for the convenience of puri- fication by the side of a river, or fountain, or lake, or the sea. Bathing was one of the purifications required by the Di'sine law. It was also in that latitude, and especially at certain seasons, a pleasant and refreshing practice; and, instead of being inconvenient or impracticable, was per- fectly convenient, from the difference betwixt Eastern costume and our own, and from the different heat of the climate in drying ])ersons and clothes. We, nevertheless, do not believe with one of our learned ojipo- nents that immersion, as the Di\dne ordinance, was sometimes practised because more convenient than pouring or sprinkling, but rather invari- ably because "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness " (Matt. iiL 15). Were we to follow the course pursued by our opponents in their assertions respecting the import of baptizo, instead of believing that persons slept on the roof of the house in Judea and in the East, we might conclude that the word rendered roof signifies attic or chamber ; or that the word rendered sleep means also to walk, and that instead of sleeping they took exercise, and this, too, to obtain warmth. The patent facts connected with the case of Lydia induce the Hon. and Eev. B. W. Noel to say: "With respect to the baptism of Lydia FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 435 and her household in the little river Gaggitas, near Philippi (Acts xvi. 15), the advocates of immersion are as much entitled to consider that it took place in summer as their opponents to believe that it was in •winter. On the former supposition the wet clothes would be a slight inconvenience in latitude 41°, more than ten degrees south of London, and with a svin as burning as that of Naples; and as soon as they had ceased to drij) upon the svmny bank, the dry and flowing robes in which they would envelop themselves would eftectually conceal all traces of theii' immersion from strangers on their road back to the city" (p. 102), He then dwells on the readiness with which it may be presiimed that Lydia, whose heart the Lord had opened, would bear profane ridicule, on the supposition that this to some extent necessarily followed ; on the necessity of taking up our cross in order to our being Christians ; and on the self-denial by which all God's people have been distinguished. These remarks on the baptism of Lydia are made in condescension and kindness to oiir Psedobaptist brethren, if they are at all oj^en to convic- tion ; but not in forgetfulness of the fact that the burden of iwoof that immex'sion did not take place rests upon themselves. Also, on the sup- posed indelicacy of immersion more will subsequently be recorded. § 18. — FUTILITY OP OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF THE JAILOR AND ALL HIS. Dr. Halley. — " The allusions to baptism which are not so distinctly expressed, must be inter- preted in accordance with those whose meaning can be clearly ascertained " (p. 192). It is maintained by our opponents that against immersion, "the baptism of the jailor and his family strengthens the argument by an additional example." Dr. Halley does not speak expressly on this bap- tism ; but our readers will shortly deem it amply sufficient that we quote from Mr. Thorn and Mr. Stacey on this last instance "of Christian baptism, the circumstances of which are more or less noticed in the New Testament," what will be lengthened and stringent enough, as we opine, for any of oui- Psedobaptist friends. Mr. Thorn says: "The case of the jailor is equally on our side. To suppose that he took his wife and children out of bed at midnight, and had them plunged into cold water, or that he led them in the dark to a neighbouring river, as some sage Baptists imagine, is too difficult of belief, without better evidence than has yet been afibrded us. Neither have we any ground for supposing that this prison contained a cistern or tank adapted or available for such an immersion; nor are our 'positive-proof brethren to plead the exist- ence and use of it without adducing good evidence in support of their assertions" (p. 20). Here, as usual, this presumptive writer, like Mr. Stacey and others, throws the burden of proof, which belongs to himself, on his opponents. The admission of Dr. Halley is, that "whoever assigns to a disputed word a secondary sense, or any variation of usage, is bound to the proof of it. Can anything be more reasonablef (p. 343). If the Baj)tists had simply proved that the primary and usual meaning of ha^tizo is to immerse, it would have devolved on their opponents to prove in every instance in opposition to immerse that it has not this meaning, but another. We think that we have proved more than that to immerse is its primaiy and usual meaning. According to all reason 436 IMPOllT OF BAPTISM. ■\ve have a liglit to .say that the jailor and all his were immersed, until it is proved that this was not the case. It is in glaring opposition to the canons of inteipretation that Ave are called upon to prove the existence of a cistern, etc., in the prison at Philippi, by those who should prove that there existed no means of immersion in the prison or the city; or, at least, that immersion did not take jDlace. If Mr. Thorn, who admits and denies the meaning of immersion, is an exception to the rest with respect to the burden of pi'oof, our I'emai'ks ajiply in all their force to Mr. (Stacey and every other Psedobaptist wiiter whom on this subject we have read. Biit where does Mr. T. learn that the jailor called up his wife and children out of bed 1 What is this but a figment of the imagination through the flight of immersion '] The Word of God mentions not wife or children, or calling out of bed. If this had been the case, we are not to suppose that beds, and dressing, &c., were the same at Philippi as they are at Winchester. In opposition to what inveterate and blinding pre- judice has led to suppose as existing and taking place, the inspired record mentions an earthquake and some of its results ; an alarmed jailor intending to destroy himself; the kind interposition of Paul; the jailor's calling for a light; bringing out Paul and Silas; anxioiisly inquiring the way of salvation; and receiving instruction in regai'd to this momentous matter. Then it is recorded, "And they spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." This is in accordance with the commission, "Go ye, therefore, disciple all nations;" "Preach the Gosjiel to every creatiire." The next things recorded are, "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stiipes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." It is then immediately added, in evidence of the discipleship of the jailor and all his, and in opposition to infant or indiscriminate baptizing : "And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE." How awfidly caricatured by Mr. T. is this inspired and interesting record ! And were not this and other passages misrepresented by othei's, we should have jiaid less regard to many of Mr. T.'s assertions. Brief as is this history in the records of inspii-ation, a change of place is thrice intimated. First, the jailor " bi-ought out" of prison Paul and Silas. They then " spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Secondly, " He took them the same hour of the night, and waslicd their sti'i])es; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Thirdly, he then " broiight them into his house," &c. From this we infer that the baptism did not take place in "his house." Whether they went to the river Gaggitas,* on which the city was situated, or whether the immersion was administered in a con- venient place in connection with the prison, or whether it was adminis- tered elsewhere, we are under no obligation to pi'ove. The fact of its transpiring, not the place of its administration, is what the Sci'ijjture recoi'ds. Having })roved what baptism is, we should not deem oiir,selves guilty of assumption, even if the facts with which we are acquainted ■'^ The river, .say Conybeare and Howson, wils not the .Strymon, as say Meyer, De "Wctte, and Bainngartcn, Init tlic Gaggitas. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 437 respecting Eastern 2)risons and Eastern customs had not come to our knoAvledge. The assertions of Mr. T., and of our Wesleyan Methodist brother whom we are ahout to notice, may excite the less sui'prise if we state that the Rev. Wm. Lindsay, CD., has spoken, and in re-editing Dr. Kitto's Cj/clopa'dia, has again spoken, of " the language used by St. Paul at Philippi, wlien he commanded water to be h'ought into the room, — language which, it is said, cannot be undei'stood of such a quantity of water as would be requii'ed to immerse in succession a whole household." [Krt. Bap.) The learned doctor italicizes "brought." If the optics of our Pa?dobaptist brethren enable them thus to read God's Word, at diflering fi'om them we do not wonder, for vei'ily we cannot go and do likewise. Mr. Stacey, who in the beginning of his argumentation in favour of pouring and spi-inkling informs us that his whole argument aspires to little more than a plea for liberty to sprinkle, to pour, or to immei'se, observes on this "additional example," that "it requii'es a logic of keen analysis, or an imagination of singular fertility, to discover in the history the slightest trace of evidence that the jailor and his family wex'e immer- sed." " Even imagination requires some material out of which to fashion its theories, and a love for truth demands that its flights shall be restricted within the range of at least apparent probability. But in the account of the jailor's baptism there is not a single circumstance which can be refined and elal)orated into a proof that he and his children were immer- sed. All the evidence inclines and carries us forward to an opposite conclusion" (pp. 224, 22-5). He tells us "there is no retirement to another place spoken of," as if the evidence of a change of place which we have adduced had no existence; "no delay indicated," as if the cause of immersion required delay; "no preliminary arrangement .suggested, no outward preparation of any kind su]:)posed," as if the fact of immer- sion i-equired that the sacred writer should record what portion of their clothing they cast off, if any, before their immersion, and where tliey laid it. "What can be more preposterous than such demands ? We are infonned that " the two circumstances" of the jailor washing the stripes of the apostles, and the apostles baptizing the jailor, "are told in the same breath," just as if time and distance by this were aiiniliilated. What is the inference fi'om similar phraseology in vers. 15 and 40? When Lydia was baptized, she said. Come into my house, and abide. Was her house certainly at the river, or in the river 1 It is said respecting Paul and Silas, " A]id they went out of the prison and entered into the house of Lydia." Did Lydia's house consequently and certainly adjoin the prison? Yea, the mild, chaste, and intelligent Mr. S. says : "Adjourn- ment to a river side can be suggested only on the principle that no diffi- culties can weigh against the antecedent certainty of immersion. On the same principle it is not impossible to call up the vision of a tank or cistern in the prison-yard, and used for the general purposes of the inmates; and to j^icture the jailor and his household plunged into it, one after another, and theia returning diipping and shivering to the house, from which they had so lately issued in consternation and affright. But seriously to propose either hyjiothesis is, if not to trifle with the Word of God, yet to almse our reason by giving us possibility for testimony, 438 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. and fancy for argument" (p. 224). Tlius do those who should bring forward evidence that sprinkling or ponring took place, and not immer- sion, "trifle with the Word of God," and " abuse our reason by giving us" ''fancy for argument." The Baptist has more reason to picture the PhilijDpian jailor and all his as being refreshed by the luxury of an immersion than to fancy them shivering and wretched. Let the reader remember, in contrast with the frightened and bewildered fancy of Mr. S., the assurances of Drs. Buchanan, Thomson, Hackett, Pye Smith, Jamieson, Li\-ingstone, of Buckingham, and every Eastern traveller, respecting the reviving and invigorating influence of bathing. Mr. S. is incapable of denying the probability that in the Philippian jail there was every facility for immer- sion, and yet he most contemptuously speaks of calling up the vision of a tank or cistei'n. Does Mr. S. ignore the rule respecting secondary meanings of a word, or deny that, than which, in Dr. Halley's judgment, nothing can be more reasonable 1 If this is Mr. S.'s condition, we will quote the following from Dr. Carson, not for his sake, but for the sake of those who will not leap to a conclusion in defiance of necessary principles of interpretation. Dr. C. says: — " I never assume the meaning of any word: I assign no meaning till the occur- rences of a word are ascertained and examined. Whether a word lias one meaning, or several meanings, I determine by this examination on philosophical principles. When I have ascertained the primary meaning of a word, I apply it to every case where it will serve, admitting no new meaning till occurrences prove it. When I have ascertained a second meaning, I will not admit a third, as long as the first or second will serve. Thus I proceed with respect to any number of meanings, never admitting a new meaning without proof. Submission to these principles I demand on the ground of self-evidence. Submission to them I yield with respect to every opponent. These laws are for truth, not for party. Perverseness may reject them ; perverseness has rejected every first principle ; but I have no doubt that all candid persons will acquiesce in them. Without first principles interpretation is impossible. Mathematics may as well demonstrate without axioms. The criticism of our opponents is altogether without science : instead of leading to sound conclusions, it introduces universal confusion and uncertainty" (pp. 360, 3G1). Again: "If a word is found to have two meanings, it is lawful in every instance of its occurrence to bring their respective claims to the test. But if a secondary meaning is not in pi'oof, previous probability as to the fact has nothing to do ; because a thing previously impossible may be received as truth, with perfect confidence, on sufiicient testimony. To allege probability against the ascertained meaning of a word is to deny testimony as a source of evidence; for the meaning of testimony must be known from the words iised" {p. 464). The Rev. Dawson Burns says: "Let the defenders of affusion collect and treasure every obstacle conceivable, the most trivial and tlie most important, as if each was valuable and weighty as a bar of gold ; let them array them in the most formidable order, and let them add a number purely fictitious, the production of an inflamed imagination, like those spectral ajipearances which frequently result from disease of the optic nerve ; let all these difiiculties, solid and sham, be advanced, and at their Ijcst estate they will prove altogether vanity; yea, lighter than vanity, since other instances are producible in whicli events unquestionably occurred where the obstacles were equal or siiperior, and, consequently, against the belief of which the same or greater improbaljility might be affirmed. Are we told that the impediments were great in the way of the immersion of the jailor and his rejoicing family? or that obstacles of no ordinary kind must have environed the immersion of the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost ? Allow the alleged diffi- culties to have existed,* are not as many and forciljle connected with the account * "The succinct style of Scripture narratives, and oin- ignorance of the full circum- stances of the case, and tlie facilities that may have existed of whicli we are unapprised, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 439 of our Lord's expulsion from the temple of the money-changers and traders in doves ? Might it not be said, Is it possible that the meek and lowly Jesus would have resorted to this act of physical violence ? Do not the recorded incidents clash with our views of His amiable character ? And are we to conceive that the objects of this usage woxdd have quietly borne it ? They were many, and He but one ; and what more likely to rouse their passions than this high assumption of authority, aiming, as it did, to deprive them of worldly lucre? Is it not morally certain that they would make resistance ? And, making resistance, can we think of such a con- tention without a revulsion of feeling at the position which the Saviour would thus be made to sustain ? Is this style of reasoning censurable ? We heartily agree : but let those who bestow a similar treatment on Scripture cases of baptism throw the first stone at it, if their consciences permit them. Refer also to the case of those who were shipwrecked with Paul. They who could swim were ordered to do so : ' And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship ; and so it came to pass that they escaped all safe to land.' 'How incredible,' cries some captious reader. ' How coidd even strong swimmers bear up where two seas met and formed a hissing whirlpool? And as for those who clung to boards, &c., their probable fate was that of being engulphed in the vortex of waters; at any rate, to state that two hundred and seventy-six persons all got safe to land through such swelling dangers, is more than falls to our power to credit.' We properly repel and condemn this vicious mode of discussion, for we know that such an entire rescue was possible, thovigh admittedly not common or likely : and being possible, we give sincere and complete credence to the historic statement. Yet if we could not have produced parallel instances in which the occurrence of events, though attended wdth numerous difficulties, is believed 'without doubting,' we should still have firmly contended that it was wrong to deny the fact of immersion in any case, xxnless it coidd have been established beyond all question that it was naturally impossible." —G. B. Eepos., pp. 411, 412. IS50. On the principles of interpretation adopted by Mr. S. and the Psedo- baptists generally, we might suppose a foreigner to read in English that a prisoner was immersed in the jail at Halifax or Winchester, and imagining it improbable that there was a sufficiency of water in this jail to plunge the prisoner over head, that he might justly conclude that to immerse does not signify to cover and surround with the element, but to sprinkle, to pour, to purify, or to apply water in any way ; and that he might justly treat with scorn the simpletons who believed from such a declaration that the man was dipped. Thus the Neologian can deem it very improbable " that Samson killed so many people with a jaw-bone of an ass; therefore the word does not here signify the jaw-bone of an ass, but the tooth of a rock, which, being loosely attached, was pulled down on his enemies by the hero." And thus may vanish all the miracles of the Bible, and all the doctrines of revelation. Our friends unconsciously to themselves, instead of learning facts from history, dictate to history, by proceeding on " an axiom that is false, fanatical, and subversive of all revealed truth." To prove the probability or even the possibility of im- mersion from any facts with which we are acquainted respecting the jail at Philippi, is more than our opponents by the laws of interpretation can demand from us. Having proved the meaning of the Greek word from lexicons, use, &c., it is the business of ovir opponents to prove that immersion did not take place. We nevertheless do know that with many in the East and in Greece bathing was as common as sleeping; and con- cerning prisons and their conveniences for immersion, we can adduce, in give room for the supposition of difficulties which a more intimate acquaintance with the places and times would perhaps immediately dispel," &c. 440 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. addition to other testimony, that of one wlio in the East has spent a lengthened and honoured life. Dr. JuDSON, on the immersion of the jailor, says: "This case can present no difficulty to the minds of any of yon, my lirethren, who n\ay have heen within the yard of the prison in this city, or are acquainted with the fact that prison-yards in the East, as well as the yards and gardens of private houses, are usually furnished with tanks of water." " Grotius (said to be the most learned and best-informed man in EiU'ope in his time) held it highly probable," says Pengilly, "from the practice of the country, that the jail at Philiiipi was provided with l)aths (as is now the case in Calcutta)." The rite may have been performed, says De Wette, in the same foiintain or tank in which the jailor had washed them. "Perhaps the water," says Meyer, "was in the court of the house; and the ba]>tism was that of immersion, which formed an essential part of the symbolism of the act. (8ee Rom. vi. 8, seq.)" "Ancient houses," says Dr. Hackett, "as usually built, enclosed a rectangular reservoir or basin (the imjyluviuvi, so called), for receiving the rain which flowed from the slightly-inclined roof. Some suggest that they may have used a swimminfj-bath, found within the walls of the prison. (Grsb., Rosenm., Kuin.) Such a bath was a common api^urtenance of houses and public edifices among the Greeks and Romans. Whether the Gangas flowed near the prison, so as to be easily accessible, cannot be decided."— On Acts xvi. 33. It is certain that every probability is in favour of the public prison having its tanks or baths, which the governor could employ for his bajj- tism. If this were not the case, the inspired language does not forbid the contiguity of the river, or an immersion in the same. It is, however, no business of ours to go in quest of the water, which in a foreign country, two thousand j^ears ago, might be obtained in many ways of which Ave are now ignorant. Let our ojoponents pi'ove a solitary case of sprinkling from this or from any other baptism recorded in God's Word, and not pervert the clearest import of baptism because the Spirit of inspii-ation has not supplied every particular resjjecting the waters in and near this prison. As we know not that anything is adduced as an objection to immer- sion froni the context where other Imptisms, as those of Crispus, of the Corinthians, and of the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 8; xix. 1—7), are mentioned, we need say no more than that, in our judgment, the recorded fact of baptism is a record of immersion. We have minutely passed over and patiently examined all those which are adduced to encourage pouring or sprinkling, and our solemn conviction is, that nothing in any one passage, or in the whole united, aftbrds the least countenance to the idea that baptism is or may be something else than immersion. As we are unable to make one by the addition of ciphers to ciphers, whether we ap^iend six or eight, or sixty or eighty, so the sum total from our whole examination is nothing of proof that hajytizo in any jjart of God's Word means to i:>our or to sprinkle. As these are all the passages recording instances of baptism to which our opponents direct our attention, Ave have now examined both the chief j^rops and the minor sup] torts from the examples of baptism. The main props have appeared to us as insufficient suppoi'ts as any of the rest. We have seen the apostles ])hysically immersed in the emblems of the S2)irit, when the Spirit in His emblems "filled all the house where they were sitting." We have seen them as to their souls immersed in the Si)irit by the abundance of His communications imparted on that interesting and FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 441 glorious day. We have noticed the baptism of the cliildren of Israel by the 2^ossihle splashing of the spray for miles wlien the depths were con- gealed in the heart of the sea, or by the jjossible pelting of rain from tlie clouds, there being a tremendous thunderstorm, well nigh drenching them, when they passed over on dry ground ; or by the 2>ossible dispersion of the aqueous contents of that fiery cloud, the miraculous symbol of GocVs ])resence, which shone \xpon them and gave them light ! We think that the two chief props, whether supporting or carried by Dr. H. or Mr. S., — the latter of whom concludes that in these cases "there was demonstrably no immersion," — instead of being supports on which they may lean, ai-e rods giving to them a severe and well-merited flagellation. We are not angry whilst thus writing. Our mind is deeply solemnized and painfully affected whilst meditating on these ■proofs adduced by our Pjedobaptist brethren of the marvellous doctrine that the Greek word, which before the Christian era signified imniersion, and never anything less, and which among the Greeks has never since had another signification, when once regularly applied to the ordinance of Christ, in the words of the Rev. E. Bickersteth, " received a new and more impoi-tant element of meaning, and that thenceforward the idea of one specific mode was no longer essential " ! But Mr. Stacey, in siimming up his ai'guments in proof of pouring or sprinkling, informs us that in one case, " from the spirituality of the operation, mode is naturally inconceivable." From this baptism he has previously ai-gued at great length that baptism is pouring ! He says, "finally, that in the instances of apostolical baptism recorded in the Acts, there is no ground, real or a}>})arent, for the assmnption that the first converts to Christianity were initiated into the kingdom of God by dipping, except the use of certain jirepositions, which, as far as they have authority at all, lend equal support to every form of administration" (p. 226). Thus the Greek words by which baptisms ai'e recorded to have taken place convey no idea whatever as to Avhether immersion, j^ouring, or sprinkling, or any other describable or conceivable ajjplication of water, took place ! The form of administration is indicated only by certain prepositions; and whether their primaiy meaning is in, into, out of, from, by, near, at, ivith, kc, they all lend equal support to every form of administration ! Consequently, these prepositions lend the same .support to that very immersion which is so lacking not only in con- venience, but in propriety and delicacy, as to pouring and sprinkling ! If this is not, imder the blinding influence of prepossessions, with a witness outraging veracity and common sense, we are much mistaken. We leave it, however, with our readers to agree witli us or to ditter from us, according to evidence adduced or not adduced, that John immersed the Jews who came to him confessing their sins and desiring to be baj^tized, and that at His request he immersed our Saviour, who had no sins ti> confess, but who would set an example of fulfilling all righteoiisness ; that our Saviour immersed by means of His disciples; that He enjoined immersion on the apostles; and that in every instance of the New Testa- ment baptisms immersion was practised. 442 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. § 19. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO "ONE IMMERSION" IN EPH. IV. 5. Dr. Carson. — "I cannot |wrest the Scriptures in order to please men, nor to retain popularity even among Christians. I have lost this world. I do not wish to lose both worlds. "What Christ has shown me in His Word, I cannot conceal or pervert : I must not be ashamed of His words more than of himself " (p. 258). Prof. J. H. Godwin. — "We must dismiss prejudice when we open the Bible, if we would dis- cern truth; and we must search for instruction rather than confirmations of our creed, if we would be set right when we have been wrong, and be led onward in the noblest and best of studies." — Chr. Bap., p. 45. We maintain not tliat this passage contains anything in favour of immersion, except the use of the word whose meaning is disputed by our opponents. A portion of the Psedobaptists maintain that spii-itual, not water baptism, is here described ; an idea which we believe to be destitute equally of proof and probability. Dr. Gumming repeatedly asserts that there are four baj)tisms, or four different kinds of baptism. 1. Baptism with sufferings. 2. Baptism in the sense of mii-aculous gifts. 3. Baji- tism with water. 4. Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is regenera- tion. He admits, too, that there is but "one baptism;" ay, says he, "but that one baptism for the remission of sins," and this is regenei'ation. We believe it jvist as capable of proof and opposed to truth, that regene- ration is baptism, as that baptism is regeneration. Also, if the " one baptism " is spiritual, is regeneration, is not the baptism with water an abrogated ceremony, or an apostolic blunder 1 Some of our opponents with one breath favoiu- this idea, and with the next that baptism is the opus operatiim of Dr. Pusey and Go. ! (See Dr. Cumming's Sab. Eve. Readings mi Luke, p. 44.) By some Psedobaptists, as by the Rev. Dr. Barnes, we are reminded that nothing is here said about the mode of baptism. Dr. B., discarding the idea that the bajitism of the Spiiit is intended, agrees with us that " they all had been baptized with water." But he also says, " One ba2)tism. — This does not affirm that there is one mode of baptism, but it refers to the thing itself. They are baptized in the name of the same Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier. They have all in this manner been consecrated unto God, and devoted to his service " {Com., on Eph. iv. 5). We fully admit that Paul here says not a word about the mode of baptism ; and further, that there is no command any- where respecting the mode of baptism (immersion), unless we apply to it such a command as, " Let all things be done decently and in order." These words of Paul to the Ephesians refer simjjly to the thing itself This is all that we contend for. It is true that we read elsewhere of being buried by baptism, of Philip and the eunuch going down into the water, and of John's baptizing in the Jordan. But Dr. Barnes will break no com- mand expressly associated with baptism with which we are acquainted, whether he immerses backwards or forwards;* w^hether, without entering the water, he stands by its edge whilst he immer.ses the candidate; whether he and the candidate, together or separately, walk or jump into the water ; or whether he immerses in a tank, or baptistery, a liver, or the sea ; or whether, if practicable, he poiu's water into a vessel until the candidate is immersed. He may absurdly and sinfully discard common * The plan of baptizing forwards was adopted, at least on one occasion, by Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 443 sense in performing the ceremony, as well as in -writing abotit it ; wluch we believe Christ never intended. The Lord of gloiy and of salvation does not expect us to act as idiots in obeying the command to immerse into the name of the Father, &c. We dare appeal to the Rev. Dr. Barnes, and the thousands who wiite or speak like him on baptism, respecting our accountability to God for the use of our rational faculties on this subject. § 20. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO EMMERSION IN HEB. \T:. 2. Bp. Watson. — "What a blessing is it to beings with such limited capacities as ours confessedly are, to have God himself for our instructor in everything which it much concerns us to know." — Apol., p. 139. In Heb. vi. 1, 2, we read, "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of the laying on of hands," &c. What- ever other immei-sions are referred to by the apostle. Christian immer- sion appears to be amongst them : for though, under the Christian dispensation there is " one immersion," it does not follow that there was not an immersion by John the Baptist, under Divine direction ; that there were not divers immersions under the law ; and that in the world there were not also other immersions. Although the word is in the plural number, varied meanings as belonging to the word, or varied modes of the ajiplication of water, are no more proved from this, than they would be proved to belong to the English words — immersions, sprinklings, &c., because of these words being used in the plural number. The meaning of bajjtismos, as given by some of the most eminent lexi- cogi'ajihers, has been already recorded. Whether we understand the apostle as referring to the existence of other baptisms, Jewish or hea- then, or to John's baptism and Christian baptism, or exclusively to the initiatory ordinance of the Chi'istian dispensation; whether with Gro- tius, we xmderstand him as referring to an interior and an exterior baptism, or with Storr, we understand the plural to be used in a distri- butive sense, so that the doctrine taught is that every believer must be baptized, the meaning of baptism as immersion, which has been already proved, remains unafi'ected. Dr. A. Clarke and others admit that immer- sions were frequent under the law. AVhy then pervert the plain apostolic declaration 1 Why not conclude immersions alone to be meant, when immersions alone are mentioned ? Dr. Clakke says :—" Baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, sprinklings, and washings, were frequent as religious rites among the Hebrews, and were all emblematical of that purity which a holy God requires in His worshippers." — {Com., on Heb. vi. 2.) The doctor's language correctly implies that baptisms are immersions. Dr. Macknight says : — "In the Levitical ritual many baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, were enjoined, as emblematical of that purity of mind which is necessary to the worshipping of God acceptably." — Com., on Heb. vi. 2. Dr. Barnes here truthfiilly and cogently says of baptism : — " This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it as one of the elements of the true religion, and the teaching on that subject now should be made so plain that the humblest disciple may comprehend it. If it was an element, or hrst principle of religion ; if it was presented that any one who entered the church could under- stand it ; can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now?" — Com., on Heb, vi. 2. 444 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. § 21. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIOXS TO IMMERSION- AS REFERRED TO IJT HEB. X. 19-22 ; TITUS III. 5; JOHN III. 5; EPH. V. 2G. Hon. and Rev. II. M. Villiers. — "You must aim at being mighty in the Scriptures Keep to your Bibles, and raise tlie standard of man to the standard of God, and not lower the standard of God to the standard of man. — Ex. Hall Lee, p. 281. 1S51. C. T. — "We are unwavering advocates for a sound creed." "Let our theology be pure." — Pers. Piety, p. 15. Dr. Carson. — " Truth is my treasure" (p. 258). Dr. W. H. Stowell. — "Our sympathies are with all truth, and with all right doing." — Cont;. Lee., p. 188. The reasoning against immersion is principally from tlie first of the above portions of Scripture. We shall therefore pass over the latter with few words. In Heb. x. 19-22, we read, "Having therefore, bi-etliren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, tliat is to say, his flesh ; and having a liigh priest over the house of God ; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." It does not here seem necessaiy to do more than inform the English reader that rhantizo is the verb used by the sacred writer for " sprinkled," and louo for " washed." But it is affirmed by our opponents that baptism is a washing, and it is believed that sprinkling i,s a washing ; therefore baptism is sprinkling. What reason- ing ! Wliat proof of the meaning of a word ! Of the word hajitizo; which is not even mentioned ! If a person being immersed is washed, .still immersion and washing are two different tilings. Immersion that takes place in pure water may be called a Avashing; although, if it took place in impure water, it might be called a defilement. But the sprink- ling of water on the face or on the whole body, or the pouring of water on the face or on the head, is not a loashimj of the body. The sprinkling of water on some part of the body might be emblematic of purification, but could not be called a washing of the body. Why not iiifer that the .sprinkling of the heart is in allusion to the application of the blood of sacrifices, and the washing of the body in allusion to the immersion enjoined by Christ, or the bathings enjoined by the ceremonial law \ The idea conveyed by a washing of the l>ody, no particular part bemg mentioned, is a washing of the wliole body. Let any one decide whether immersion, pouring, or si)rinkling, best answers to having our bodies washed with jiure water. But here Dr. Halley's vision is confu.sed whilst reading in the same verse of the heart being sjn-inkled and the body Ijeing washed; as if, because the heart is not said to be washed, the body might possibly lie sprinkled. Filled with prejudice, he does not at once think that if the ajjostle had meant one and the same thing he would most likely have used one and the same Avord ; but, conti-ary to all reason, he endeavours to find out if ditterent words are not of the same meaning; and to fuid out the meaning of louo he ransacks the Old Testament to know how priests under ]\Ioses were consecrated, and what was the ordinary and proper ablution before entering the sanctuary ; after this he refers to his jiitiable dilennna, knowing this, but not know- ing that and the other, and he describes his conclusion in the following FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 445 words : — " How far it may relieve the difficulty to say, as the passage iu Exodus seems to imply, that the washing of the hands and feet was for convenience appointed instead of the ablution of the whole person, and therefore considered as equivalent, I must leave the reader to decide. To which of these washings, or whether to any of them, the apostle specifically alludes, it may not be possible to ascertain with certainty. All I assert is, we knoAv not any immersion practised by the priests on entering the sanctuary, and we have no right to assume that anything of the kind took place. //' the i-eference be to the ablution of the Levites on being initiated into the holy service ; or of the unclean, that they might not defile the sanctuaiy of the Lord ; we are expressly told they wex'e sprinkled with the water of purifying" (p. 307). //"it is possible, as in the days of Job, to darken counsel by woixls, we Avill leave the reader of Dr. H.'s work to decide whether, under the influence of prepossessions, it does not appear in what Dr. H. has wi'itten on Heb. X. 19—22. We know not how, to the English reader, better to illusti-ate this passage and Titus iii. 5, as far as baptism is concerned, than by quoting from three or four lexicons the meanings given to louo, rendered l)y the term loash in Heb, x. 22, and to loutron, rendered " washing " in Titus iii. o, where we read, " According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." LiDDELL AND ScoTT. — '^ Louo. — To wash; propcrly, to wash the body; also to pour [water for washing]. Med. To bathe." " Loicfron. — 1. A bath, Lathing place. 2. Water for bathing or washing. 3. Drink offerings, libations. 4. Bath- ing." DoNNEGAN. — -"Louo. — To wash ; to bathe." ^' Loutron.— Water for washing or batbing^a washing place, a bath." Parkhurst. — " Louo. — To wash." "Loutron. — A laver, a vessel to wash in." Robinson. — "Louo. — To bathe, to wash." "Loutron. — A bath; water for bathing, washing. In New Testament, the act of bathing, washing, ablution. (Spoken of baptism, Eph. v. 20; Titus iii. 5.) " Does this meaning of louo, a word generally used in application to the whole body, favour the idea that sprinkling or poui'ing is baptism ? Does the meaning of loutron (a word derived from loiio) accord with such a supposition l Is not baptism, if meant in Titus iii. 5, called the bath or laver of regeneration ? CoNYBEAKE AND HowsoN, iu accordance with many othei-s, say, ou Titus iii. 5, that "loutron does not mean 'washing,' but laver, i.e., a vessel in which washing takes place."— iyi/e and Ep'is. of St. Paul, vol. ii., p. 570. Aknota. Par. Bible. — "'The washing of regeneration,' rather, 'laver of regeneration.' " — On Titns iii. 5. Dr. C. J. Vaughan. — "The word translated lucmhing should unquestionably be rendered by the term laver. By the laver, or bath, of regeneration." — JRev. of Lit., p. 28. Webster xVND Wilkinson. — "By means of the laver of regeneration; referring to baptism as an emblem of the puritication of the soul from sin" {Gi: Tes., ou Titus ui. 4-7). "Christians are emblematically washed by the purifying water of baptism, Acts xxii. 16."- — Do., on Heb. x. 22. In John iii, 5 we believe baptism to be referred to in the expression " born of water," although Baptists and Ptedobaptists, respecting this application of the woi'ds, difier among themselves. " The initiations 446 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. were called new births, especially among tlie Jews." " To be born again is to pass tliroiigli another event, from which a new age may be reckoned, and of which a new register may be taken" (Stovers Dis., pp. 68, 358). " A person's coming out of the water of baptism may have been called by our Lord his being ' born again of water.' " — Mack- night, on 1 Peter iii. 21. Also Dr. Hodge gives the sentiments of many Pa^dobaptists when he says, on Ejih. v. 26, "There can be no doubt, therefoi'e, that by 'the washing with water,' the apostle meant baptism." Instead of denying this, we inquire. Was a sprinklmg of the face ever designated a " wash- ing with water"? § 22. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION FROM OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES. W. Thorn. — " Prejudgment closes its eyes and ears as long as possible against doctrines adverse to its own former settled convictions and practices." — Inf. Bap., p. 417. Dr. Carson. — " I fight for no chiu'ch, for no party. I do not make even my past attainments my standard ; I am vi'illing to advance or recede, as I am made to hear the word of command. When Christ says, ' Go,' I will go : when He says, ' Come,' I will come. If any man can show me to be wrong in anything, I shall be swift in changing my course " (p. 258). Bp. LowTH. — "Such strange and absurd deduction of notions and ideas, foreign to the author's drift and design, will often arise from the invention of commentators. . . . This was the case of the generality of the Fathers of the Christian church who wrote comments on the Old Testament : and it is no wonder that we find them of little service in leading us into the true meaning and the deep sense of the prophetic writings." — Prelim. Diss., p. 70. T. Powell. — '" No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth." " It shows the weakness of the cause when good men are pushed to such straits and mistakes to defend it." — Apos. Sue, pp. 17, 18. It is frequently objected to immersion that a prediction of the Spirit's influence is spoken of in Ezekiel by the sprinkling of water. We read in Ezekiel xxxvi. 24-26 : " Eor I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c. The simple fact of sprinkling being mentioned in the Old Testament no more proves that baptism is sprinkling than that it is walking, fighting, or flying; as all these, and many other things, are mentioned in the Old Testament. But it is said in reference to the passages above cited, that God is speaking " in relation to the outpouring of the Holy Spii'it on the Jews at their future conversion," and that "it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that an allusion is intended to the sprinkling of water in baptism." It was but recently maintained that because the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, therefore baptism is pouring. A third inference would be quite as logical, because the impartation of the Holy Spirit is spoken of by the terms sprinkle and pour, therefore to sprinkle is to pour, and to pour is to spi'inkle, the words must be perfectly sjTionymous; or that baptism is not to sprinkle or to pour separately, but to sprinkle and to pour conjointly. The gift of the Spiiit, whether spoken of as pouring or sprinkling, is certainly not necessarily a baptism of the Spirit. Therefore the words of Ezekiel, if prophetic of the impartation of the gracious influences of the Divine Spii-it, are no proof whatever that baptism is sprinkling. It has been maintained, — pure water, under the Mosaic economy, being never sprinkled for any jiurpose, — that in this FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 447 passage the allusion is to the watei- of cleansing, which was watei' mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, and which was sprinkled for ceremonial purification, but which reqiiii'ed to be succeeded by the person "bathing himself in water," in order to a completing of the legal jjuritication. We do not, however, insist on this interpretation of the passage, as the words do not literally so read. But, understood in any legitimate sense, they afford not the slightest evidence that baptism is sprinkling. The Spirit's operations, it has been before shown, are ever spoken of in accordance with the emblem by which they are represented. And sprinkling, under the Jewish law, is no more proof that baptism is sprinkling than bathing enjoined by the same is proof that baptism is either spriukling or immer- sion. We can admit that in Scripture, dipping, pouring, and sprinkling, are all variously used by Divine appointment, without admitting that this affords the slightest pretext for the idea that baptism includes the whole three, or is any one of the threes according to our choice. Our Saviour well knew, in enjoining immersion, whether all the thi-ee were equally suitable to His gracious design. He surely understood significance, decency, practicability, convenience, &c. It would be as logical and legitimate to conclude from the 26th verse that baptism is the reception of water into the stomach, because God says, " A new spirit will I put within you," as to conclude from the 25th verse that baptism is sprinkUng. The entire passage, instead of referring to an ordinance to be administered by man, refers to blessings which the eternal Father to man will com- municate, and in man will effect. Prof Wilson holds that Eze. xxxvi. 25, as meaning unmixed water, has better suj^port from authorities than as meaning the water of ceremo- nial purification; yea, that "this must be undoubtedly its meaning, if the prediction contemplates any religious observance under the Christian dispensation;" that the "water was combined with sacrificial blood under a less spiiitual economy;" but to " water unmixed " "the pi'ophet mani- festly alhided" (p. 305). If ! Manifestly ! This same learned brother sees not only in Titus iii. 5, but also in Rev. i 5, "Unto Him that washed us from our sins in His own blood," and in 1 Peter i. 2, " Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," an ob^dous allusion to baptism. Ergo, "had the Author of Divine revelation intended to establish immersion as the exclusive mode of Christian baptism. He would not have authorized the use of such terms as washing, sprinkling, pouring, in cii-cu.mstances which carry an obvious allusion to that important ordinance " (pp. 306, 307). Delightful coiToboration of the fancy that sprinkling is baptism by a comparison of the above " passages " ! This is worthy of a place by the side of the argument in favour' of baptizing infants, from Acts xxi. 5, 6. Dr. D^vight, who on John xiii. teaches that " Christ has expressly taught us that immersion is unessential to the administration of this ordinance," next teaches that "the same doctiine is taught by God in the thirty-sixth chapter of the prophet Ezekiel" {Ser. 159). The latter is worthy of the former. If in this passage we have proof that to bap- tize is to sprinkle, might we not read, Then will I baptize clean water upon you, &c.'? Dr. Wardlaw desires that "the following examples be attended to :" Eze. xxxvi. 25; Psalm li. 7; Heb. ix. 13, 14; and Isaiah liii. 15. We 448 IMPORT OJb' BAPTISM. naturally inquire, Because sprinkling is significant of cleansing, are we to suppose that God cannot have commanded bathing or immersion ] Did He never under the law command a bathing or immemng of the person in any instance, in order to purification ? Is it impossilile for Christ in His commission to have perpetuated immei-sion in token of spiritual purification ? and for the apostle, in Heb. ix. 10, to be referring to the immersions under the law? This same writer can truly teach that " BY USAGE " the import of baptizo must be ascertained. We learn from usage that, for sprinkling, all Gi'eek writers used another woi'd than baptizo, and for immersing, another word than rhantho. With how much greater truthfulness and jwopriety Dr. Halley says: — "As to the passages of the Old Testament which are sometimes adduced in proof of the doctrine, such as, ' I will spi'inkle clean water upon them, and they shall be clean,' or, 'Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow,' we can only say, no one would think of applying them to Christian baptism had they not been so applied by some of the early ecclesiastical •writers. The value of these citations must, therefore, depend entireljr upon the authority which we assign to the Fathers as expositors of Holy iSci-iiitui'e ; for certainlj'-, without their aid, we should never have discovered the meaning of the words of David, 'Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow,' to be, Baptize me, and I shall be sanctified and foi'given. Dr. Pusey and his coadjutors tell us we are l^ouud to take this exposition on the authority of the ancient church ; it is scarcely sufficient to induce us to believe that King David prayed for baptism more than a thousand years before it was instituted" (pp. 192, 193). Hengstenberg, in his Christologij, on Eze. xxxvi. 24, 25, says: "It is vei-y evident that there is an allusion in this passage to the Mosaic rites of purification, especially to the holy A^'ater, in whicli the ashes of the red heifer were mixed, and which served as an antidote first to the greatest of all defilements, contact with a corpse, and then to defilement in general. (See Nmn. xix. 17-19. See also Psalm li. 9.) A plausible explanation of these allusions is sometimes given, nanielj', that the propliet changes the material into the spiritual ; but it is more correct to say that what was a symbol in the law is employed as a figure by the prophet. He does not intei-polate, he expounds." In a note he says: "According to Haver- nich, the pi'ophet does not allude to Num. xix., but to Num. viii. 7, whex'e the Levites, on the occasion of their consecration, are ordei'ed to be siirinkled with the water of sin and of the sin-offermg. But the fact that nothing is said here about the manner in which the water was to be prepared, points to some suljsequent passage in which the proper directions are given, and such a passage we find in Num. xix. Schneider's remark that the means of pui'ification denoted the Holy Ghost (ver. 27) is by no means correct. Sprinkling with water is never referred to in the Scriptures as a sym'ool of renewal, liut always denotes the forgiveness of sins. (Conip. Zech. xiii. 1, in which there is an allusion to Num. xix.) " We are also informed that in Isaiah lii. 15, it is written: "So shall he sprinkle many nations." But is this a prediction of what man Avill perform, or of what God will accomplish 1 To us no more reference to baptism is discernible in this oft-quoted jiassage than in Lev. iii. 2 : "The priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar." The word which our ti'anslators have here I'endered sprinkle, is differently rendered by different pei'sons. The Septuagiut says. So shall many nations look with astonish- ment upon Him; or, according to othei's, "Many nations shall admire Him." Gesenius says : So shall He cause many nations to rejoice in himself. Bp. Lowth translates it: "So shall He sprinkle many nations;" and in his Notes he says: "I retain the connnon rendering, though I am by no means satisfied with it." Dr. Jubb renders this passage : "So many nations .shall look on Him with admiration." Bagster's Analf/dcal FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 449 Lexicon says: "This passage seems rather to indicate the Messiah's exaltation in judgment (comp. Psalm ii.); and this word may be rendei-ed, to scatter.'^ But, without explaining the reasons why such a difference of opinion exists rcsj^ecting the import of the Hebrew word, whether we accei^t our own translation or any other, a more unworthy argument against immersion cannot well be conceiA'ed. The words of Mr. Bradbury apply here as well as previously : " I should think that man's reasoning very weak who would pretend to prove sprinkling from ' your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.' This is a mere jingling upon words." — Duty and Doc. of Bap., p. 158. Dr. Barnes, having recorded the import of this passage as given by various learned writers, says : "Whichever of the above senses is assigned, it furnishes no argument for the practice of sprinkling in baptism. It refers to the fact of His purifying or cleansing the nations, and not to the ordinance of Christian baptism" [Com., on Isaiah lii. 15). Yet a writer whom we have quoted approvingly on 2^^'y'udg>nent, says : " The fact and duty of water baptism we learn in the New Testament ; but the proper subjects and mode of it we learn only or chiefly from the Old" (Inf. Ba})., p. 432). Indeed ! Sprinkling has also been gravely advocated as baptism from the record in Heb. ix. 19-21, that Moses sprinkled with blood the book, the people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry; to which, and to all such, we regard Mr. Bi'adbury's asser- tion as a sufficient reply. § 23. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION THAT IX CERTAIN CASES IMMERSION IS IMPRACTICABLE. Paul, the Apostle. — "This I say, lest any man should beguile you witli enticing words. " — Col. ii. 4. Augustine. — " Our Lord has not burdened us with signs ; but He and His apostles have given us few instead of many, and these are in celebration most easy, in import most excellent, and in observance most holy." — Dc Doc. Chris., 1. iii,, c. ix. Dr. Wardlaw. — "If the general view which I am about to present on this subject shall be fairly established from Scripture, it is foolish to allow our minds to be easily startled and shaken by particular difficulties which may be suggested and urged, as to what would be right in certain supposed cases. Notliing can be easier than thus to perplex and puzzle the mind." "Are we at once to renounce the faith because, on some of its articles, a puzzling question may be put to us by a subtle adversary?" — Inf. Bap., pp. 10, 11. « J. A. James.— "A skilful polemic may often make error appear more plausible than truth." — Youncj Mail's Guide, p. 109. Prof. Wilson. — "Far be it from iis to prefer any charge of dishonesty against eitlier the living or the dead; but tlie judgment of the most upright is not incapable of being warped by prejudice, or blinded by conscientious zeal" (p. 130). Prof. GoLDWiN Smith. — "When we take up 'weapons' in defence of a good cause, wc must take care that they have not a double edge." — Rat. Rcl. and Rat. Obj., p. 13. Dr. E. Vaughan. — "We hold it to be no more surprising that a large portion of mankind should have corrupted the Gospel, than that a much larger portion should have rejected it." The mystery of this "does not date from the origin of the Gospel, but from the origin of evil. In ecclesiastical liistory, except as thus viewed, there is much of a nature to disturb rather than to confirm the faith of the Christian." — Causes of the Corrup. of Chris., pp. v., vi. That there are rare and temporary instances of the impracticability of immersion we do not deny. We do not argue for the possibility of baptizing tlie crucified thief during the time of his hanging on the cross. It is in proof that pouring and sprinkling originated in the inconvenience or impracticability of immersing the afflicted and dying. These excep- tional cases are not the rule. Baptist missionaries have not yet found the country where immersion is impracticable. It is more difficult in some countries than in others, and at some seasons than at others. This GG 450 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. is no proof that Christ has nob enjoined immersion, and that the apostles did not practise this and nothing else. It is more difficult in some countries to commemorate Christ's death with bread and wine than it is in other countries. Does it follow from this that Christ, in instituting the Lord's Supper, used something else than bread and wine 1 or that the records of the celebration of Christ's death, which we have in Holy Writ, are records of some substitute used for the bread and wine? or that whenever it is inconvenient to have bread and wine we may select a substitute 1 or that because it is sometimes inconvenient we may always use w^hat we like ? These follow in reason and in fact, just as much as the difficulties of immersion prove that baptism, instead of being immer- sion, is any application of water. We maintain that where special circumstances render impracticable that which is Divinely enjoined, it necessarily ceases to be a diity as long as the impossibility continues. So thought Baxter: "When baptism cannot be had, an ojien profession without it may serve : for sacraments are made for man, and not man for sacraments. But when it may be had, it is Christ's appointed symbol, tessera, and church-door" (On Query 70). What Christian does not frequently kneel in pi-ayer when pouring oiit his penitential confessions and fervent supplications, from a conviction of duty thus to bow before his Maker 1 But if affliction renders this impracticable, will he consider its omission to be sinful ? We do not admit this to be a case parallel to immersion, because we read in God's Word of different postui-es of prayer; but we maintain that immersion is the enjoined baptism, and that we read of nothing else than immersion as the Christian initiatory ordinance. The all-wise, gracious, and blessed God, having given a peremptory injunction, it is our duty and privilege to ascertain the import of this injunction, and to act, and recommend others to act accordingly, and not frivolously object to the import of the word from supposed impracticability in certain temporary or exceptional cases. Aided by our honoured brother. Dr. Wai'dlaw, we may say that " there are puzzles to be found for" Psedobaptists ; and we would advise them not too eagerly to seize " an advantage for the invention of casuistical questions" {Inf. Bap., p. 10). We admit that it did not, and does not, rain in Syria as in England, and we admit the quotation from "Volney by Dr. Kitto respecting some parts of Syria, that good water is scai'ce, and resjiecting rain, that the inhabitants " have in all ages taken care to collect it in wells and caverns carefully closed; hence, among all ruins, cisterns are the first things we discover" {Pic. His. of Pal., pp. ccvii., ccviii.). Nor will we deny that there is a reference to Palestine, especially as compared with Egypt and Eastern countries, where the f:\ct of rain, of rivers, of pools, of springs of water, and the varied excellences of the promised land, are in Holy Writ so glowingly delineated. This is far from disproving that, by ari'angements for obtaining and preserving water which were adopted, immersion was frequently taking jilace and was generally pi-acticable in all those places. To the ravings of Mr. Thorn respecting the impracticability of immersing in the Joi-dan except by giants, we have already re]ilied. And Dr. Halley, who speaks of the impossibility of practising immersion " in many towns of Asia Minor," is obliged to anticipate the objection that immersion loas subsequently FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 451 practised in these very places; which fact he does not fleny, although we are not aware that the evidence is more clear, although it may iu some cases be more lengthened, respecting the immediately subsequent centuries than respecting the apostolic period. He says : " Should it be said that immersion was practised in these veiy places a century or two afterwards, I reply. When Christianity had become publicly recognized, and chui-ches were established, and baptisteries were erected, and careful preparations were made for their baptism at the great festivals, immersion might have been conveniently practised " (p. 322). We would receive kindly the varied concessions of the doctor, although we cannot avoid the conviction that it would have been more consistent and honourable on his part either to p?*ove one solitary example of spi'inkling or pouring, or to practise and recommend immersion. We have thought, at Dr. Stuart's request, of the Icelanders during the summer, when they were " reduced to live upon fish and water," and of the inhabitants of Otaheite, where, as Dr. H. says, " bread was not com- monly eaten," and where it has been said that the missionaries " substi- tuted some root" for it in celebrating the Lord's Supper; but what we have already advanced applies to these cases. Hence, in the language of a Baptist of hallowed memory, we say: "Though God does not send us to foreign countries for water, or confine us to Joixlan or any distant rivers, He sends us to such places as may furnish water enough for the administration of His ordinance" (Stennefct's A7iswer to Russen, p. 40). Hence, John baptized in ^non, near to Salim, because there was much water tliere. Again, says Stennett: "Consider that there are very few inliabited places that are long destitute of so much water as may suffice for immersion, and fewer yet that are very remote from such conveniences; and that a quantity of water sufficient for immersion may generally be mox^e easily obtained than the wine which is necessary for the administra- tion of the Lord's Supper according to the institution of Christ, for which whole nations are often beholden to foreign countries" (p. 41). Thus our opponents might as well reason that the Greek word rendered grape does not mean grape, or did not mean grape when used by the inspired writers, because some countries do not grow grapes. Dr. Carson thus replies to Dr. Miller: "Dr. M. next considers the difficulties attending immersion in many cases ; and contrasts with these the ease and convenience of si^rinkling or pouring. This might be very much to the point after a proclama- tion from heaven that we might choose what pleases us best. But, in determining what is the law of Christ, such speculations are worse thau useless : they are an exhoi'tation to disobedience and rebellion. To be immersed every day in my life would be no sacrifice to me. Shall I complain about one unmersion in my whole life ? He speaks of some districts as so parched that it would be difficult to find a natural stream or pool. What makes either a stream or a pool necessary ? There is no inhabited country iu which a disciple of Christ may not procure as miich water as will immerse him once in his life. He speaks of a siege. If a man cannot get bread, is he guilty in dying of hunger ? If a disciple can not get water, is he guilty for not attending to baptism ? Baptism is an ordinance of Christ, — an edifying ordinance of Christ ; but it is superstition that makes it essential to salvation. He speaks of cold countries, wdiere rivers are locked up with ice. Is there any habitable country in which ice may not be melted by fire ? How perversely opposed is the human mind to the mind of God, when the disciple of Christ can allege such evasions to relieve him from His commandments ! He speaks of health. When medical skill pronounces it dangerous, I will not urge it ; nor will I urge a sick man to go 452 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. to the assembly of the saints. He speaks about old, feeble ministers. This is young, stron(j superstition. If miuistcrs are old and feeble, let them do what they are iit to do ; let others take the water. The chnrches planted by the apostles were not Puseyites. No wonder that tlie Oxford pestilence has spread so rapidly : there is almost in all men a predisposition to the disease" (pp. 379, 380). J. Howard Hinton thus reasons with Mr. Waddington : Mr. W. says, "I have not yet been brought to believe that in so spiritual a dispensation as the Christian, one intended, too, not only for Asiatics, but for Greenlauders and Esquimaux, and equally suital^le all the year round, the letter is to reign and triumph over all con- siderations whatever." Mr. H. rei^lies that "Mr. W. evidently does not mean that 'the letter' of the baptismal law slioidd be entirely superseded." Further, says Mr. H., "We must be permitted to ask whether, in such a case, it is possible for any modifying circumstances to arise. We see what he alleges; but we anticipate them, and all other specilic allegations, l>y a general proposition, that positive precepts are in their very nature binding in the letter, or not at all. ... If the letter is not binding, nothing is binding, because beyond the letter thei-e is no com- mand. If au3' really inilueutial considei'ations arise, therefore, their weight must fall on the substance of the baptismal precept, not upon its letter. There may be cases in which it may be improper or impossible to baptize ; but there can be no cases in wliich anything but immersion (this being admitted to be 'the letter' of the precept) can be baptism. For example, if the winter season be too severe to allow of safely dipping the candidates, this may be a reason why thej^ shoidd not then be baptized, but can be no reason at all why they should be sprinkled or aiTused instead." "The letter reigns absolute here. For immersion there is authority, and for nothing else." "If the Christian dispensation is held to be absolutely and exclusively spiritual, we are led to the renunciation of both baptism and the Lord's Supper." In the idea that "because immersion maybe occasionally unsafe or impracticable, therefore we arc at liberty to change the law of baptism, and give it a latitude including both pouring and sprinkling," Mr. H. conceives there is little of "convincing logic or Christian reverence;" and adds: "Should it really turn out that Christ has appointed an ordinance so extensively unsuited to diffei'ent seasons and climates as to expose Him to ridicide, it will be a great deal better that we shoidd leave Him to have the shame, than that we should iisurp His legislative function." — Bap. Maj., 1856, p. 362. The italics and capitals here and iu some other places are ours. t Dr. "Wendeborn's Vievj of Enrj., kc, vol. ii., pp. 402, 403. HH 466 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. maintained in defiance of evidence of every kind and eveiy age, that the Greek word chosen by the Spirit of inspiration does not mean to immerse — that immersion is not included in the import of this word — they would not be thus guilty of defaming the character of the Holy One of Israel. May the Lord, who knows that this is not their inten- tion, "lay not this sin to their charge"; and may meditation on the following declaration of a learned Psedobaptist be blessed to the benefit of some : " I must needs say that nothing in the world doth (and I think I may say, ought) more to prejudice me against any religion, than to find it constrained in its defence to say indecent things of that which it grants to be the Word of God." — Ellys's Preservative against Popery, p. 203. § 26. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION THAT IMMERSION IS INCONArENIENT AND INEXPEDIENT, AND THAT SCRIPTITRE IS SILENT IN REGARD TO A CHANGE OF DRESS. Jesus Christ. — "Not my will, but thine be done." — Luke xxii. 42. Paul, the Apostle. — "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." — 1 Tim. iii. 9. Dr. Wardlaw. — "We truly honour either His authority, His wisdom, or His love, when we go forward in the way He marks out for us, in the undoubtiug assurance that implicit obedience to His will can never ultimately be injurious, but must in all cases prove beneficial in promoting the glory of His name, the prosperity of His cause, the effectuation of His purposes, and the happi- ness of His creatures. I know no principle of greater importance; and I urge it anew, — though at the risk of being charged with vain repetition, — that in every instance in which the Lord of the conscience lays down a rule for us, we have nothing to do but to follow it. The stronger our faith, the more prompt, and fearless, and uncompromising, will be our obedience." — On C/i. Est., pp. 7, 8. Dr. R. W. Hamilton. — "The infinite excellence must have an infinitely excellent will." "For every Divine determination there must be a congruous and worthy reason." "A virtuous act or disposition is, then, inherently virtuous by its resemblance to the essential, indefectible, impre- scriptible rule of rectitude, — not to allow which were more unreasonable and more profane than not to allow a first cause of all that we prove by sense and attest by experience. If the hypothesis — that the Divine wUl is the true foundation of every difference between right and wrong — cannot be maintained withovit an insult, even to blasphemy, against the Divine character, much less can we favour opinions which place the very truth of virtue in the perceptive faculty of the creature." — Cong. Lee, pp. 32, 35. Dr. S. Davidson. — "The nearer its substantial a.ssimilation to the Divine model, the more does it commend itself to c>ur jiidgment and conscience." "We believe, then, that the scripturality of our system is its chief recommendation. It rests on the immovable basis of the Divine AVord. It challenges inquiry because of its sacred foundation." — Cong. Lee, p. 301. Dr. Guthrie. — " How happy, how holy should we be, were our hearts, our minds, our bodies, as obedient to the laws of His Word and to the influences of His Spirit, as that hand and this tongue are to the head that rules them. Brethren, what else but this is needed ; not only to pre- serve the purity and peace of our souls, but to restore purity and peace to distracted churches? My body knows and owns no authority whatever but its own head. SVhy should Christ's church do otherwise? How many divisions would be healed, would she repudiate all government but His in things belonging to His kingdom ; would she take His Word as her only rule, and read it with the docile faith of a child !" — Christ and the Inker., p. 302. As inexpediency is associated with several objections to immei'sion, our immediate reply to this idea will be partial and incomplete. The incon- venience of immersion constitutes a formidable difficulty to the supposi- tion of its injunction. To this our Iudei)endent, Presbyterian, and Wes- leyan brethren frequently refer. Mr. Stacey doubts the fact of those frequent immersions which the superstitious Pharisees are said to have pei'formed, because it would be such " an irksome service," such " a yoke of bondage," involving "immense labour and time" (p. 195). The immer- sion of the multitudes by John would be "tedious, toilsome" (p. 211). The immersion of the three thousand would involve "protracted and painful laboui'" (p. 212); but "let sprinkling take the place of immer- sion," the baptism would be "perfectly easy" (p. 214). Sj)rinkling can be administered by the Christian teacher "in his ordinary dress;" but FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 467 immersion "lacks all the elements of convenience" and "facility" (p. 219). And in regard to St. Paul "in a state of great feebleness and exhaustion," in addition to harshness, "we can scarcely suppose that in such circumstances dipping would have been safe" (p. 219); whilst the language respecting the baptism of the centurion and those that were with him "directly implies" that the water was "in some convenient manner employed in their baptism" (p. 221). We cannot but think that there would have been much greater plausibility and weight in these assertions, if the mag-nitude of the supposed difficulty had been proved, and if our Saviour, instead of saying to all, " If any man will come after me, let him deuy himself, and take up his cross daUy, and follow me " (Luke ix. 23) ; and instead of saying to John at his baptism, " It becometh iis to fulfil all righteousness," had said. Nothing can be an ordinance of God which lacks the element of convenience. Mr. Thorn mentions " the Herculea,n laboiu- " of cUppiiig multitudes " into a river or cistern." And he mentions as " a curious and striking circumstance," " that there is not the slightest intimation afforded vis in the New Testament histoiy, that the baptizer ever laid hold of, or even touched a single candidate for baptism — which he must certainly have done, had immersion been the mode adopted" (p. 23). This unaccount- able omission is surely " a curious and striking " proof that baptlzo means to sprinkle or to pour ! Is it not also " a curious and striking circum- stance " that there is not in any New Testament record of baptism the slightest intimation that water was brought to the candidate, and that basins were used*? Some have said, We do not read of their being plunged into water, as if the record of their immersion was not sufficient; and more have said, We do not read that they changed their dresses, as if it was of moment to us to know whether the climate rendered this at all necessary or not ; which we have shown in certain climates and at certain times of the year to be altogether unnecessaiy ; and which we have shown can, if necessary, be accomplished by an Eastern mode of dressing, " without the least indelicacy"; or, as if those who immerse in England or America at the present day neglected, or were forbid, to use their reason in regard to the necessity or the manner of changing theii- dresses. Because Bap- tists in thousands of records of immersions do not mention the changing of dresses, does it follow that they do not immerse 1 Do the Old Testa- ment commands and examples of bathing particularize the undressing and the dressing? Because these are not mentioned, was the bathing of the person undoubtedly a sprinkling of water on the face 1 On the plea adduced by Dr. Foote, that Christ was " baptized, probably by having water poured on his head or face — for there is no mention of his undress- ing or dressing, as we think there would have been, had the form been that of complete immersion " — we only remark that it shows the naked- ness of the land, or the ignorance of the author. We do not deem it necessary to maiatain with Abp. Tillotson, Bp. Biu'net, and others, that where we read in Scriptiu-e of putting on Christ, there is an allu- sion to the change of raiment that was accustomed to follow immersion. It is not necessary for us to prove either that John the Baptist and the apostles found garments for the baptized ; or that the baptized took 468 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. garments witli them ; or that they were baptized in their ordinary garments ; or that they threw off Avithont inconvenience and without indelicacy an outer garment, and were then immersed. It belongs to our opponents to prove that they were not immersed. It has been said that ' ' among the myriads of baptisms of which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, with the single exception of that of the eunuch, thei'e is not a hint about going to or from any pool or river." To this it has been rejjlied, " Does any rational man expect that every account of bap- tism will record every circumstance in the transaction 1 One exanijile is perfectly sufficient." It has also been said, " If ba])tism must be administered by immersion, why did not Christ or the apostles ordain the construction of baptismal cisterns'?" To which it has been rejjlied, "What an argument! We might as well ask, if sprmkliug had been appointed, why was not the construction of basins ordained by the apostles'? Why ordain the construction of baptisteries, when all means of immersion are equal 1 What must be the degree of prejudice and blindness in the mind that sees an argument in this ! " But immersion is inconvenient and inexjoedient! And Dr. TIalley says : " In a country where the climate is unjjropitious, and bathing cannot alv^ays be performed without danger, and many persons are not accus- tomed to such an ablution, and from the feelings of delicacy which happily distinguish a high state of ci\'ilization, and must on no account be violated, the inconvenience of bathing-dresses and of various decor- ous and troublesome arrangements, must be admitted; these exceptions, we think, accumulate over the letter of the law; and in Britain we CLAIM THE EIGHT of not immersing, because baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism " (p. 256). Cannot our good brother, who says, "I attack no other bajitism"; "I avoid expressing a preference for any mode" (p. 38J:), nevertheless be veritably claimed by those who believe that the church has power to decree rites and ceremonies'? Even the Anglican Established Chiirch does not profess power " to ordain any- thing that is contrary to God's Word written ; neither may it expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." Might not Dr. II., if the patriai'ch had been privileged with his company, have put into the mouth of Abraham several suggestions by way of reply ■ — yea, several undeniable objections — to God's precept of circumcision ? That Di-. H. intends here a bill of indictment against the only wise God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, we do not suppose. That lie deems himself sitting on the seven-hilled city, crowned with a tiara, and, as the successor of Peter and the vicar of God, dispensing at ])leasiire with a Divine f)rdinance, we do not believe. The alteration of the "law of the Sabbath," he conceives, would enable him to go " a great deal further." When we, however, have the same encouragement from God's Word to ado^jt sprinkling or j^ouring instead of iramei'sion, that we liave to sanctify the tirst instead of the seventh day, we Avill cease to adhere to immersion. The encoui-agement, though not by express pi'e- cept, to meet together on the first day of the week, the Lord's day, is not an encouragement to alter any Divine institution at jileasure. In the spirit of the above quotation he elsewhere modestly demands : " Christian bapti.sm, we have a right to conclude, was something easily FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 469 performed upon great multitudes of people, in a short time, at all sea- sons ; in towns whose whole supply of water was obtained by women, who brought it in pitchers and bottles from a neighbouring fountain or well" (pp. 322, 323). By what authority does any Psedobaptist demand that Christian baptism be of this character ? The reply, we pi-esume, will be, that the Sci-iptural commands of baptism, and records of the many that were baptized, require this. But if we have already jji'oved the sufficiency, the abundance of water for immersion, we have done enough, yea, more than enough ; for it devolves on our opponents to prove the impossibility of their being immersed, or the fact that they Avere not immersed ; otherwise the record of their immersion must I'emain in all its force. But further, must no regard in the institution of baptism be paid by the Lord of glory to what is most significant of repentance, of a death to sin, and being cleansed from sin ; to what will most appropriately rej^resent, or bring to remembrance, Christ's burial and resurrection, the believer's rising to newness of life, being born again and putting on Christ, and his own final resurrection from the deadi Does Dissenting piety, ignoring these facts, dare to oppose them by such assertions as, " In Britain we claim the right," &c. ; " Christian baptism, we have a right to conclude," &c.1 Is this demand of con- venience and ease put forth in England, and not in Rome ; in the nine- teenth, and not in the twelth century ; and amongst those who repudiate not only Parliamentary enactments in religion, but interference with the independence of churches by Synods or Conferences, Unions or aught else? But these towns, supposed by Dr. H., tlu'ough which not only no river passed, and in which no well was dug, but also on which it never rained, or whose inhal)itauts made no \ise of rain from heaven ; yea, into which no water entered but what was brought by women in pitchers and bottles, are nevertheless supjiosed to have a " neighbour- ing" supply. Is Dr. PI. quite sure that there was not neighbouring convenience for immersion 1 The determination to have always and everywhere the utmost convenience for immersion, if Divinely enjoined, may lead us — if it is fully carried out and applied — to the conclusion that the good God, the author of our rational faculties, never made some of the inconvenient and dangei'ous parts of this our Avorld. That sprinkling or pouiing is with us not necessary, in lieii of immer- sion, is evident from the existence and practice of the Baptist denomina- tion, as well as from other incontrovertible facts. Suppose that we admit the assertions of Dr. H., that the climate of Britain is unpropi- tious ; that bathing cannot always be performed without danger ; that many people are not accustomed to such an ablution ; that feelings of delicacy happily distinguish a high state of ciAdlization ; and that immer- sion involves the inconvenience of bathing-dresses, and of various decor- ous and troublesome arrangements — is it not a fact that in Britain itself tens of thousands annually practise immersion; some from expected physical advantages, arising from personal conviction ; some by the recommendation of medical friends, in order to the removal of disease or the enjoyment of augmented bodily vigour ; and some for the pleasure of bathing ? All this is done in Britain, and is going on increasingly in our "high state of civilization." The inconvenience of these more than 470 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. annual, of these oft-repeated immersions, instead of being an insuperable obstacle, or a formidable difficulty, is no bindrauce whatever ; is not even mentioned. In addition to the fact that this magnified difficulty of immersion once in a person's lifetime is pronounced by other Psedobap- tists most contemptible and worthless — and who can think differently'? — we have the express declaration of Christ : " And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv. 27). In the face of this, and for the paltry or imaginary reasons assigned, it is proposed, not as of old, in case of affliction to adopt pouring or sprink- ling, and designate it clinic baptism, but to justify pouring or sprinkling as, in this country, the substitute for immersion ! It accords with this advocacy of convenience to say, " If it could be shown that John gener- ally dipped in the Jordan, he might have dipped for precisely the same reason as we sprinkle — the coiwenience of that mode of administering the rite" ! (p. 310.) Immediately preceding are these words : " In a warm climate, where the people were accustomed to bathing, and water was not plentiful in the towns, it might have been more convenient to immei-se in a river than to sjirinkle in a city a considerable number of persons." The inconvenience of sprinkling in towns on accomit of the scai'city of water might lead to immersion in the river, in a wai'm climate, among persons accustomed to bathing ! Does this look like a drowning man catching at straws, or like a delirious man imagining their existence"? Where in the world is the city in which, or near to which, it is very difficult to obtain an immersion ; or at least, in which there would be any difficulty in obtaining sufficient water for sprinkling many more than all its inhabitants 1 The doctor's quotation respecting the women who fetched water, washed linen, &c., is no proof that facilities for immersion did not exist at that very time, in those very cities. But if sprinkling is lawful baptism, the doctor's argument in the assertions above-quoted requires that immersion in the Jordan be more convenient than sprink- ling at the Jordan, or in the Jordan, would have been. What unpre- judiced man will not inquire, if sprinkling was lawful, why did not John sprinkle them at the river 1 and he receives the satisfactory answer that he immersed in preference to spi-inkling for the sake of convenience! We are aware of the important fact communicated by another earnest Psedobaptist, that by going down into the water the administrator would have less bending of his back than if he stood by the side and reached up a few drops ; but this, we trow, does not meet the whole case. And even if it were a fact that Jolm could moi^e conveniently immci'se multi- tudes in the Jordan than sprinkle the same multitudes in Jerusalem, it would not follow that we, for tlie sake of convenience, might sprinkle. What is the import of the words describing Christ's command and apos- tolic practice ? To what extremities in advocacy of sprinkling are the most intelligent Pjedobaptists reduced ! Elsewhere Dr. H. says, " I feel bound in candour to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immei'sion." He also says, " The apostles might have baptized their Jewish proselytes according to the previous usage of their nation, because that mode was the most expedient, and usually the most convenient. In our age and climate, however, expediency would rather be a reason for sprinkling or pouring " (p. 309). What is the use of inference, however FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 471 coiTect, from premises improved ? Against the doctor's premise we record oiir solemn protest and strong objection. That John the Baptist and the apostles either practised immersion, or, deviating from immersion, prac- tised pouiing or sprinkling, from motives 0/ convenience, we maintain to be utterly destitute of proof; to be in opposition to the facts which are recorded ; and to be derogatory to theii* holy, devoted, self-denying character, and entire public career. We do not say that o\w opponents wish to insinuate this ; but in theii* earnest and unavailing endeavours to convince that bcqjtizo means to pour or sprinkle, as well as to immerse, there are many assertions respecting convenience and expediency, which, if title, would reflect on the honoured forerunner of our Redeemer, and on the ''holy apostles"; but which, being false in theii* character and unscriptural in their principle, reflect only on those from whom they emanate and by whom they are adopted. The reasoning of Dr. H. is that we have a right, for couveniency's sake, to transgress "the letter of the law," which enjoins immersing into the name, kc, and to conclude that the apostles might render Kteral obedience only for the sake of con- venience ! Inconvenience of immersion, and consequent expediency of pouring or sprinkling ! Let Christians blush at the very idea. And one and the same word describes this convenient and expedient immersion, and at other times convenient and expedient sprinkling ! That which was con- venient and expedient for proselytes to Judaism, and the Jews that were early converted to Christianity, is still " one baptism," — the same baptism, — although sprinkling is adopted as the most convenient and most expedient in the present age, and in Britain especially, where it may noiv be demanded I Is this intelligible on the part of sincere, intelli- gent, and devoted followers of Christ, except in remembrance of the power of prejudice to blind and bewilder 1 And yet this same brother can elsewhere lecture the Baptists on their delay in immersing the j^rofess- ing believer, instead of imitating the promptitude of apostolic times in bap- tizing; and can say when he subsequently takes up his pen, " But we are content with ' the standing regulation of primitive times.' On oio conside- ration of EXPEDIENCY would we innovate upon this apostolic practice " (vol. XV., p. 111). And on the following page he says, "We deny the authority of any subsecjuent teachers, under whatever pretext of EXPEDIENCY, to innovate upon the primitive practice, by interposing a course of preparatory instruction between the application of the inquirer and his baptism" (p. 112). When Dr. H. has proved that nothing more than to be "an inquirer," or to solicit baptism, was in apostolic times necessary to baptism, we will, to the fullest extent, unite with him in opposing pretexts of expediency for delay, and thus for innovating " upon the primitive practice." But how inconsistent is this condemna- tion of pretexts of expediency, when everytliing that is written by himself and by other Paedobaptists in favour of sprinkling, amounts to little more than pretexts of expediency. What are pretexts of " ease," "convenience," "facility," "propriety," "customs of the age," "refine- ment," " cKmate," but miserable pretexts of expediency ? And from no one do these come with a worse gi-ace than fi-om Dr. H., whose pen so eloquently denounces these pretexts; and whose understanding and 472 IMPORT OF BAPTis:\r. conscience will not allow him to deny that our great Redeemer and Exemplar was immersed into the Jordan, and that the apostles, after the example of John the Baptist, and in accordance with the command of Jesus to immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, immersed Jewish proselytes to Christianity. Is innovation upon primitive practice, and are considerations and pretexts of expe- diency by Predobaptist Dissenters to be winked at and allowed, when the attempt is sim])ly, in opposition to immei-sion, to enforce any application of water accordant Avith the " election " of the candidate or of the admin- istrator? We do not admit that Pajdobaptist writers are always, on the subject of exjjediency, consistent either with one another or with themselves. For the same pen which speaks of the apostles as immei's- ing according to the ])revious \isage of their nation, because that mode was the most expedient, and usually the most convenient, conjures up a vast multitude of imaginary difficulties to immersion — yea, to the immersion of Jewish proselytes ; for the Gospel was not in the beginning preached to the Gentiles — to the full weight of which, for the proving of apostolic spi'inkling or pouring in opposition to apostolic immersion, our sei'ious attention is invoked. Also the same pen which condemns every "consideration of expediency "j which says, "We are content with the standing regulation of primitive times"; and which says, "We do not plead for any one specific mode; we do not contend for sprinkling in preference to immersion, except as a question of right" (p. 233); whose argumentation " is not in opposition to immersion as a proper mode of baptism" (p. 341); this same pen advocates the practice of sprinkling alone, because the Ba]jtists do not admit its validity as well as that of immersion ! Is this being content with the standing regulation of primi- tive times? Is there in tliis nothing of expediency? Is not rather all previous advocacy of expediency complete when supplemented by the fact of clinging to sprinkling alone as the rule, because Baptists only immerse, and maintain that immersion alone is baptism ! We are aware that our friends may not designate this expedienc}', but our conviction is that, by those who denominate immersion, pouring, and sprinkling equally scriptural, nothing but the blinding influence of prepossessions can cause a disapproval of the term or an approval of the fact. The words of Dr. Harris on human legislation in matters of religion desem-e the serious consideration of Ptedobajitist advocates of couA-enience and expediency. Christ, says he, " authoritatively silences the lowest tone, the first syllable of human legislation in his worship, by proclaim- ing, ' One is your JNIaster, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren.' On conducting the Gentile world into his church, his disciples were to incul- cate the observance of His commands, and His alone, — ' teaching them to ob3ei"\-e all things whatsoever I have commanded.' This is at once the ample extent and the well-defined limits of the evangelical commis- sion. Drawing around His church a line of spiritual interdiction. He requires that before it be crossed every badge of authority be laid aside ; that every high thing which exalteth itself be left out ; and allows nothing to obtain currency and devotion within, which does not bear the mintage and impress of His image, the superscription of His name " {Great Tea., pp. 276, 277). Is it not wrong to set the example and give FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 473 tlie advice of departing from Christ's commands, as well as to enjoin it on others 1 In opposition to the pi'inciple, or the want of principle involved in the exaltation of '• convenience," " expediency," and " propriety," in oppo- sition to Divine command, we adduce the pi'aise bestowed by the apostle of the Gentiles on those who kept the ordinances as he had delivered these nnto them (1 Cor. xi. 2); the reproofs given by onr Saviour to those who made void God's commandment by human traditions (Matt, xvi. 3-9); the threatenings denounced in Isaiah xxiv. 5, on a transgress- ing of the laws and a changing of the ordinance of God ; and the con- sequences of disobedience in Nadab and Abihu, who oftered " strange fire before the Lord," and in Saul, who spared for sacrifice what he had been commanded to destroy. We do not in referring to these cases maintain that they ai'e parallel to those of our opponents ; because we believe them to approve of sprinkling and to practise it through the blinding influence of prepossessions. Nevertheless, the desirableness and the importance of obedience, and the repi'obation of exalted convenience and expedience instead of obedience, are taught in these passages, and, indeed, in many others. The diificulties which constitute the supposed right to transgress the letter of God's law, we regard as an imagined cobweb. The safety of immersion is demonstrated by facts, the strongest of all evidence. The indelicacy of immersion, unless persons carelessly or deliberately will make it so, is denied by the practice of the most civilized and refined ; whilst alleged and trifling inconveniences only clothe with shame those who adduce these as a reason for innovating upon primitive practice, and transgressing the letter of the Divine law. We are taught in Scripture to obey God rather than man ; not to fear the power of man even to take away life itself; and to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Loi'd. Is the advocacy of convenience and expediency on the subject of baptism in happy accord- ance with this? What miglit our brethren have said, if they had lived under the Mosaic economy of sacrifices, &c. ? When St. Paul came under the infliience of Christianity, in perfect accordance with our Saviour's previous teaching respecting the absolute necessity of taking up the cross and denying self, he immediately " conferred not with flesh and blood " (Gal i. 16). The objection to immersion as suitable only to a remote and barba- rous, not to this refined and enlightened age ; and the maintaining that the chui'ch is justified in making — yea, is called upon to make — such changes in the admin isti'ation of Christ's ordinances as are deemed accor- dant with our ideas of delicacy, modesty, and propriety ; and as shall consult the ease, comfort, health, and convenience of the j^arties con- cerned ; we deem a gross impeachment of the wisdom, goodness, pre- science, and legislative province of the only Head of the church, "who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen."* We allow that if sprinkling * Dr. Carson. — "If all modes are included in the meaning of the word, no mode can be more Scriptural than any other. If sprinkling is decisively more suitable and edify- ing than any other mode, does he [Dr. Miller] not bring a charge against the lustitutor for not restricting the observance to this mode?" (p. 36.5). 474j import of baptism. was advocated only from the belief that the Greek word for baptism has various meanings, our friends would not be thus chargeable ; although such an error we sho^^ld feel bound to expose, believing the sentiment to be entirely destitute of proof. Regarding our opponents as sincere in love to God, while grievously erring in sentiment and practice, we fear being deemed harsh and imjustly severe if we remind them that, under the Old Testament, God did not allow man's right to alter His institu- tions ; and that " every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward." We shall, however, dare to conclude on this with a short quotation from two or three eminent Ppedobaptists : — Dr. S. Clarke. — "In things of external appointment and mere positive institu- tion, where we cannot, as in matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning the natural reason and ground of the obligation, and the original necessity of the thing itself, we have nothing to do bvit to obey the positive command. God is infinitely better able than we to judge of the pj-oprlfty and usefulness of the things He institutes; and it becomes us to obey with humility and reverence." — Expo, of Ch. Cate..,i>]). 305, 306. Dr. R. H ALLEY. — "The symbols of our faith," "if not of Divine authority, are profane inventions of men." — Concj. Lee, p. 58. Dr. Ward LAW. — "The following reiiections must be felt by every student of his own heart to have their foundation in its natural feelings and tendencies ; and every oljserver of the conduct of others must, in many instances, have seen them exemplified: — 'The adoption of a new opinion involves a departm-e from previous habits of thinking, and a change, more or less determinate, in the associations of ideas, which is sometimes attended with a difficulty ; even in cases in which there exists the most ingenuous readiness to submit to the laws of evidence. The first impulse, upon such an occasion, is to look round in search of reasons that may authorize the contentedly resting in i^reconceived opinions ; among which reasons the real or imaginary consequences of the ojjposite opinion will not fail to have considerable influence. Examine the objections raised against any proposition with which the opponent is not already familiar ; or against any project on its being first started ; and they will appear to be founded almost entirely upon the apprehension of some contingent danger or inconvenience as its result. Let this idea be once connected with a system of opinions, and there is scarcely any degree of moral evidence, addressing itself purely to the understanding, which shall be strong enough to procure the admission of its truth. ' " — Ser. on John xviii. 36, pp. 2, 3. § 27. — FUTILITY or THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION THAT SPRINKLING ANSWERS ALL THE MORAL ENDS OF BAPTISM. Paul, the Apostle. — "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?'" — 1 Cor. i. 20. Dr. R. S. Candlish. — "It is true here, as in everything, that whosoever hunibleth himself shall be exalted. Refusing to siibniit yoiu'selves to tlie Divine Word, you may affect a superiority over the slaves of mere authority : and you may work yourselves into a state of ideal absorption into Christ little different in reaUty from the pantheistic dream of a rapturous absorption into the great mundane intelligence. But yield imi)Iicit deference to the word. Let it absolutely and uuresei-vedly rule you, as a real objective communication of His mind." "In point of fact, no tendency towards the recognition of an infallible human authority can be more direct and strong than that which the denial of an infallible objective standard of Divine trutli implies." — Ex. Hall Lee, 18.51, p. 555. Dr. Wari)l.4.w. — "As a general and primary principle, it is to my mind axiomatically evident that the rule or law of the subject's conduct can be nothing else than a declaration, in what way soever imparted, of the will of the Sovereign Ruler. The two propositions, indeed, that man is a subject of the Divine government, and that the will of the Divine Governor is His law, I cannot but regard as of identically tlie same import. ... If there be a God, He must rule : and if He rules, His will must be His law." "It is not only our safest ground, — it is our only legitimate and reasonable ground, — that the virtue or moral rectitude of a subject of God's moral government consists in conformity of principle and conduct, of lieart and life, to the will of the Governor, — a Governor who is necessarily supreme, and whose will, to all His inteUigent creatures, is infallible and unimpeachable law." — Conrj. Lee, pp. 110, 118. Dr. E. Henderson. — " Taught from above, he confesses his ignorance and imbecility, clings to the volume wliich contains a perfect revelation of the character, will, and government of God ; and discovering in it a light sufficient to conduct him in safety throiigh all the labyrinths of the present state, and introduce liim with joyful hope into a better, he is jealous for its honour, and FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 475 frowns on every attempt to improve upon its contents." "It claims our most profound reverence and submission." "A spirit of genuine humility, child-like simplicity, and deep attention, must ever characterize the man who gives it a suitable reception." "Where such a spirit is found, unreserved submission, both of intellect and heart, will be its certain concomitant. Instead of proudly opposing the statements of Scripture, because they may not accord with preconceived notions or favourite hypotheses, there will be a cheerful relinquishment of everything that is inconsistent with the will of God." — Com/. Lee, pp. 2, 382, 383. Dr. K. W. Hamilton. — "There is a rule before them which they understand, or, which is the same thing for our argument, might understand." "Are they absolved from obligation to that law which they thus slight and supersede?" "It is to conflict with all fact and all evidence to represent the moral standard among our species as variable and fluctuating." Thomas Aquinas. — "It belongs to the signifier to determine what sign is to be used for the signification : but God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the sacraments. " — In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38. J. Stacey. — "The authority of men, though learned and pious, is worthless when set against the authority of God ; and tradition, valuable in its own subordinate sphere, becomes unmixedly pernicious when employed to propound a doctrine or establish an ordinance." — The Sac, p. 17. On this objection to immersion we adopt the words of an opponent: "We dispute the premises, and for this reason diso^vTi the objection." Also, if we were certain ihht sprinkling might fully answer all the moral ends of baptism, we should not be justified in svibstituting it, or ought else, for the Divinelj-enjoined immersion. That sprinkling, equally with immersion, answers, or that it can fully answer all the moral ends of baptism, we do not admit. It answers a moral end by its emblematical significance, and by the influence which it thus exerts over the heart and life. But neither entire pollution, which is through sin, nor entire cleansing, which is through the blood of Christ, is so solemnly and significantly represented by sprinkling as by immersion. Is sprinkling with water as significant an emblem of the washing away of sin as immersion? Sprinkling is inferior to immersion as a test of love and obedience to the Lord Jesus, otherwise the repeated declarations of "difficulty," as attendant on one, and of "convenience" and "ease," as attendant on the other, are a gross fabrication. If sprinklmg can at all represent a change of heart, a new birth, coming into a new condition and relationship, and, as it were, into a new world, it is certainly very inferior to immersion in the symbolizing of these facts, and constituting, as the initiatory ordinance, the boundary line betwixt the world and the professing church of Christ. What is there in sprinkling, as in immer- sion, to remind us of Christ's overwhelming sufferings, and of His death, burial, and resurrection, or to represent any of these facts 1 We are aware that the idea of Christ's burial and resurrection being represented in immersion is treated by Dr. Hailey as a profanity, and that Mr. Stacey has copied his remarks on this aivful circumstance. We admit, inasmuch as blood, and blood mixed with water, or with water and the ashes of a red heifer, was sprinkled under the former dispensation, that sprinkling, if it had been ordained, would not have been without its significance. But to the inferiority of sprinkling, were we "permitted to make the substitution," some of the most eminent Psedobaptists have borne explicit and ample testimony in quotations previously given. (See Wesley, Doddridge, Whitby, and many others, quoted on Bom. vi. 2-4.) But especially dwell on the words of inspiration: "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein % Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death % There- fore we are buried with Him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised uj) from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together 47<5 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. ia the likeness of His deatli, ■\ve sliall be also in the likeness of His I'esurrection : knowing this, that oni" old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might he destro_yed, that henceforth we should not ser^'e sin," &c. Are we buried equally by sprinkling as by immersion ? Or can a man sprinkled, with the same propriety be said to be buried by it, as the }nan who is immersed can be said to be buried by immersion 1 Is sprinkling, equally with immersion, a practical declaration of Mth in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord 1 or equally with immer- sion a practical declaration of putting off the old man and putting on the new man, of dying unto sin, and rising unto newness of life ? Is one equally with the other appropriate as the sign of a separation from the world, of faith in the resurrection of the body, and the enjoyment of etei-nal life 1 If the last should not be implied in baptism, there is more than enough to ])rove the futility of the pre*!ent objection. Besides, if the woi'd used by Christ cannot be proved to mean anything else than to immerse, and if the apostolic practice undoubtedly was immersion, they are wise above what is written, wiser than the great and blessed God himself, who can find a siib.stitute for what God has apj^oiuted, that shall fully answer all the moral ends of baptism, and without doubt shall have additional advantage from its greater "ease," "propriety," and " convenience." To Dr. Halley's assertion on this subject, that " signs are not of the slightest value any further than they symbolize the evangelical truth," we give a reply in his own words to t/ie Friends, that "the symbols of our faith which" are "not of Divine authority, are profane inventions of men." The following from Pasdobaptists are con- ceived also to accord with the reply of the doctor to himself : — Dr. Owen. — ^^ Divine institution alone is that wliich render.? anytliiug acceptable to God." "A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God." Archibald Hall, the predecessor of Dr. Waugh: "All our worship must be regulated by Gospel institution, that it may be performed according to the appoint- ment of Christ, as King of the church." "When Divine autliority is interposed to point out the will of God concerning any service which is enjoined for standing use among the saints, siich service ouglit to be observed without any regard to the manners and usages of mankind ; because both the substance and the manner of it are the institution of Christ." M. i)E LA RoQUE, speaking of Protestants in regard to sprinkling, ingenuously confesses: "The greatest part of them hithei'to baptize onlj^ by sprinkling: but it is certainly an abuse ; and this practice which they have retained from the Romish church, without a due examination of it, as well as many other things which they still retain, i-enders their l)aptism very defective. It corrupts both the institution and ancient usage of it, and the relation it ought to have to faith, repentance, and regenei'ation. Monsieur Bossuet's remark, that dipi)ing was in use for thirteen hundred years, deserves our serious considei'ation, and our acknowledgment there- upon, that we have not sufficiently examined all that we have retained from the Romish church; that seeing her most learned ])relates now inform lis that it was she who first abolished a usage authorized by so many strong reasons, and by so many ages, that she has done very ill on this occasion, and that we are obliged to return to the ancient practice, and to the institution of Jesus Christ. I do not say that baptism by aspersion is null ; that is not my oi)inion : but it must be confessed, if sprinkling desti'oys not the substance of liaptism, j'et it alters it, and in some sort corrupts it : it is a defect which spoils its lawful form." — In Steunett's Answer to jRussen, pp. 185, 18G. Dr. Belfrage, in his Practical Exposition of the Shorter Catechism, teaches that no one, whatever his station in the church, shoidd "fancy himself entitled to pi'escribe the use of any symbols in worship" (p. 410). Are we entitled to alter FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 477 for oiirselves any more than to prescribe to others ? In perfect consistency with the preceding, and in rightful application thereof, is the following from a Baptist : — J. Stennett. — "If the ordinance of baptism receives its virtue from the law of Christ, then it must be performed according to that law, if we Avould receive a blessing in it. If the law of any country appoints a gxeat quantity of pepper-corns to be paid as homage for a certain manor, one pepper-corn will not siiffice; and if Christ has ordained that a great quantity of water should be used iu baptism, a few drojis are not sufficient. The will of our great Lawgiver mnst strictly govern us in this and all other matters relating to His worship. And as bread in the Lord's Sujiper is not sufficient for the administration of that ordinance without the addi- tion of wine according to Christ's institution, nor will a less quantity of either suffice than is necessary to the acts of eating and drinking ; so a less qiiantity of water will not suffice for baptism than what is enoiigh for the immersion of the person to be baptized." "The things designed to be represented by baptism, viz., Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and our dying to sin and risiug to a new life, cannot be fitly represented by "sprinkling," "nor our Savioui-'s institution answered by it; nor can there properly be baptism where there is no immersion, these being words of the same sense, and differing only in the sound, as one is Latin, and the other Greek." — Answer to Russen, p. 136.* § 28. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMEKSION THAT SCRIPTURE SAITH, "l WILL HAVE MERCY, AND NOT SACRIFICE." Dr. Wardlaw. — "It is quite pos.sible to argue on exceedingly plausible grounds ; . . . but let the case be ever so plausible ■which human sagacity may reason out, it is still but a hazardous ground on which to place the determination of anything that relates to God's institutions and designs. The infinitely Wise might say, in regard to all the devices of our wisdom, 'My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways.' He might say so here. . . . What saith the Scripture? This is the decision to which we must bow." — On Ch. Est., p. 9. Dr. Paley. — "The difference between natural and positive duties is often more in the name than in the thing." " There is the same reason to each of us for bearing our part in these obser- vances that there is for discharging the most acknowledged duties of natural religion. When I say the reason is the same, I mean that it is the same in kind." " When men accustom themselves to look upon positive duties as universally and necessarily inferior to moral ones, as of a subordinate species, as placed upon a different foundation, or as unworthy of being made a part of their plan of life, or of entering into their sense of obligation, they appear to be egregiously misled by names." — In Prim. Church Mucj., 1854, p. 311. Dr. N. MACLEOD. — "If ci-eeds be, as they ought to be, but expressions of an inner life, 'forms of sound words ' draping the living truth ; and it denominations, careful to preserve that charity which is the 'bond of perfectness,' are but, as they ought to be, towers of strength for combined resistance and aggression, then in proportion as we value our Christianity, these, its exjiressions and habitations, will be regarded and sustained." — Good Words, vol. i., pp. 87, 88. Dr. S. Davidson — "It is superfluous to remark that such as are solicitous to preserve and defend, are also solicitous to diffuse the truth, so that others may be brought to adojjt it. Those who holdfastt are the very j^ersons who hold forth the word of life." — Confj. Lee, p. 303. Dr. Ryland.^ " Thou, Lord, art my sun and my shield ; Tliy beams are the source of my day ; Thou only canst give me the field ; Thou only canst in-osiier my way. * Mr. Macallan, a Baptist, having spoken of immerse as the acknowledged meaning of haptizo, and of Christ's command to immerse, says: "If He did intend immersion, and intended by immersion to rei^resent not merely purification, but also fellowship in His .sufferings, death, and resurrection (Rom. vi. 3-6), what Christian, who is convinced that this is the case, will decline compliance with that intention ? If it be said, a drop of vmter is as good as the ocean for ceremonial purification, we grant it, if God appoint it for that purpose ; but if God commands an immersion, it is not for us to say a drop v:ill do, any nioi-e than if He were to command sprinkling, it would be lawful for us to have recourse, as an improvement, to immersion. On the same jn-iuciple it might be urged, that to look at a crucifix would be as good a memorial of Christ's death as to eat the bread and drink the wine of the communion, according to His command ; but few, we presume, would feel at liberty to substitvite the one for the other" (On Bap., pp. IS, 19). Mr. M. is not so strong as was the Presbyterian "First Book of Discipline," from the last sentence of which we, along with the i^resent Presbyterians, shall beg leave to differ: "Whosoever presumeth in baptism to use oyle, salt, waxe, spittle, conjuration, and crossing, accuseth the perfect institution of Christ Jesus of imperfection ; for it was void of all such inventions devised by men. And such as would presume to alter Christ's perfect ordinance you ought severely to punish." — In Dr. Hetherington's His. of the Ch. of Scot, vol. i., p. 408. 478 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. "The ■wayfaring man, though a fool, Thy light shall conduct to his home; And all that submif io Thy rule, Through Thee shall in war overcome." Dr. E. Henderson. — "Against conjectural emendations we ought to be .specially on our guard." —Cong. Lcc, p. 386. Dr. J. Burns. — "We should also remember that Christ's instructions are all binding and authoritative ; we cannot refuse any of His truths without incurring His displeasure. We must, therefore, receive the whole truth as it is in Jesus, And we must buy it, and sell it not. And the great end of all is that we may embody Christ's instrflctions in our lives. We must learn, that we may practise. If we know these things, happy are we if we do them." — Gol. Pot of Manna, p. 542. Dr. W. H. Stowell. — " Instead of appealing to the most ancient documents, and the only authoritative standards of Christian truth, the advocates for church notions are evermore apijealing to the Fathers." " They may admit that the writers styled Fathers are competent witnesses of facts coming under their own observation." "Immediate reasons are ever at hand to press on Christians the important truth that no doctrine is religious, if it be not taught by the Holy Spirit ; and that this teaching is to be sought in the writings of the New Covenant." " The errors of man- kind have beeu the natural consequence of departure from the Scriptures ; there is no remedy but in returning to the Scriptures." — Coiuj. Lee, jjp. ITS, 190, 191. Dr. E. W. Hamilton.— "We deny not ingenuity to some methods of reasoning." "Let us honour law as the crowning blessing of blessings." — Cong. Lee, pp. 55, 75. Bishop Wilson says : " Our own cliurcli aiitliorizes baptism by immersion, except where parents can plead tlie inability of the infant by reason of health. But baptism liy affusion, except in the coldest regions of Christendom, where necessity dictates it, seems quite agreeable to the general goodness of God, who 'will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' " — Lee. on Col., p. 245. Poole, on Matt, xxviii. 18-20, says: "It is true the first baptisms of which we read in Holy Writ were by dippings of the persons baptized. It was in a hot country, where it might be at any time without the danger of persons' lives; where it may be, we judge it reasonable, and most resembling our hurled vnth Christ by hajytism into death: but we cannot think it necessary, for God loveth mercy rather than sacrifice; and the thing signified by baptism, namely, the washing away the soul's sins with the blood of Christ, is in Scripture expressed to us by pouring and sprinkling (Eze. xxxvi. 25; Hcb. xii. 24; 1 Peter i. 2)."* In the passages referred to we find no mention of pouring. On supposition that the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ was expressed by spruik- ling and pouring, this would not aiithoi'ize us to substitute sprinkling or pouring for the immersion which is enjoined in the Christian institute. That sprinkling is not equally significant of the truths professed and symbolically represented in baptism, we have just stated, and briefly endeavoured to prove, in accordance with the admission of the quotation on Matt, xxviii. 18-20. And that God, in instituting the Chi-istian ordinance, intended it to be local or temporary, we have not read in any part of His own oracles. That He has given a command, to the obedience of which, as a ride, He mercifully excepts, is preposterous. If the com- mand is of such a character as to require this, its Author is necessarily austere or unwise, or both, in enjoining it; and if the command does not require such exceptions, a granting of them is by the Judge of all the * " In hot countries this was usual, to baptize by dipping the body in tlie water; and to this the apostle alludes when ho tells the Corintliiaus (1 Cor. vi. 11) that they are washed ; but God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. ... It is not the more or the less of the outward element which makes the sacraments effectual, l)ut they arc effectual only as they are God's apiiointment, and attended upon according to His will " (Poole's Com., on Acts viii. 38). If the weird of command is to immerse, in accoi'dance with which apostolic baptism was immersion, can sprinkling or pouiing possibly be " according to His ^vill " 1 FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 479 earth an encoitragemenfc of trifling with His own institutions, of disobe- dience to His own enactments. If sprinkling is pleaded for as an exception, in cases where immersion is deemed impracticable or unsafe, as in the instance of a person afflicted and probably dying, as was the case with Novatus, in the time of Cyprian, when the first recorded instance of a dej^ai-ture from immersion took place, it becomes a question whether a substitute for what God has enjoined can be acceptable to God, or whether the thing enjoined being regarded as impracticable, the obligation to attend to the oi'dinance does not in the circumstances cease. Is it not more likely that the obligation ceases than that God should approve of what He has not in any supposable emergency directed or suggested as a substitute 1 Do we in case of impracticable obedience to other commands adopt a substitute, and pass off the same with a borrowed or stolen name 1 But oiu' friends claim the right of sprinkling or pouring in ANY case, because the Lord " loveth mercy rather than sacrifice." The words of Lord L}i:tleton may here be applied: "True philosophy, as well as true Christianity, would teach us a wiser and modester spirit. It would teach us to be content within those bounds which God has assigned to us" (On The Conv. of St. Paul, p. 67). Suppose that the pei'sons who plead for defensive war as being justifiable, were in practice continually urging aggressive war, who would not regard their defence as inapplicable, and their practice under such cii-cumstances as monstrous? "A false position," says Bishop Watson, "mxist end in an absurd conclusion" \A2)ol., p, 10), For our own "convenience," further replies to this interesting but jDerverted passage shall be, first, in the language of Mr. Booth, then in that of Psedobaptists, and, lastly, in that of inspiration. Mr. Booth, having referred to excuses for deviating from Divine dii'ections, says : — " From the preceding reflections it appears, I think, with superior evideuce, that the sacred maxim, ' I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,' must be misapplied when urged against ns. For if it will apply so as to justify sprinkling in a cold country, when immersion was intended by our Lord, submitted to by Him, com- manded by Him, and practised by the ajiostles, it woidd certainly have applied much more strongly in many cases under the former economy ; for the maxim is founded in moral truth, which is the same in all ages and in every nation. That God loves mercy better than sacrifice, was always a fact, since man transgressed and ceremonial obedience was required : nor did our Lord give the least intimation, by His application of that important saying, of anything contained in it being pecidiar to Gospel times. The Christian dispensation is indeed much superior to that of the ancient Hebrews: but that superiority is far from consisting in our having more liberty to neglect, alter, or transgress the Di-vine appointments than they had. For as Mr. Eeeves observes, 'When God says that He "will have mercy, and not sacrifice," it is not to be understood as if God would have any of His laws broken' [Apologies, vol. ii., p. 217). Bellarmine, when vindicating a mutilated administration of the holy supper, argues upon a sujiposition of the Gospel 'church having a greater Uberty than the chiu-ch under the law; though she have no power to alter things of a moral, but only such as are of a positive nature' (In Morning Exercise Against Popery, p. 777). How lamentable and how shamefid to think of eminent Protestants adopting the principle, and arguing upon it, in favoirr of pouring and sprinkling ! For I am persiiaded that none of them ever considered the Jewish church as authoi'ized by these words, ' I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,' to alter any Divine appointment. Shall Christians, then, make more free w4th Divine authority than Jews? Far be it ! That would repre- sent the Holy One of God the minister of sin, woidd be contrary to Scripture and reason, to conscience and common sense. The disciples of Christ are as much 480 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. obliged to regard tlie positive laws of the New Testament with strict punctuality, as the Jews were to observe their Divine ritual contained in the books of Moses. Nay, our superior privileges arc so many additional motives to perpetual obedience. Whenever any one, tlierefore, is inclined to substitute aspersion for plunging, on a supposition of the latter being l)urdensome or indelicate, upon the foundation of those condescending words, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,' he should recollect that command of God to Abraham, ' Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,' and see how far the gracious declaration would have applied there, before he A^entures to alter a positive a2)pointment of Christ on that ground. "Here, also, the ai'gument used by Protestant Pa?dobaptists in opposition to immersion is like that of the Papist against communion in both kinds. For thus we find Salmero argues : ' If it had not been lawful from the laeginning of the church to communicate imder one species, either very many must have been entirely deprived of commimion, or obliged to that which they could not perform ; as is manifest with regai-d to those who have not plenty of wine, which is the case with many in the northern parts of the world ; in respect to those who arc abstemious, and of those that are not able to drink wine without a nausea being excited. . . . Seeing, therefore, that the yoke of our Lord is easy, and His burden light, it shoiUd not be believed that He reqiiires what is impossible, or that He obliges to commxi- nicate under both kinds' (Apud Chamierum, Paustrat., tom. iv., 1. ix. , c. iv., §25). That Mr. Horsey took the hint from Salmero I dare not assert, nor do I believe; but be that as it may, he has learned to argue against plunging as a grievous hard- ship, and that from the same text which is pleaded by the Papal veteran for com- munion in one kind. For he says : ' Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden light. His commandments are not grievous' {!»/. Bap. Def., p. 20): and hence, among other things, he infers that immersion is not the pro[>er mode of proceeding. This brings to remembrance a good-natured rule which Po]iish casuists have given for the interpretation of Divine laws, with a view to relieve scrupulous consciences. The rule to which I adveit, as jiroduced by Mr. Clarkson, is this : Persons ' must persuade themselves that they sin not, though they break the law in a strict sense, if they observe it according to some complainant interpretation. A benign sense is rather to be put upon any precept than that which is strict ; for the precejits of God and the church are not against that plramntness which a scrupulous interpreta- tion takes away.' On which Mr. Clarkson makes the following remark: 'That a person may be the better pleased, he may make the interpretation himself, and so make it as benign as he desires, and as favourable as his inclination and interest would have it. For though in other courts the interpretation belongs to him who makes the law, j'et according to their St. Antonius, in the court of conscience it belongs to every one to do it for his own sake.' — Prac. Dh\ of Paphts, ]ip. 384, 385. "Were it allowable to prosecute the hint which some of these learned authors give, that is, for chai'ity and necessity to erect a court of chancery, to sit in judgment on the equity of God's commands, and either mitigate their severitj' or dispense with them as we think proper, something indeed might then be done that would effectually obviate those shivering apprehensions, and that painful, modest feeling, which the word hapitize might otherwise excite in the breasts of some. Nor would the relief afforded liy such a court be confined to the frightful idea of plunging ; for it would extend its benign influence to every other case in which our sovereign wills happen to clash with positive laws ; l)ecause the uniform language of its deci-ees would be tliat of Peter to Christ, Spare Thyself. While, how- ever, the validity of such a court of equity remains doiditful, it will be our wisdom when the Most High speaks, not to reason and object, but to adore and obey. "How strange that Protestant authors should ever talk of dispensing witli Divine laws, or of mitigating their severity! Not much more detestable, tliough a little more blunt, is the well-known saying ascrilied to Alpluniso : ' Si ajo adfitissem, melius ordinassem'' (If I had been present, I would have ordered it better). But let the learned A^ossius assert, if he please, 'That we are compelled .' By what? Not the appointment of Christ; not the design of the ordinance; nor j'et by apostolic prat'tice ; but by something which he calls the law of cJiarili/, and of necessity to retain sprinkling in our churches' (Dis}ni. de Bap. Disp. i., § 9): we had much rather adhere to that excellent maxim of Turretiue, ' The a])poiutmeut of God is to us the highest law, the supreme necessity' (Inst. TheoL, loc. xix., quaes. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 481 xiv., § 14). With sincerity and zeal may we adopt the language of Dr. Cotton Mather, and say : ' Let a precept be never so difficult to obey, or never so distasteful to flesh and blood, yet if I see it is God's command, my soul says, It is good; let me obey it till I die' (Life, by Dr. Jennings, p. US). Dr. Witherspoon has remarked that, 'when men will not conform their practice to the principles of pure and undefiled religion, they scarce ever fail to endeavour to accommodate religion to theiu own practice ' ( Treatise on Regen. , p. 1 78) . Matt. Henry also has justly observed tbat, 'in sacraments, where there is appointed something of an outward sign, the inventions of men have been too fruitfvil of additions [and of alterations too], for which they have pleaded a great deal of decency and signiticancy ; while the ordi- nance itself hath been thereby miserably obscured and corrupted' {Treatise on Bap., p. 153)."— Vol. i., pp. 292-129G. The celebrated MoNTESQurEU thus reasons on the unalterable nature of Divine laws: "It is in the nature of human laws to be subject to all the accidents which can happen, and to vary in propoi-tion as the will of man changes; on the contrary, by the nature of the laws of religion, they are never to vary. Human laM's ajuioint for some good; those of religion for the best: good may have another object, because thei-e are many kinds of good ; but the best is but one : it cannot, therefore, change. We may change laws because they are reputed no more than good ; but the institutions of religion are always supposed to be the best." — Spirit of Laws, b. xxvi., c. ii. The famed Ciiarnock says: "The wisdom of God is affronted and invaded by introducing new rules and modes of worship, different from Divine institutions. Is not this a manifest reflection on this perfection of God, as though He had not been wise enough to provide for His own honour, and model His own service ; but stood in need of oiu- directions, and the capricios of our brains ? Some have observed that it is a greater sin, in worship, to do what we should not, than to omit what we should perfoi-m. The one seems to Ije out of weakness, because of the high exactness of the law ; and the other out of impudence, accusing the wisdom of God of imper- fection, and controlling it in its institutions. Whence should this proceed but from a partial atheism and a mean conceit of the Divine wisdom ? As though God had not understanding enough to prescribe the form of His own worship; and not wisdom enougli to support it without the crutches of human prudence. . . . The laws of God, who is summa ratio (the cliief reason), are purely founded upon the truest reason, though every one of them may not be so clear to us. Therefore they that make alteration in His precepts, either dogmatically or practically, control His wisdom and charge Him with folly. ... It is certainly inexcusable folly to con- tradict undeniable and infallible wisdom. If infinite prudence hath framed the law, why is not every part of it observed? If it were not made with the best wisdom, why is anything of it observed?" — On Mail's Enwitij to God, pp. 11'2, 113. Aechtbald Hall saj's: " All that concerns the glory of God is unerringly and unalterably settled in the Word of God, w"hicli is 'not yea and nay.' It does not accommodate its doctrines to succeeding periods of time, nor to the changing tempers, humours, or fashions of place ; like its Divine Autlior, it is ' the same j'esterday, to-day, and for ever.' "—Gospel Cliurch, \). 52. The Rev. W. £. Boaedman, in illustrating the importance of obedience, makes a supposition respecting Daniel: "Now, for the sake of illustration, suppose the faith of this noble servant of God had been reversed ; suppose, when the commands of the king and of God came into collision, he had dune as, alas ! too many do, obeyed man rather than God, and yet trusted to the clemency of God that He would not be angry with him, even though he did disobey, — made the goodness of God a presumption that all would be well at the last, though the Word of God was set at nought. Would God, think you, have left siich a testimony on record as the exclamation of the angel, ' O Daniel, a man greatly beloved ' of the Lord ! " Subsequently we read: "'Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children,' says our Saviour, ' ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' The child is both obedient and docile. His father commands, and he knows it is right to obey, and trusts entirely in his father's judgment and integi-ity, doing at once what his father bids, even when he knows nothing at all of the reasons for the command." — Higher Christian Life, pp. 81, 82, 89. Many of our opponents zealously endeavour to convince us that 482 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. immersion is no part of Christianity because it is not so easy as sprink- ling ! and that if immersion was the apostolic "mode of baptism," we may for the sake of convenience and mercy shirk this great hardship, and practise affusion or aspersion ! More coiTectly Dr. Barnes, on The Right Religion : — ' ' There are four kinds of religion upon the earth, assuming the power to effect great objects : that of sentiment, that of form, that of feeling, and that of principle. The religion of principle consists in the intelligent adoption of a rule of right, and adhering to it. The rule is adopted, not from whim, or caprice, or custom, or civil authority, but because it is the luill of God. It is ado^ited, not because it is beautifid, not because it will contribute to popular favour, but because it is true. It may appear rough and rugged, harsh and severe ; it may infringe on many customs in society, or even the laws of the land ; it may require that our strong natural feelings should be suppressed, and the tender ties which bind to country and home should be sundered ; but the wiU of God is regarded final in the case. It is not whether the matter at stake is of greater or less value, or whether what is done will be blazoned abroad or will be unknown. What is done is done because it is right, not because it is beautiful or grand ; what is resisted is opposed because it is wrong, not because it is an evil of vast magnitude, and the resistance will immortalize the man. In matters indifferent, and not enjoined by the high authority of God, it is as gentle as the breathings of an infant, and yielding as an osier or an aspen leaf. But in all that is matter of duty, it is like the oak on the hills. There it stands, its root fixed deep in the earth, and perchance clasping some vast rocks below the surface, its long arms stretched out, and its upright trunk defying. There it stands, the same whether the sun shines calmly upon it, or the heavens gather anger, or pour iipon it the f luy of a storm. " He who spake as never man spake, said: " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verOy I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whoso- ever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you. That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Phai-isees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. v. 17-20). "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much : and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much" (Luke xvi. 10). The Spirit of inspii-ation, through James, has left it on recoixl : " But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves " (James i. 22). " For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet ofi'end in one point, he is guilty of all." — James ii. 10. § 29. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION, THAT IN SPRINKLING, POURING, OR ANY APPLICATION OF WATER, THE COMMAND OF GOD IS SUBSTANTIALLY OBEYED. Jesus Christ. — "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradi- tion."— Matt. XV. 6. Luke, the Evangelist. — "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." — Acts xvii. 11. Paul, the Apostle. — "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." — 1 Thess. v. 21. Dr. J. MoRlsoN. — " We argue the all-sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith, from its avowed object as a revelation from God." " We a.ssert respecting the Bible, that its avowed object pro- claims it to be the only and all-sufficient rule of faith. AVhat, we may confidently ask, was the design of God at any time in revealing himself to His creatures, but that they might thereby be enabled to know and do His will?"— If om. for the Times, pp. 43, 45. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 483 J. Gilbert. — " So fascinating are the productions of great minds, that it is not easy to suspect them of mistake."— Co Jigr. Lee, p. 6. Dr. Wardlaw. — " The first lecture will siiflSciently show the light in which I regard all trimming on such subjects between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of men." "Instead of any abstract fitnesses being the standard or measure of the Divine nature, th^ Divine nature must itself be the origin and the standard of all fitnesses" (Cong. Lee, pp. viii. 154). "The alteration of an old con- stitution, or the setting aside of an old law, as was formerly hinted, requires an express precept as much as the appointment of a constitution or law entirely new." — Inf. Bap., p. 36. BoBT. Lee. — "Now all reason requires that he who walks forth to detect false weights and measures, should be furnished with others which are true ; a standard must be fixed before we pronounce this or that a deviation." — Lee. on Est., p. 3. Dr. Owen. — "All things concerning the worship of God, and the whole church or house now under the Gospel, are no less perfectly and completely ordered and ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ than they were by Moses under the law." — In Stovel's Rec, p. 8. Dr. J. Waddington.— "He trained them, therefore, on all subjects interesting to their minds as His disciples, to inquire, ' What saith the Scripture ?' " "It is said of Eobert Hall, that ' he con- stantly referred with an increasing explicitness in the more advanced periods of his ministry to revelation, as the supreme and final authority. No preacher or writer on subjects of divinity was ever more faithful to the principle that all doctrines professing to be Christian must, both in their statement and proof, be founded on the Scriptures ; whatever further light or corroboration they may admit from independent reason, or from matter of fact. It is undei-stood that it cost him, at an early season of his life, a great effort, with respect to some particular opinions, to subdue his speculative disposition to such an uncompromising submission to that avithority as to renounce, not only the presumptions which place themselves in contravention to the Scriptures, but all the expedients of a forced or evasive interpretation of them. But the submission became absolute and perpetual.' " — Emmau.t, pp. 224; 227, 228. Bp. Butler. — "Now, if God has given a revelation to mankind, and commanded those things which are commanded in Christianity, it is evident at first sight that it cannot in any wise be an indifferent matter whether we obey or disobey those commands ; unless we are certainly assured that we know all the reasons for them, and that all those reasons are now ceased with regard to mankind in general, or to ourselves in particular; and it is absolutely impossible we can be assured of this."— Anal., p. 195, Bohn's edition. Dr. Paley. — "If it be commanded, — and we have sufficient reason to believe that it is so, — ^it matters nothing whether the obligation be moral or natural, positive or instituted. He who places before him the wiU of God as the rule of his life, wiU not refine or even dwell mixch iipon this dis- tinction. The ordinances of Christianity, it is true, are all of them significant. Their meaning, and even their \ise, is not obscure. But were it otherwise, — was the design of any positive institu- tion inexpUcable ; did it appear to have been proposed only as an exercise of obedience, — it is not for us to hesitate in our compliance." — In Prim. Church Mag., 1854, p. 311. Dr. E. W. Hamiltox.— " The Divine law is good, is ordained to life, is full of blessing. What had been apostate angel, what lapsed man, had law been their monitor and defence?" "Error is insidious in its appr^ches. It flatters by liberality, and betrays by sophism." — Cong. Lee, pp. 197, 405. Dr. J. Bennett. — "We are men of one book; trembling at the curse denounced on him that shall add to the Word of God."— Con?. Lee, p. 271. Dr. R. Vaugh.an. — "The mission of the Saviour was to found His clnirch, and to institute that order for her benefit best adapted to her need ; and to attempt to supplement or amend what He had thus completed, was to reflect on Him as a defective instructor who had not attained to our standard of wisdom and goodness." — Revo, in Eng. His., vol. i., pp. 566, 567. Dr. Gumming teaches that " Christianity is not a religion of rigid, external, unbending forms;" and that "the ceremony must always give way to the sukstance" [Sab. Eve. Eea., on Matt., p. 20). If we were to admit these premises, we should oppose the inference that though God has commanded to immerse into the name, &c., man is at liberty to commute this immersion, for the sake of convenience and comfort, into sprinkling. Mr. Horton says that sprinkling or pouring will do; that " it is simply a matter of private taste, or at best of public opinion." — In Tes. of Em. Paid., p. 63. It is also asserted by our opponents "that the whole question at issue is one of form and not of siibstance ; of ceremony and not of truth" (Stacey, p. 173); that "the ordinance itself being only a sign of evangelical truth, the recognition of the trath signified in obedience to the command of Christ comprehends all that is essential or important " (Dr. Halley, p. 242); and "that we have full liberty, according to the principles of interpretation stated in the New Testament, in construing the words which relate to a positive institution, to consider its nature and design, and preserving the integrity of the emblem, to adopt in exhibiting it any mode which is in accordance with its nature, and by 484 LMPORT OF BAPTISM. which its design may be carried into efiect" (Do.). Where these prin- ciples of interpretation are, to whicli Dr. Halley refers, we know not ; unless his tlionghts revert to " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," to which we have already adverted. He says that "the signs are not of the slightest value any further than they symbolize the evangelical truth " (Do.). We have already maintained that neither poiiring nor sprinkling does symbolize all the evangelical tniths taught in Christian baptism ; that neither of them equally with immersion symbolizes any of the truths therein set forth ; and that the sign itself, — namely, immersion, — instead of being "ordained by an uninspired church," is ordained by the very highest authority. We have also quoted Dr. Halley as asserting that " the symbols of our faith," " if not of Divine authority, are profane inventions of men." We do not disbelieve the sincerity of our Psedo- baptist brother when he says, " We interpret the command of Christ in the spirit which, as we believe, He himself lias recommended" (j). 24:2); but we believe him to be thoroughly mistaken, and to be subverting a Divine ordinance. If Christ has commanded immersion, it certainly cannot be altered without being deteriorated, however sincere men may be in their mistakes ; although it is infinitely worse when men knoAV- ingly dare to pervert the right ways of the Lord. Let it not be sup- posed that we regai-d ourselves as intellectually equal to all on whom we animadvert : we niaintaru that on this siibject our ojiponents are griev- ously blinded by prejudice. We cannot say respecting all Pajdobaptists what we can say respecting some. Some are conducted, to use the words of Dr. H., of observing " forms because they are enacted by that notori- ous usiirper called ecclesiastical authority " (pp. 24:2, 243). If Baptists are mistaken — which Ave believe is not the case — in regard to the import of Christian baptism, they are rendering obedience to what they believe Christ has enjoined. We do not talk about what an uninsjjired cluirch has ordained, nor about this and the other licence, and the sufiiciency of a congruity of the sign with the thing signified, as if it was o\ir province to judge what is proper, insteatl of its being our proAnnce to obey Avhat God has enjoined. We do not in baptism ado2:)t Avhat we designate a form more exjjedient in tJiis age, and 7)iore accordant tvith modern feelings ; nor do we say, " In baptism we retain the sign, — the use of \Aater, — if Ave change tlie mode." Nor do Ave, after Ave haA'e admitted that Chi'ist has commanded "immersing into the name of the Fathei-," &c., recom- mend and ])iactise Avhat Ave ourseh^es can designate "a pretence to immer- sion, a shadoAv of a washing" (see Dr. H., p. 249). Our ])ractice rests, Ave belicA'c, not on doubtful inferences and unpioA'ed analogies, but on positive precepts, clear examples, and the meanings of Avords, not merely estab- lished as meanings l)y every admitted canon of interpretation, but admitted even by our o])ponents themselves to be the primary meanings. To the adA-ocates of "any application of water," our reply is, "We are not jier- mitted to make the substitution;" nor Avill A\^e designate the adojition of a human substitute substantial obedience to a Divine command. In the words of a Baptist, Ave say that the Avhole inquiiy " relates to the import of the Saviour s law. The thing that He commands His people to per- form, it is their duty to do ; and not some other thing, which men may think Avill do as Avell, in its place. It is the duty of subjects acting FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 485 under Divine authority, not to legislate, but to obey ; and in order that they may be obedient, the utmost care should be taken to learn the meaning of the Saviour's words" (Stovel's Dis., p. 479). Hence, says a Ptedobaptist already quoted, "If sprinkling destroys not the substance of baj)tism, yet it alters it, and in some sort corrupts it j it is a defect which spoils its lawful form." Dr. OwEK, on altering Christ's appointments, speaks thus strongly: "That prin- ciple, that the church hath power to institute and appoint any thing or ceremony belonging to the worsliiji of God, either as to matter or to manner, beyond the orderly observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry', of all the coufusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season spi'ead themselves over the face of the Christian world. " The Rev. A. Thomson says : ' ' But while we receive the whole Bible, and every part of it, as the Word of Crod, shall we read it backwards or in a straight- forward and common -sense way? Shall we subordinate the final and perfect economy to that which was avowedly introductory and imperfect ? Shall the greater and more perfect tabernacle be brought down, for our purposes, to the level and within tlie limits of the worldly sanctuary ? Shall we subject the sub- stance to the shadow, and merge the rule of the Spirit, with its glorious freedom, in the law of a carnal commandment and the bondage of the letter? Again, if I wish to take the prescriptions of the Mosaic economy, my chief source of informa- tion must be the law of JSloses ; l)ut if I wish honestly to ascertain the commands of Christ, why should I go there V What should I consult but the records of his own teaching and that of his apostles ? To act otherwise, and to insist on putting the spiritual institutions of the New Dispensation within the legal and earthly restraints of the Old, is a very ancient error, but a very fatal one ; the same in principle now, though altered in form, as that against which the apostle had to war in his admonitions to the Galatiaus. To read the Bible thus is literally preposter- ous ; it is scanning the heavens through a telescope reversed. "When we insist, then, on making oiu- ajipeal in this matter to the New Testa- ment, it is simply because the question refers to Christian institutions and the duties of Christians, and not to the national institutions and duties of the Israelites. We should feel that we were trifling with God's Woixl, and inverting its contents, if we pursued a different com'se. We believe that it is our duty to study the Old Testament Scriptures, and to search them faithfully ; but then only do we search them faithfvdly when we read the Old in the light of the New Covenant ; not when the shadows of Mount Sinai are suffered to obsciu-e the splendours of Pentecost." —Lee. onXat. Est, p. 38. I86I. Would that Dr. Cumming spoke with the same force and propriety, instead of saying, " There is a magnificent latitude in the language of Scripture, which never so describes a ceremony that rigid conformity in jots and tittles shall be oiu- duty. On the contraiy, it leaves the ceremony so largely and widely delineated, that this custom may prevail in the north and that custom in the south, provided the sub- stance be observed. The special ritual peculiarities are left to the habits and customs, the taste and convenience, of the people" {Scd). Eve. Rea., on Mark, p. 5). To what pvu'pose is this, unless sprinkling is in substance immersion? We believe that whilst immersion is enjoined, "The Sacred Scriptm-e meets all ages, and circumstances, and developments of social and natural life" [Sab. Eve. Rea., on Cor., p. 2). To record all that our Pasdobaptist friends assert in maintaining that nothing is lost in sprinkling, although Christ has enjoined immersion, would involve ourselves as well as them in deserved contempt. Our unwavering conviction is that God's command to baptize is only substantially obeyed when immersion takes place. Mr. A. Hall says : " The signs, and even every circumstance relative to the use of them, mu.st be appointed by Christ, and not contrived Ijy men ; for here, as in every other duty, we must observe all things that Christ hath commanded us. . . . The signs that are used in the sacraments have a natural fitness to bring the things they represent to our mind." 486 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. § 30. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMIMEESION, THAT SPEINKLING OR POUEIXO MIGHT SOMETIMES BE PRACTISED IN APOSTOLIC TIMES. Jesus Christ. — "The Scripture cannot be broken." — Johnx. 35. John, the Apostle. — " If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God." — 1 Epis. iii. 21. Dr. G. Redford.- — " The Bible " "is not written for any particular nation or a^e ; but for man- kind in all ages." "Food does not more certainly nourish the animal system, and poison injure and destroy it, than the oljsei-vance of these moral laws tends to man's well-being and happiness " [positive laws have the same wise and gracious Author]. "The Bible alone founds it [virtue] upon an eternal and immutable law, originating in the Divine wUl." " The will of the Creator must be the rule of His creature." "Well, indeed, did the philosopher observe, if conscience had the strength, as it has the right, it would govern the world." — Cony. Lee, jjp. vii., 188, 199, 196, 205. Dr. R. W. Hamilton. — "We must now, then, represent to ourselves this world, this dwelling- place of our species, as a Divine monarchy : ruled by allowed, definite, self-interpreting law ; every man accountable to that law : that law placed before every man ; moral obligation being immu- table in all times and regions, its substance one, its force eternal." — Cong. Lee, p. 72. John Foster. — " There is among us a great deal of an accommodating way of thinking of the Divine law ; an unsound and treacherous casuistry ; a sort of middle principles, by which those of Divine authority are altered, and qualified, and shaped to suit better to the habits of the world, and the temper of the times : a defective faith in our Lord's declaration, — No man can serve two masters." "How can a Holy God (can, morally speaking) so set aside His law'? Why did He appoint it? Is it not absolutely just and good?" — Lee., pp. 367, 368, 372. J. A. James. — "Christianity has nothing local in its institutions." "We have arrived at a latitudinarian age." " If a man may renounce one truth of revelation, and yet be sinless, he may renounce two ; if two, four ; if four, eight ; if eight, half the Bible ; if half, the whole ; and yet be innocent." — Church in Ear., p. 12. R. Walker. — "The laws of the Gospel extend to the heart as well as to the life; and speak to all men without exception, at all times, and in every situation. They utter their voice with such precision and perspicuity, that none can be at a loss to discover their meaning. They do not bend to the humour of men, nor accommodate themselves to those flexible maxims and customs which by turns prevail in this or the other age and country;" nor "do they grow obsolete, as human statutes do, which, by long disuse, lose their force and become void. Like their great Master, what they were yesterday, they are the same to-day ; and in every succeeding period their efficacy will continue, till time shall be no more. And, therefore, when I repeat the words of this sacred book, you are to consider them as spoken to yourselves in particular, and no less binding upon you in their most simple and obvious meaning than they formerly were ujjon those to whom they were pri- marily addressed." — In Haldane's Soc. Wor., p. 59. Jesus Christ. — "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of Ufe, and may enter in through the gates into the city." " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." — Rev. xxii. 14, 18, 19. Many Psedobaptists repeat the substance of Dr. Mant's words : " I do not come before you to deny the h\wfulness of baptizing by immer- sion, nor to oppose the lawfulness of di])ping in some cases ; but I cannot assert the absolute and indispensable necessity of it in all cases." It is believed that immersion was not practicable in all cases. It is believed that the thief on the cross, of whose baptism Scriptui-e says nothing, could not be immersed, therefore sprinkling is baptism ; and in sickness and extraordinary occasions is lawful. To this it may be replied, first, that no one can be justified in making an exception into a rule; and, secondly, that the practice of pouring or sprinkling as baptism in apostolic times is destitute of proof and probability. Comparing Scrip- ture with Scrijiture, and finding in every instance no word used but the one which means to immerse; and finding that this import is corrobo- rated by the connection, wherever the connection throws any light on the import of the word; and ascertaining from history that the first record of a substitute for immersion is the case of Novatian, which took place about a.d. 250, we conclude that our friends as rashly suppose the existence in apostolic times of one baptism for the healthful and another for the afflicted, as one baptism for barbarous countries and past ages, and another for countries enlightened and refined, and for the present age. The justification of Novatian's aff'usion is pleaded by Cyprian, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 487 not on the ground of any previous exceptional case, not on the ground of licence from the ambiguous or comprehensive import of the word designating the Christian ordinance when its injunction or its prac- tice is recorded in inspired Writ, but on the ground of special cir- cumstances, the importance of the ordinance, the mercy of God, and Old Testament passages which by him are misapplied. If a single excep- tional case, even of pouring instead of immersion, could be proved to have taken place in a certain emergency in apostolic times, that would not justify the adoption of pouring as a rule. " David's eating the show- bread, which it was not lawful but for the priests ordinarily to eat, is approved by our Saviour, not upon the account of tradition, or the judgment of the high-priest, but the extreme hunger which he and his companions were then pressed with, and which made it lawful for them to eat of the hallowed bi^ead when there was no other to be procured. But did tliis make it lawful afterwards for the high-priest or the Sanhe- drim to have made the holy bread always common to others when there was no such necessity f (Payne's Pi-es. against Fopery, title vii., pp. 124, 149.) Is it remembered that the climate of Palestine was very different in different parts?* The difference of climate at the same places was very different in different times of the year. The difference between the coldest part in the coldest season, and the warmest part in the warmest season, was equal at least to the difference between the tropical and the temperate zone. But the sacred writers give not the least hint of any- thing else than immersion as the initiatory ordinance of Christianity at any place, at any time; any more than a hint that at some future time, and in certain places, a change might be lawful. Dr. King, of the United Presbyterian Church, says of apostolic churches, " Some were in towns, others in the country ; some in barbarous regions, others in states highly-civilized. The churches of different localities presented, in fact, as much diversity of external condition as can well pertain to churches of different ages. In vain, then, should we argue that we may institute other rites and ceremonies under other circumstances, since the plea of dis- similar circumstances existed from the first, and was overrided hy apos- folic authority" (On Fres. Ch. Gov., p. 20). Even if exceptional cases in apostolic times were possible or probable, it would surely be honourable in every one who loves the Saviour to desii'e conformity to the letter of His law in all practicable cases, and, instead of making an exception the rule, greatly to prefer that mode which is after his Saviour's example. ' ' Didst Thou the great example lead, In Jordan's swelling flood ? And sliall my pride disdain the deed That's worthy of my God?" Could it be discovered that sprinkling or poming was ever adopted in apostolic times in any exceptional case, as a substitute for immersion, it would not sanction a deviation without the evidence of apostolic approval. See Dr. Kitto's Scrip, Lands, p. 146. 488 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. § 31. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION, THAT .-iPRINKLIXa 13 NOT FORBIDDEN. David. — "The law of the Lord is perfect.'" — Psalm six. 7. Paul, the Apostle.— "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such cu.«>toni, neither the churches of God." — 1 Cor. xi. 16. Dr. A. Eked. — "AVhatever is new in religion is false." "We are not to seek an additional revelation." — In Dr. Burns's Cy., vol. iii. , p. 240. Dr. Cakson. — " Our business is not to account for God's reasons for not saj-ing what he has not said, but to discover what he has said." — In Tes. of Em. Feed., p. C. iT. Gilbert. — "Abandoning every pretended guide, my conscientious demand has been t)iat which Chalmers so pei-petually reiterates, ' What saith the Scripture?' I did not therefore feel it to be my duty to sit in judgment on the Document presented to me, but at once to take it for my guide. . . . Satisfied that I have attained to its meaning, I sought no further," "We learn . . the essential importance and immense dignity of Divine law." — Cong. Luc, pp. viii., 274. Dr. Wakdlaw. — "Finding in the precepts of the Sacred Volume the only safe rule by which moral beings can in this world direct their conduct." — Conr/. Lcc, p. 164. It has been objected to belie^'el^s' immer.siou that, if the sjjrinkling of infants be not commanded, it is not forbidden. To this it might be added by the Papist, that milk, honey, and salt in baptism are not forbidden, therefore — being significant — they shonkl be, or may be used ; or by the Mohammedan, that a pilgrimage to Mecca is not forbidden ; etc. If, however, immersion is enjoined in God's "Word, — which we have endea- voured to prove ; and to which fact we have adduced many Ppedobaptist concessions, — the adoption of sprinkling or pouring in the place of it is making void God's command. Is it not sinful to add unto, or take from, or alter God's Word ? We maintain that if Chi'ist's words command us to immerse, they by necessary implication forbid us to sprinkle ; just as the command of God which taught to circumcise the male child on the eighth day. forbade its circumcision on the first or second day ; and just as the command under the law to bathe, forbade to sprinkle. If sprink- ling or pouring had been adopted from a pretended right of election, or because not forbidden when God had commanded to bathe, thei'e would as certainly have been guilt as when the sons of Aaron offered strange lire. The command to immerse is in itself a prohibition of spi'inkling. Apply to this olijection to inimersion the following from Baptists and Psedobaptists : — J. Bruce. — "I could easily show how that sileuce of Christ and His apostles is indeed a most powerful argument for our side of the controversy." — Lee. on Est., p. '29. Dr. Angu.s. — "Institutions professedly of Divine origin must not only not be forbidden in Scripture, thev must be expi-essly commanded." — Bi. Hand- Book; p. 321. Dr. J. B. Melson. — "A hundred tribunals Lave ustn-ped jurisdiction, and set up their laws to the disparagement of the sole autonomy which God recognizes, — the revelation and develojmient of his om'u will." — Ua: Hall Lee., p. 480. ISoI. Dr. J. CuJiMiXG.— " The Bible, — the best authority it is possible to have." — Suh. Eve. Lee., on Luke, \). 461. Dr. Owen. — "Let the messengers of God take heed that they neither act nor speak anything hut what they have sufficient warrant for. It is an impious and daring thing to atlix God's name to our own imagination; God will not put His seal of ajiprohatiou imless we stand in His counsels, and be found in the ways of His win." John Fcster. — "No right so absolute to give laws can be conceived, as that of the Creator." "An intelligent creature in a right state, that is, a holj'- state, in hai-mony with God, would be jileased — deeply ])leased— that all things should be thus marked with a signification of His will." — Lee., pp. 360, 362. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 489 A. Wallace. — "The Bible is designed to furnish man with au infallible rule of Wie."— The Bible and the Working Classes, p. IGl. Chris. Anderson. — "The first great conflict in England and Scotland was simply for the possession and perusal of the Scrijjtures in om- native tongue." "The L.4.ST and far more important contest, for the all-sufficieney and exclusive supremacy of Sacred Writ, has yet to be fought and won. Demanding even greater energy, it hastens on apace." — Annals of the Eng. Bible, vol. ii., p. xliii. Dr. J. FooTE. — "Religion does not, indeed, exist in a state of perfection as to degree, in any one particular; but it extends to every particular in the character which it influences ; so that the true Christian is not wilfully and habitually negli- gent of anything he sees to be incumbent. It includes the least, while it is pecu- liarly concerned about the weightier matters of the law. Tlie believer is not partial in the law; he is not like Herod, who 'heard John gladly,' and did many things, but yet continued a slave to prcsumjDtuous and reigning sins. His language is, without exception, 'Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?' Let us think well of this ; and let us see that we be able to say from the heart, with David, ' I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.' 'Thou hast commanded to keep thy precepts diligently; O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commaudmeuts.' "—Lee. on Luke, xi. 37^4. M. Henry. — "Not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and though nut expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that (lod comnianded it not. For (as Bp. Hall well observes here) ' It is a dangerous thing in the service of God, to decline from His own institution; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe His own worship, just to )'equire what He has prescribed, and powerful to avenge what He has not prescribed.' . . . Now that the laws coucei'ning sacrifices were newly made, lest any should be tempted to think lightly of them because they descended to many circumstances that seemed very minute, these that were the first trans- gressors were thus })unished for a warning to others, and to show how jealous God is in the matters of His worship. . . . Being a holy God and sovereign Lord, He must always be worshipj^ed . . . exactly according to His own appointment ; and if any jest with Him, it is at their peril." — Com., on Lev. x. 1-7. § 32. — FUTILITY OE THE OBJECTION TO IMMER.SION, THAT BAPTISTS ADHERE WITH UNNECESSARY STRINGENCY TO THE PRIMARY MEANING OF THE WORD. David. — "The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified aeven times." — Psalm xii. 6. Paul, the Apostle. — "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ " (2 Cor. ii. 17}. " Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have I'eceived mercy, we faint not ; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not wallcing in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of tlie truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " —2 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Dr. J. Waddington. — "Forgotten, it seems to be, in tlieir conference with flesh and blood, that want of faithfulness to one truth, professed in theory, involves treachery to all the rest." "Let U3 not deceive ourselves. The day for mere liuman expediency is past." — Emmaus, p. 261. J. A. James. — "In the temple of truth, not only the foundation is to be valued and defended, but every point and every pinnacle." — Chris. Fel., p. 14. Milton.— "We shall adhere close to the Scriptures oi' God, which He has left us as a just and adequate measure of truth, fitted and proportioned to the diligent study, memory, and use of every faitliful man, whose eveiy part consenting, and making up the harmonious symmetry of complete instruction, is able to set out to us a perfect man of God." — In Dr. Wad.'s E■mma^(S, p. 245. C. Leslie.— " False religion is but a corruption of the true." "Our blessed Sa\'iour has instructed us, that he who will be His disciple must resolve beforehand to take up his cross daily, to forsake father and mother, wife and children, and lands, and life itself, when he cannot keep them with the truth and sincerity of the Gospel." — Meth. with the Deist, p. 39 ; and Let., p. 54. H. Craik, — "The question among true Protestants is not — Shall the Scriptiires be allowed to decide our differences ? but rather — What deliverance do these Scriptures give ; what is the deci- sion they announce? The day is come when ancient traditions, time-honoured observances, venerated creeds, accredited doctrines, must all be upheld or rejected, just so far as they are found to be in accordance, or otherwise, with the one standard from which there is no appeal." — In Tes. of Em. Peed., p. 2. J. A. Haldane. — " He is the most faithful pastor who has the le.ast desire for undue personal influence, and who strives most earnestly to promote implicit subjection to the laws of Christ." "It is unworthy your character as believers to treat anything connected with religion with indifference. We ought ever to tremble at the Word of God, and to remember that it is our duty 490 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. to listen with the most serious attention to whatever our great Lawgiver has condescended to teach." — Soc. Wor., p. 436. ScoTUS. — "M'^here there is a possibility, the safest way is to be chosen." — In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38. Bp. Butler. — "In questions of difficulty, or such as are thought so, where more satisfactory evidence cannot be had, or is not seen, if the re.sult of examination be that there appears upon the whole, any the lowest presumption on the one side, and none on the other, — or a greater presump- tion on one side, though in the lowest degree greater, — this determines the question, even in matters of speculation ; and in matters of precept will lay us under an absolute and formal obliga- tion in point of prudence and of interest, to act upon that presumption or low probabUity, though it be so low as to leave the mind in very great doubt which is the truth." — Pref. to^jia^, p. xxv., Tegg's edition.* Dr. J. P.-vRKER.— "The man of high conviction, definite creed, and forcible expression, has to sit down under the dishonour of many a harsh designation ; while men of elastic conscience, accom- modating belief, and feeble utterance, are courted and flattered and exalted. Away with such exaltation ! Its pedestal is ashes ; its capital is smoke." — Ch. Ques., p. 138, 139. The objection, to our adliering too stringently to the primary mean- ing of haptizo, if expressed without qualification, includes an admission ■which the enlightened and candid among our opponents unhesitatingly and un exception ably grant. Were we to admit, for argument's sake, that baptizo has additional meanings besides to immerse, we should not regard it as insignificant and unimportant that to immerse is the primary meaning of the word. If occasionally the word could be found used with a lax meaning, it would not follow that our Lord had so used it in His solemn commission. His own example, and the conduct of His inspired servants, might forbid the supposition of its being lawful so to undei'stand Him. A Psedobaptist has told us that our Lord's " body was bathed in its own blood." t Who would from such a use of the English word bathe insist that it is a generic, and not a specific term 1 We believe the Peedobaptist to liave less philological ground for the practice of sprinkling or pouring, than the Socinian and others have for denying the eternity of futui'e ^punishments. Is not an adoption of the primary and common sense of a word to be expected in the principal enacting terms of a law, as well as in pronovincing a solemn and final .sentence ? Yet Mr. S. Johnson, on the latter, says : — "There is something indelicate, incongnious, and absurd, in criticising the words of a capital sentence to set aside the spirit and energy of it ; because, from the nature of the thing, they are always supposed to be the most plain, dear, and determinate. Suppose one of the carpers of this world should criticise the word death, in a capital sentence pronounced on a murderer. He addresses the criminal, You must note tlie word death is ambiguous, and certainly used in a variety of different constructions in Scripture, and in common language; and therefore is doubtful, as connected in the sentence passed upon you. Sometimes it means natural death; sometimes, though seldom, a violent death; at other times, moral death. Sometimes, neither of these, but only the fear and danger of death ; in deaths oft, says Paul. Not that he often died, but was oft in fear and danger of it. So the sentence may put you in fear and danger, and not be Hterally executed. Or it may mean death in law; that you shall be an outlaw, and suffer loss and damage by it. — Would not every man of common sense reprobate such an unnatural, barbaroiis kind of criticism, as a shocking, abusive imposition upon the prisoner, and the highest indignity offered to the judge?" — Everl. Pun. of the Ungodly Evinced, p. 138. On supposition that bapitizo has other meanings in addition to its primary meaning, and that the primary meaning is rejected, we main- * Let the reader judge whether the evidence in favour of immersion, if it is not of an exclusive character, does not abundantly preponderate over all that can be said in favour of sprinkling or pouring. t Dr. Williams, vol. i., p. 193. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 491 tain that neither the illiterate nor the learned can determine what Chi-ist has enjoined in an ordinance which, along with repentance and faith, is binding on all classes of persons throughout the whole woi-ld, in all ages. Is this characteristic of the great commission from Him who spake as never man spake, whom the common people heard gladly, and through whom was verified the saying: "To the poor the Gospel is preached"? It has been remarked by one who was reluctantly converted to Baptist sentiments : — "We must believe that the writers of the New Testament used words according to their usual acceptation in the Greek language, unless the connection required some other interpretation. If we suppose that they iised words in a manner dif- ferent from common, established use, without giving sufficient intimation, either expressly, or by the obvious scope of the passage, we must give up our only guide to the meaning of any word, or charge them with a design of misleading. They certainly knew that their readers would naturally and necessarily interpret every word in the usual way, unless taught differently by the connection." — Dr. Judson, on Bap., p. 11. And perhaps more to the point, another, when describing his adop- tion of the sentiments and practice of the Baptists, says : — "Now, when I considered the unboimded benefits said to be consequent upon children's baptism, and the good office of sponsors, and the solemn manner in which I was required to- repeat these things at school, as if they were the plainest sub- jects in Scripture, the reader may judge of my siu'prise in finding them entirely destitute of that sacred aiithority ! In the end I was brought to believe that the institution was altered — that it was not noio observ^ed as originally appointed of Christ. Yet to alter Christ's institutions appeared to me a very presuming act ; it was derogatory to the authority of Christ, and a reflection on His wisdom ; and as I remembered how God manifested His displeasure against any alteration of what He had appointed under the Old Testament, so I inferred He must be eqiudly displeased with auy alteration of the New Testament ordinances. A passage I met with in Matthew Henry's Exiwsition, respecting the conduct and awful fate of Aaron's sons in taking common fire, instead of fire from the altar, to burn incense, I deemed very impressive, and quite appropriate to this subject: 'Not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God "commanded it not." For (as Bp. Hall well observes here), "It is a dangerous thing in the service of God to decline from His own institutions ; we have to do with a God who is wise to i^rescrihe his own worship, just to require what he has presciibed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed." — Now that the laws concerning sacrifices were newly made, lest any shoidd be tempted to think lightly of them, because they descended to many circumstances which seemed very minute, these that were the first transgressorsvi^evQ thus punished for a WARNING to others, and to show how jealous God is in the matters of his worship. Being a holy God and sovereign Lord, He must always be worshipped exactly according to His own appointment ; and if any jest with Him, it is at their peril ' (on Lev. x.). My mind was considerably exercised upon this subject. 'Not willingly,' I was constrained to say, 'would I jest with Christ's ordinances, or woidd I support any alteration of His institution. If I knew His will, I would observe and keep it ; for the time was coming when I must stand at His bar to give an account of the deeds done in the body ; and if I was one of those who altered His ordinances, or countenanced such a daring presvmiption, I should have cause to anticipate His Divine displeasure.' At length I was thoroughly convinced that, according to Chrises appointment, believers only were proper subjects of baptism, and that immersion was the scriptural mode." — Pengilly, on Bap., pp. vi., vii. After what has been adduced from Greek lexicons, Greek authors, translators of the Greek Testament, and respecting the unvarying senti- ment and practice of the Greeks, &c,, we maintain that in adhering 492 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. to immersion alone we are not adheriiig with unnecessary stringency to the primary meaning of the word. For — 1. We regard it as unproved that baptizo, when used by the sacred writers, — when used previously, and when used for hundreds of subse- quent years, — had a secondary meaning ; unless the figurative sense of overwhelming be improperly thus designated. 2. It devolves on our opponents to prove any secondary meaning for which they contend. 3. We maintain that sprinkling and jjouring are not secondary mean- ings of a word signifying to immerse. They are meanings belonging to another class of words, or to words having another derivation. The English reader Avill be able to \mderstand and apply the following : — " Supi^ose a man slioiild affirm with all the assurance and confidence imaginable, that ci-eeping and jumping are two different modes of leaping ; yea, that they are distinctly and separately, triily and properly leaping itself ; would anybody believe him ? AVhat would such a man be called ? Or suppose a man ever so dogmatically to assert that he is as rightly and truly buried, who lies upon the surface with a little earth iipon his face, as he is who is put into it and covered all over with it ; would not everybody laugh at him, and say. The man is either touched in his senses, or knows not what a burial is, or cares not what he says ? Again, what would that mistress say to her maid, who having commanded her to wash the linen, should, instead of washing it, only sprinkle a few drops of water on it ? Or, it being rightly washed, should bid her sjir inkle it in order for folding it up, and she ahould, instead of that, go and dip it into the water ? Once more, suppose you were to send a piece of cloth to be dyed, and the dyer was only to sprinkle a few drops of the colour upon it, and send it you back again ; Mdiat would you say to it ? Would you say it was reall}'- and properly dyed ? Or would you not rather say. The dyer never dipt the cloth in his vat; he only sprinkled, spotted, and stained it; and thereby has done it more harm than good." — Gilbei-t Bovce's Beply to Mr. Wesley, p. 28. Our opponents loudly complain of us that we do not i-egard sprinkling or pouring as valid baptism, that we consider the ordinance as void without immersion. Our reply, amongst other things, is, that without immersion we do not regard it as the ordinance at all. It may be a solemn ceremony, but one of human invention. Its being sincerely believed to be an ordinance of Chrisb, does not make it an ordinance of Christ. We believe that our Savioiir has used words which command immersioji. Dr. Carson appropriately says: "Whatever is the meaning of the word at the time of its first ap])lieation to the ordinance, must be essential to the ordinance ; for the ordinance is expressed by the word. If a specific mode was contained in the word when first applied to the ordinance, a specific mode must for ever remain in it ; for whatever change may take place afterwards in the meaning of the word, it can have no change with I'es^iect to Christ's ordinance. What He enjoined must remain as He enjoined it" (}). 24.3). He afterwards maintains tliat the change contended for by our opponents did not take place even after the application of the woi-d to Christ's ordinance. It is admitted l)y a writer in Tlte Congrega- tional ^[a(jazme: "If to dip, a dipper, a di2:)ping, be the signification of these words (^aptizo, ifec), then, unquestionably, ba])tism was pei'formed in this manner." This is a valid inference; and we maintain that the supposition from which the writer infers, has been proved as a fact. We do not deny that, "if these words have some other signification, then it FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 493 remains to be considered whether, from any other source, we can leai-n how this ordinance was originally administered:" but we deny that "it has been thought enough by the advocates of dipping to show that there is nothing in the Bible to make this sense of the disputed term imjwssible." In the words of Dr. Carson, it may be replied : " We do not allege that it is the true meaning, simply because it is not in any case impossible, bixt on the ground that no secondary meaning is in proof A meaning may be not only not impossible from connection, but may be entirely suitable to connection, yet may not be the true meaning; nay, may be the very opposite of the true meaning. In the expression, ' He rode a black horse/ white is as suitable to the comiectiou as black. Suitableness to the connection is a condition of the true meaning of a icord, but it is not a criterion. We are, therefore, infinitely far from saying what this writer represents us as saying. What we say is, that when the meaning OF A WORD IS ASCERTAINED BY AN EXAMINATION OF ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE LANGUAGE, AND WHEN NO SECONDARY MEANING IS IN PROOF FROM OTHER PLACES, THEN IN A DISPUTED PLACE NOTHING BUT AN IMPOSSIBILITY CAN FORBID US TO APPLY THE PRIMARY MEANING, OR WARRANT US TO ASSIGN A SECONDARY. In like manner as to a third reading" (p. 281). Also, our opponents represent sprinkling, pouring, and immersion as on a par, because symbolic institutions derive their value from the evangelical truths which they symbolize, ovei'looking the facts that sprinkling or pouring is not in this instance equally significant; that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling are three distinct actions; and that immersion is the action which Christ has enjoined. How can a single term equally designate three diftei'ent actions'? In every Greek book other words, and another class of words than those which i-epresent immersion, are used to represent sprinkling. How can we, whilst it is unproved that baiitizo had any secondary meaning unto the time of our Saviour, and even for luuidreds of years after, be chargeable with adhering to the primary lueaning of the word with unnecessary strin- gency? Bp. Stillingfleet says: "We cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should, after declaring His own will, leave it in the power of any corrupt, fallible being to determine or dispense with the obligation of His own laws " {Irenicum, b. i., c. i., p. 21). Bp. Taylor says : " Unless it be manifest that the words do not represent the intention of the Lawgiver, the conscience of the subject is to obey the words of the law. . . . For if this rule were not our measure, every witty advocate might turn laws to what purpose he please, and every subject would take liberty to serve his prince, not by the prince's law, but by his own glosses; and then our conscience could have no measure of duty, and, therefore, no ground of peace" {Due. Dub., b. iii,, c. vi., p. 723). Dr. Williams says that "terms of anibiguous import" are "inauspicious to this controversy;" and having adduced many passages from the New Testament relating to baptism, says : "Every one of these texts, se2:»arately considered in its proper connection, must have one principal design and determinate meaning." To assist in ascertaining whether the woi'd has one determinate meaning, and whether that meaning be to immerse, to pour, or to sprinkle, has been our aim in most that has been written : and if any doubt whether the Greek language could have supplied the 4^ IMPORT OF BAPTISM. sacred wiiters with a word undoubtedly meaning to sprinkle, let the following " competent and unexceptionable witnesses," out of many others, from Psedobaptists and the Friends, be heard : — Salmasius says : " Baptism is immersion, and was administered in ancient times according to the force and meaning of the word. Now only rhantism is in use with the generality in the West, not immersion." Ikenius. — "The Greek word baptismos denotes the immersion of a thing or a person into something : sprinkling, in Greek, is denominated 7-hantismos, rhantism." Sir John Floyer. — "The Greeks, as well as the Jews, acknowledge three sorts of piirifications by washings : the immersion was called lousis; tlie washing of the Jiands and feet, nipsis; the aspersion, rhantismos." Mr. D. IloGERS. — "None of old were wont to be sprinkled ; and I confess myself unconvinced by demonstration of Scrii)ture for infants' sprinkUng. . . . That the minister is to dij) in water, as the meetest act, the word baptizo notes it ; for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other act besides dipping, if the institution could bear it." George Whitehead. — " Sprinhling infants I deny to be baptism, either in a proper or Scripture sense; for sprinkling is rhantism, and not bap>tism ; coming of rhantho, that is aspergo, to sprinkle, or to besprinkle. Heb. ix. 13, 19, compared with Heb. x. 22; rhantismos, a besprinkling, Heb. xii. 24, and 1 Peter i. 2." Thos. Lawson. — "As for sprinkling, the Greeks call it rhantismos, which I render rhantism." Thus we believe that to practise sprinkling or pouring as baptism is to disobey the explicit and solemn command of Christ, and set up a human invention in lieu thereof. Yet this is adliering with bigoted and umaecessary stringency to the primary meaning of the word ! Does not the unvarymg absence of words signifying to sprinkle or to pour, when this ordinance is mentioned in Holy Writ, and the unvar^nug presence of a word signifying immerse, teach in the clearest and most emphatic manner the du.ty of one exclusive and unvarying practice ? If lexicons, use, translations, Greek practice, and historic evidence, corrobo- rated by unexceptionable and abundant testimony from vai'ied sources, do not prove the meaning of the word to be to immerse, how can the meaning of any word be proved 1 But we adhere with bigoted strin- gency to one meaning of the word ! "VVe know of no other. And are we not taught to " obsei-ve all things whatsoever" Christ has commanded us 1 Does not Dr. Halley teach that the symbols of our faith which are not of Divine authority, are the jirofane iuA^entions of men ? If other Pjedobaptists do not express themselves so strongly, their language is sufficiently stringent to justify our practice agaiiist the condemnation which by some is passed upon us, even if immerse is not the only, but simply the primary meaning of the word. Dr. Sherlock not only says, " When the words of the law are capable of difierent senses, and reason is for one sense, and the other sense against reason, there it is fit that a plain and necessary reason should expoiuid the law;" — he adds : " But when the law is not capable of such difierent senses, or there is no such reason as makes one sense abeiird and the other necessary, the law nnist be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the woi'ds, though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for, or at least no reason against; for otherwise it is an easy matter to expound away all the laws of God " (Preser. against Foperi/, vol. ii., Appen. p. 11). Dr. Doddridge, and others who have spoken similarly, have been previously quoted. Mr. Alsop, arguing against FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 495 Socinianism, says: "No cogent reason can be assigned why we sliould depart from the plain, ordinary, primary acceptation of the word Christ, for a figiu-ative, improper, and secondary acceptation" {Antisozzo, p. 35). So argue Mr. Mellor, and others, previously qvioted. Dr. W. Sherlock, arguing on the same subject, says : "In expounding Scripture, we must confine ourselves to the plain and natural signification of the words. . . . They [the Socinians] take and challenge to themselves a liberty of putting any sense iipon the words of Scripture which they can possibly bear, or are ever used in. . . . If we believe nothing but what the Scripture does plainly and expressly teach, according to the most proper and usual acceptation of the words ; if we believe amiss, it is none of our fault, unless just reverence to Scripture be a fault. . . . When the words are plain, and the sense plain and obvioiis, nothing can tempt any man to reject the plain sense of the words, for some obscure, laboured, and artificial interpretations, but a dislike of the doctrine which the plain and obvious sense of the words teaches " (Scrip. Proofs of our Sa.'s Div., pp. 64, 65, 130-132). Yet we ai-e very uncharitable in not believing that sprinkling and pouring are baptism as well as immersion, when our Christian friends conscientiously believe them to be such ! "VVe are uncharitable in believing that to baptize is only to immerse, and are bigotedly stringent in adhering to a practice accordant with our faith ! Yet Dr. Halley says: "I cannot conceive how the Greek Testament is to be translated, if its words are not to be understood in their classical import, unless there are reasons to believe that a new signification has been adopted." " If we assert that the verb in question is found in the New Testament, vaiying from its classical signification, our Baptist friends may reasonably require us to produce the evidence of our asser- tion" (p. 271). Yea, and with equal propriety and force Wesley says: " Let our Lord's submitting to baptism teach us a holy exactness in the observance of those institutions which owe their obligation merely to a Divine command. Svirely, thus it becometh all His followers to fulfil all righteousness" (Note on Matt. iii. 16). This is worthy of that ordinance, than which none was ever more honoured when Jesus himself submitted to it, and a voice from the Father proclaimed Him his Son, and the Holy Spirit in a visible appearance descended upon Him. Other Psedobaptist commentators express themselves like Wesley on the baptism of Christ. Dr. Owen says: "All worship is obedience; obedience respects aiithority ; and authority exerts itself in commands. And if this authority be not the authority of God, the worship performed in obedience unto it is not the worship of God, but of him or them whose commands and authority are the reason and cause of it. It is the authority of God alone that can make any worship to be religious, or the performance of it to be an act of obedience to Him." "God would never allow that the -will and wisdom of any of His creatures should be the rise, rule, or measure of His worship, or any part of it, or anj^thing that l^elongs unto it. This honour He hath reserved unto himself; neither will He part with it unto any other. He alone knows what becomes His own greatness and holiness, and what tends to the advancement of His glory. Hence the Scripture abounds with severe interdictions and comminations against them who shall presume to do or appoint anything in His worship besides or be3'ond His own institution. . . . Divine institution alone is that which renders anything acceptable to God. . . . All Divine service or worship must be resolved into Divine ordination or institution. A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God. ... It is a hard and rare 496 IMPOET OF BAPTISM. thing to have the miuds of men kept upright with God in the observation of the institutions of Divine worship. Adam h;>st himself and us all by his failure therein. The Old Church seldom attained unto it. ... And at this day there are very few in the world who judge a diligent observation of Divine institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected; by some corrupted with additions of their own ; and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and tm-ned into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. . . . Our utmost care and diligence in the consideration of the mind of God are required in all that we do about His worship. There is nothing wherein men, for the most part, are more careless. Some suppose it belongs unto their own wisdom to order things in the worship of God as it seems most meet unto them ; some think they ai-e no further concerned in these things than only to follow the traditions of their fathers. This, unto the community of Christians, is the only rule of Divine worship. To suppose that it is their duty to inquire into the way and manner of the worship of God, the grounds and reasons of what they practise therein, is most remote from them. ... It were no hard thing to demonstrate tliat the principal way and means whereby God expects that we shoulil give glory unto Him in this world is by a due observation of the Divine worship that He hath appointed. For herein do we in an especial manner ascribe unto Him the glory of His sovereignty, of His grace and holiness; when in His worship we bow to His sovereignty alone; when we see such an impress of Divine wisdom in all His institutions as to judge all other ways folly in comparison of them ; when we have experience of the grace represented and exhibited in them : then do we glorify God aright. And without these things, whatever we pretend, we honour Him not in the solemnities of our woi'ship."— On Heb. i. 6, &c. Mr. A. Hall says : "As we live under the Gospel dispensation, all our worship must be regulated by Gospel institution, that it may be performed according to the appointment of Christ, as King of the church." Also, when speaking of baptism, he says: "This ordinance should be observed with an honest simplicity, and kept pure and entire, as Christ hath appointed it. The rule given us in the Word of God is our directory, and we do well to take heed to it in this duty as much as in every other. How grand and awfid is that weighty preface to the institution of Chi'istian baptism! (Matt, xxviii. 18, 19.) Who is the daring, insolent worm that will presume to dispute the aiithority or change the ordinances of Him who is given to be Head over all things to the church ? . . . The solemnity of this ordinance is complete, and all the great ])urposes of its institution are secured by the authority and blessing of Christ, who is a rock, whose work is perfect, and all His command- ments are sure. His laws are not subject to any of those imperfections which are attendants of the best-contrived systems among men, and frequently need explana- tions, amendments, and corrections. It is most tlangerous and presumptuous to add any ceremony, or to join any service, on any pretence, unto Heaven's appointment. This is the most criminal rashness ; and if it is not disputing the authority of Christ directly, it is mingling the authority of men with the authority of Him who has a name above every name. . . . When Divine authority is interposed to jioint out the will of God concerning any service which is enjoined for standing use among the saints, such a service ought to be observed without any regard to the manners and usages of mankind ; because both the substance and the m.anner of it are the institution of Christ." — Gof<23el Worship, vol. i., pp. 32, 325, 326; A'ol. ii., p. 434. So solemnly and apjirojiriately do Ppedobaptists reason ; and yet wlierc among tlicm is the youug man or maiden, the old man or matron, who has not an idea of unnecessary stringency and consequent bigotiy in the adherence of Baptists to immersion alone, and in their regarding nothing else as baptism 1 Sometimes in the same breath are given our applause and condemnation, if contradictions proved no departure from the Oracles of God. Hence say Poole's Continuators : "In hot countries this was usual, to baptize by di])ping the body in the water; and to this the apostle alludes when he tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. vi. 11), that they are washed: but God will liave mercy, and not sacrifice; sprinkling being as effectual as washing, and as significato also, representing the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS, 497 spi'inkling of the blood of the paschal lamb, of wlucli we read Exodus xii. 3 ; which presigiiified the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, that Lamb of God which taketli away the sin of the world; and our hearts must by it be sprinkled from an evil conscience, Heb. x. 22. It is not the more or the less of the outward element which makes the sacraments effectual, but they are effectual only as they are God's appointment, and attended upon according to His will " (On Acts viii. 38). Here we have a plea for sprinkling. But on what ground I Is it because God has commanded it ^ By no means. Is it on the ground of apostolic pi-actice 1 Nothing of the kind. And yet nothing is effectual but what has " God's appointment," and " is attended upon according to His will." Yes, a Divine precept or an apostolic precedent is absolutely necessary to authorize the performance of any branch of ritual worship. Again, it might be supposed that the Baptists are unwilling to immerse except in the sea or some enormous collection of water. But when do the Baptists demand more water than is required to immerse 1 The com- mand of our Saviour is to immerse, nothing being said of the places where. We immerse in a river, or a ba^itistery, a tank, or the sea. We are more lengthened in reply to the objection of unnecessary stringency than we should be, but for the gi'oss injustice that is done to. the Baptists by the insinuated and often- expressed bigotry that is con- ceived to be evidenced in this. We do not believe that our friends are intentionally unjust in maligning us, but we desire an application of what we quote from the writings of themselves, in the hope that it may be more effectual than if it came from the pen of Baptists. Mr. Archibald Hall, previously quoted, says: "We cannot think God will honour the inventions of men, however they may he dignified by the specious names of useful, decent, agreeable, or prudent contrivances ; yet, if they are an addition to His system, will He not say, Who hath required these things at your hdnds" 1 — View of Gospel Church, p. 82. Dr. Owen says : " What men have a right to do in the church, by God's institu- tion, that they have a command to do." — On Heb. vii. 4^6. Mr. J. White, speaking of the ancient ceremonial law, says : "To slight any of its services was to insult the authority which enjoined it." — Ser. Bef. tlie Uni. of O.rf, p. 130. Mr. Wadsworth, speaking of the Lord's Supper, says : " Some may say, Surely God will not he so much concerned ivith a failure in so small a punctilio as a ceremony ! True, it is a ceremony ; but it is sucli a one that beareth the stamp of the authority of the Lord Jesus. If He appoints it, will you slight it, and say, It is hut a cere- mony? It is but a ceremony, but you are greatly mistaken if you think that, therefore, there is no danger to neglect it. What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil but a ceremony? Yet, for disobedience in eating thereof, do you not know and feel what wrath it hath brought on the whole race of mankind ? And tell me, was circumcision any more than a ceremony? Yet it had almost cost Moses his life for neglecting to circumcise his son ; for the angel stood ready with his sword to slay him, if he had not prevented it by his obedience (Ex. iv. 24-26). So, for the Lord's Supper, as much a ceremony as it is, yet for the abuse of it some of the church were sick and weak, others fell asleep, that is, died : and if God did so severely punish the abuse, how think you to escape, that presum2:)tuoushj neglect the use thereof? But I am regenerate, and hecome a new creature; I do not fear that God loill cast me away for the disuse of a ceremony. Is this the reasoning of one regenerate ? Sxirely thou dost not understand what regeneration meaneth. Is it not the same thing with being horn of God? And what is it to be obedient to the Father, but to do as He commandeth? And hath He not commanded you by His Son to remember your Saviour in this Supper ? AVlien you have considered this, KK 498 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. then tell me what you think of this kind of reasoning: '/ am. a child of God, therefore I will j^resume to disobey Him. He bids me remember Jesus in this /Supper, and I will not.' Methinks thou blushest at the very mentioning of it. And what, if He should not cast thee quite off for this neglect ? Yet thou hast no reason to think Init that either outwardly or inwardly, or both, He will scourge thee for this sin before thou diest." — Sujj. to Mor. Ex. at Crip., pp. 243, 244. Dr. Owen, in the same strain, says: "Slaves take liberty from duty; children have liberty in duty. There is not a greater mistake in the world than that the liberty of sous in the house of God consists in this : they can perform duties, or take tlie freedom to omit them : they can serve in the family of God, that is, they think they may if they will, and they can choose whether they will or no. This is a liberty stolen by slaves; not a liberty given by the Spirit unto sons." — Com. with God, p. ii., c. X. If tinith and force are in these declarations, are Baptists too stringent in adhering solely to what they believe to be alone Divinely enjoined and apostolically practised ] Even acting conscientiously in unnecessary ignorance is unjustifiable, or Paul would have thought differently respecting his persecuting conduct pursued under the conviction that he was doing God sei'vice. Hence it has been said : " He who follows an erroneous conscience sins on this very account, that he follows it rather than the will of the Legislator. Though he be more excusable than one who acts directly against conscience, yet he is guilty." Dr. Gerard, speaking of "the positive and external duties of religion," says: " To neglect them is no longer to forbear an indifferent action, or to do a thing in one way rather than another, which has naturally no great propriety : it is very different ; it is to disobey God ; it is to despise His authority ; it is to resist His will. Can any man believe a God, and not acknowledge that disobedience to Him, and contempt of His authority, is immoral, and far from the least heinous species of immorality?" &c. Also: "Even particular positive precepts, as soon as they are given by God, have something mor-al in their nature. Suppose the rites which are enjoined by them, perfectly indifferent before they were enjoined; yet from that moment tiiey cease to be indifferent. The Divine authority is interposed for the observance of them. . . . All positive institutions of Divine appointment are means of cultivating moral virtue. Be the rites themselves what they will, their being enjoined by God renders them proper trials of our obedience to Him, and renders (mr observance of them tlie means of cherishing a sense of His authority, and of improving a principle of subjection to it. A priucijjle of sidijection to the authority of God is one of the firmest supports of all goodness and virtue; and jjositive institutions are the most direct means of cultivating it, for the observance of them ]iroceeds solely from the principle of obedience ; but in ever}' moral virtue other principles are conjoined with this. All the rites appointed by God are-like- wise direct and very jiowerful means of improving many jiarticular and virtuous affections, all the affections which are naturally exercised in performing them. . . . It is not they who reckon a regard to positive institutions essential to a good and unblemished character that judge weakly, but they who reckon that regard of no importance. Vain are their pretensions to enlargement of sentiment, and elevation above prejudice; their minds are so contracted that they can admit only a jiartial idea of the nature of jwsitive duties ; they consider but the mere matter of them ; they comprehend not their moral principles, their sublime end, or their important signification." — Dr. Gerard's iSernions, vol. i., pp. 312, 316, 317. When Psedobaptists are reasoning with Papists and others on "positive institu- tions," they inform us, to use the words of Mr. A. Booth, that they "originate entirely in the sovereign will of God; that positive laws must be plain and express; that the obligation to observe them arises not from the goodness of the things required, but from the authority of God; that they are determined by Divine in.stitution as to their matter, manner, and signification ; that they admit of no commutation, mutilation, or alteration by human authority; that they depend entirely on Divine institution, and are to be regulated by it ; that we ought not to conclude God has appointed such a rite for such a purpose, because we imagine FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 499 ourselves to stand in need of it, and that there are sufficient reasons for it ; that an obligation to observe them does not result from our seeing the reasons of them, but from the command of God, and that His positive command is enforced by the moral law ; that there are no accidental parts of a positive institixtion ; that it is unlawful to conform to any part of a religious rite without a Divine warrant ; that it is at our peril to continue ignorant of the will of God relating to His positive appoint- ments ; that it is great presumption to make light of them ; that a disposition to obey God in His positive institutes is part of that holiness without which none shall see the Lord; and external rites are of little use detached from virtuous tempers." — Vol. iiL, pp. 103, 104. Let not tlie want of honest application verify in this instance Bp. Taylor's assertion: "Men are easy enough to consent to a general rule; but they will not suffer their own case to be concerned in it." If pre- possessions are laid aside we shall not find good men saying in substance that immersion is undoubtedly warranted by Divine law and apostolic practice; but having been laid aside, and being fioublesome and indeli- cate, we feel it our duty to hold it up to contempt, and to encourage its universal disuse. No, nor will Baptists in the most Christian spirit be censured for adhering with unnecessary stringency to the primaiy meaning of the Greek word. We shall not be told that all disputes about immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, are disputes simply about " the paper aud packthread of the parcel." We who are deemed strin- gent and bigoted in our adherence to immersion, have not hastily or in the negligent vise of reason, come to our conclusions. We believe that the Divine words, when tested by lexicons, use, and in every legitimate manner, require an unswerving course. We reject only deductions from what is foreign, or those that we deem fallacious; and we refuse to have the obvious import of Christ's words frittered away by pretended and unsupported analogies, and thus have an ordinance of Divine appoint- ment altered and perverted. But we are unnecessarily stringent, and we seem to reflect on our opponents, either as to their intellects or hearts ! If this is the case, it is what we cannot avoid. What inducement has any man or woman in this world to desire immersion rather than sprinkling, except for con- science sake? At all events, what inducements have Baptist ministers to adhere to immersion but their solemn convictions of Divine teaching on this subject? We do not say that our Wesleyan and Independent, or Presbyterian and Episcopalian brethren are dishonest; but we believe them to be mistaken. In many instances, with the Baptists, every worldly consideration has pleaded in favour of sprinkling; but the renewed heart and the record of inspiration have said: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts v. 29). The exaltation of Christ by the apostles was very offensive to the imbelieving Jews, and led to the pei*secution of the apostles. We can bear, whilst honouring, as we believe, a Divine ordinance, the complaint of being stringent and bigoted; and if in a few instances it occasions coolness or distance, our hope is that we shall be svipported by Divine grace, by the testimony of our consciences, and by a conviction that Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden light. We ai-e far from denying that Calvin was a good man or a great man, although he said: "It is of no consequence at all whether the person baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled 500 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. by an affusion of water. This sliould be a mattev of choice to tlie churches in different regions, although the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practised by the ancient church." We believe the American Professor, and now sainted Stuart, to have been under the influence of the same blinding prepossessions when he said: "To this opinion I do most heartily subscribe." Yea, we would not say that every man is wicked, who does not fully see the iniquity of that monstrous abomination, American Slavery : but we would deplore in these, and wherever they exist, the blinding influence of 2)repossessions. AVith Dr. Stuart the word wash, which iniproperly is twice out of about eighty times given as the rendering of baptizo in the English Authorized Version, seems to have greatly aided in awarding this generous conde- scension to human predilections and caprices. (See Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. ; and previous pages, 355-390.) We believe the motto, " Whichever pleases us, pleases God," is not hei'e applicable; and that we are not deserving of contempt whilst we are not attempting to exercise lordship over the consciences of others, and are practically saying, That which pleases God, i^leases us. It is believed, however, that we are needlessly stiingent ! We certainly are not "blindly to aim at some secret intention of the Law- giver; for the intention of a man is to be judged by his words, and not the words by his intention." So it is in regard to the intentions and words of the Lord. Dr. Jon. Edwards says: " Li words which, are capable of two senses, the natural and pioper is the primary; and, therefore, might in the first place and chiefly to be regai'ded." Dr. Owen, on the adopting of an unusiial sense, says: "On supposition that some such instance might be produced, yet being contrary to the constant use of the word, some cogent reason from the text wherein it is used, or the thing treated of, must be urged, to give that sense admittance; and nothing of that nature is or can be here pleaded" [Uxpos. of Heb., vol. i., p. 41). Turretine says: "It is acknowledged by all that we should never depart from the proper and native signification of words, except for the Aveightiest and most urgent reasons" {De Satis/. Christi, pai*s i., § 23). Dr. Gumming says: " When God condescends to give xis a revela- tion, it becomes us to submit to it. Nor can they be freed from the guilt of sacrilege who wrest His words from their most natural, most obvious, and most common sense, to a meaning more agreeable to their own prejudicate opinions" (^Grounds of Present Dif. among London Ministers, p. 79). And Mr. Pirie says : " Laio requires words and phrases of the most ascertained and unequivocal sense." Do we exceed in our strictness the sentiments of the divines which have been quoted ? Or does bigotry belong to these sentimental Do we deviate from Sir Wm. Blackstone when he says, " The words of a laAv ai'c genci'ally to be understood in their usual and most knoavn signification; not so much i-cgarding the i)ro])riety of grammar, as their general and popular use; but when woixls bear either none or a vciy absui'd signification, if literally undei'stood, we must a little deviate from the received use of them" {Com., vol. i., § 2). Again : "LaAvs being directed to the unlearned as well as the learned, ought to be constnied in their most obvious meaning, and not cxplairicd away by subtle distinctions; and no law is FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 501 to suffer a figurative intei-pretation when the proper sense of the words is as commodious, and equally fitted to the subject of the statute." — Ency. Brit. Art. Law. " The true meaning of Scrijiture is not every sense the words will bear, and perhaps may excite in the readers mind; nor yet every sense that is true in itself, biit that which Avas really intended by the holy writer." — WerenfelsU Opiiscula, p. 372. Thoroughly tired of referring to the opinions of our opponents, some of whom charge us with bigotry, and yet many of whom concede that immersion is the radical, obvious, and established meaning of baptism, that our Lord has used a word which, iii its classical, priniaiy, natural, and common acceptation, cannot agree to any action besides that for which we plead, our next quotation from them in reply to the charge of unnecessary stringency shall be from Dr. Halley. He admits "that haptizein, construed with the preposition eis, is to immerse into " (p. 324). And when speaking (p. QQ) of the perpetuity of the saci'aments, he says : "If there be nothing in the context to induce us to assign a figurative rather than a literal sense to a word, we are bound to prefer its literal significa- tion. To baptize, although used sometimes figuratively in reference to the mind, ought to be understood, unless there be some reason to the contrary, like every other word, in its ordinary acceptation. If it be said, the words literally arc, bajitizing into the name of God, and not into water or Avith water, we reply, in other passages, where it is said any were bajitized into Christ, or into the name of a person, water was emblematically employed." If we are commanded by the only Head of the church, as Dr. H. admits, and as we consider to have been proved, to immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and if from other places it is clear that water is the emblematic element to be employed, can we be chargeable with unneces- sary stringency whilst we are simply and only adhering to immersion ? Are not we, according to the established riiles of all criticism, adhering to the obvious import of inspired teaching '? Have we not noticed the presumed difficulties in the way of immersion which have been grouped together by the highest talents in a manner most calculated to give them importance and impression, thus smoothing the way for the ingenious (if not ingenuous) deduction that aspersion or affusion was in some cases the probable or possible baptism? And have we not seen that these assumed formidahle difficidties, after being indefinitely magnified by imagination, talent, and prejudice, neither singly nor unitedly pi'ove one instance of sprinkling or pouring 1 Have we not seen that if the jiremises are wi-ested to warrant apostolic sprinkling or pouring, every doctrine and fact of sacred or profane history, in the belief of which difficulties are involved, may, by the same licence, be denied, or repi'esented as doubtful '] Also, the reasoning of our opponents has the appearance, whatever may be the reality, of regarding error on this Divine and l^ractical theme as unimportant. If we declaim against error in science, if the closest investigation of scientific truth is applauded, and every new discovery is hailed, shall we be indifi'erent respecting any part of our obedience to the King of kings and Lord of lords, respecting any portion of conduct Avhich is inseparably associated with our present and 602 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. everlasting interests "? " If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." " These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'' "Thy will is good and just, Shall I Thy will withstand ? If Jesus bids me lick the dust, I bow at His command. " — Wesley. Our obedience to what we regard as Divinely-enjoined is most unchari- tably viewed, and most unjustly described, if it is conceived and spoken of as manifesting harshness or unkindness to those who differ from us in sentiment and jwactice. That we are too stringent in our exclusive adherence to immersion is impossible, whilst we believe that the ordinance of baptism enjoined by Christ, and practised by the apostles, is nothing else than immersion. Our justifiable deviation from immersion, or our admission that anything else is scriptural baptism, would require a revolution in our sentiments, or a new revelation from Heaven. We believe the Christian dispensation to be the last and best dispensation, and that the Scriptures are our only rule in every i-eligious matter. We believe that a deliberate changing of Divine institutions is an impeach- ment of the Divine wisdom or goodness, is invariably a change for the worse, and is the assumption of authoiity belonging to God alone. We do not desire our opponents to act in opposition to their own con\T.ctions, although we regard those convictions as erroneous. Our endeavour is to convince them of their errors. And demanding no moi'e from them than we claim for ourselves, we say, " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." But, alas ! some of our ojjponents seem to think that their convictions should regulate not their owti practice only, but ours also ! And, forsooth, because we refuse to regulate our practice by theii- convictions, we are the too stringent, the uncharitable, the bigoted people ! " I have already shown above," says Dr. Dwight, " and suffi- ciently, that God has absolutely prohibited all men, under severe denun- ciations, and with terrible expressions of His anger, either to form religious institutions, or to substitute their own institutions for His." We say that the Scriptures have instituted the immersion of believers, without the least intimation that a change might afterwards be approved, and that no Divine sanction, therefore, for sprinkling or pouring, as Christ's oi'dinance, is in existence ; that the same authority being required to change as to establish a Divine institution, no man has a right to neglect immer-sion or to adopt a substitute; that the change advocated and practised by our opponents is a distinct action, and a subversion of the " one baptism " Divinely ordained ; that an admission of the lawful- ness of sprinkling, which we hold in this light, would involve an admission of the lawfulness of every man doing that which is "right in his own eyes," independently of Divine precepts and scriptural pi-ecedents Divinely sanctioned; and that our adherence to immersion is encouraged by all the glorious perfections of Jehovah, by all the dispensations of His providence, by all the wonders of redemption, by all the plenitude and faithfulness of Divine promises, by all the experience of God's obedient people, by all the commendation bestowed in Scriptvu-e on those who keep the ordinances as delivered to them, by all the denunciations of the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 503 Man of sorrows against those who laid aside God's commandments, and in lieu thereof held the traditions of men, by the judgment denounced against any who " add unto," or " take away frona," the Word of God, and by the consequent and infinite desirableness of every one knowing by experience that "blessed are they that do" God's " commandmeuts, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." § 33. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION THAT WE BIGOTEDLY ATTACH MOMENT TO WHAT IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND UNIMPORTANT. Luke, the Evangelist. — "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ejohesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord ; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue ; whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto liim the way of God more perfectly." — Acts xviii. 24-26. W. Chillingworth. — "The Bible, I .say — the Bible only — is the religion of Protestants." Dr. L. Woods. — "The Bible is infallible; and the only infallible rule of our faith." "Neither the church at large, nor any portion of it is infallible : and we are never to consider its doctrines as the foundation of our faith. If, after long and impartial examination, we find that any of the doctrines, held by ministers and Christians of past ages, are not conformed to the Word of God, we not only have a right, but are obliged in duty to withhold our assent." — Works, vol. i., pp. 9, 6. W. WiLBERFORCE. — "If what shall be stated should to any appear needlessly austere and rigid, the wi-iter must lay in his claim not to be condemned without a fair inquiry whether his statements do or do not accord with the language of the Sacred Writings." "It may not be improper here to touch on two kindred opinions. . . . The one is, thiLt it sigriifies little rvhat a man believes; look to his practice. The other (of the same family), that sincerity is all in all. ... Of the former of these maxims, we may remark, that it proceeds on the monstrous supposition already noticed — that although accountable creatures, we shall not be called to account for the exercise of our intellectual and mental powers. Moreover, it is founded on that grossly fallacious assumption, that a man's opinions will not iniluence his practice. . . . The latter of the foregoing maxims, that sincerity is all in all, proceeds on this groundless supposition, that the Supreme Being has not afforded us sufficient means of discriminating truth from falsehood, right from wrong ; and it implies that, be a man's opinions and conduct ever so wild and extravagant, we are to presume that they are as much the result of impartial inquiry and honest conviction, as if his sentiments and actions had been strictly conformable to the rules of reason and sobriety." — Prae. Chris., -pv. 20,23-30. S. W. Partridge.— "Ko pet truths Thou mayst allow thyself : have reverence For all thy Father's laws." — Upw. and Onw., p. 8. Dr. Waedlaw. — "It [the Bible] differs from other mines in this : that while, in other mines, you have not only to dig and search, and wash and test, but — after all your toil — must leave a far larger amount of refuse and rubbish than you can collect of precious ore or virgin gold ; in this mine there is no refuse. All is precious ; precious in various degrees, and for various reasons, but still precious." — Sys. Theol, vol. iii., p. 12. J. A. Haldane. — " External matters . . . are a part of that Scripture which cannot be broken." "If Christians entertained the same confidence that whatever God has seen fit to record in the lively oracles is designed for our instruction, and that obedience to every precej^t is calculated to promote holiness, they would reap much advantage and edification from it." "It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the spirit of a Christian, to be indifferent about any part of the will of God." "A supposed latitude in Scripture, respecting what were called circumstantials, led the way to all the abominations of Popery ; and we ought not to neglect the admonition to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good, especially as we have such an example before our eyes." "We are also assured that whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no •wise enter therein (Luke xviii. 17). When we receive with reverence the whole of the Word of God, applying each part of it to the use for which it was designed, considering it all to be highly important, we resemble a little cliild sitting at the feet of its father ; but when we take upon us to decide what we shall admit as binding, and what we shall neglect as unsuitable to our circum- stances, we discover a very opposite temper." — Soc. Wor., jip. 6-10. F. Clowes. — " Every effort to choose a right course strengthens the general habit of obedience, whUe every indulgence of indolence or prejudice weakens it ; if you even allow a suspicion of being wrong to remain without examination, it will be like the ' fly in the apothecary's ointment,' causing it to send forth a stinking savour." — On the Imp. of Right Views, p. 6. Thomas Boston. — "The saints have no confidence in man's externals. I call those things so which God never made duty, but men make them so. These are not only vain confidences, but vain worship and service that is loatlisome to God'' (Matt. xv. 9). Men are apt to cut the law short enough as it is found in the Word, but men's nature has a wonderful itching after making additions of their own to it. Hence a cloud of superstition has darkened some churches, and the simplicity of Gospel-worship is despised. Men's inventions are brought in upon — yea, instead of — Divine institutions ! But though they should be bound with the tie of Antiquity, as Matt. v. 2 1 ; with the tie of Chukch AuxaoBiiy, as Matt, xxiii. 4; or with the tie of Civil Auxhokixt, as Hosea 504 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. V. 11 ; seeing it cannot be set home on the conscience with, IVms saitli the Lord, it is to be rejected and by no means complied witli, be tlie hazard what it will. Deut. iv. 2 — ' Ye shall not add unto the word which 1 command yon, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.'" — Scr. and Disc, p. 341. Dr. Cakson. — "Is it not a fearful thing to do in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that wliich tlie Father, and the Son, and the Holy Si^irit have not enjoined?" (p. 244). E, K. CoNDSU. — "We claim neitlier infallibility nor perfection for Congregational churches. We simply claim for them a nearer approximation to tlie ai)ostolic model tlian we find elsewhere ; and a more hearty, unfettered aclvnowledgment of apostolic autliority. . . . Prove any of tlieir doctrines or practices to be inconsistent with Scripture, and it is ijjso facto found contrary to tlieir own fundamental principles, the very corner-stone of which is, that the word of Christ is the ONLY L.vw OF HIS Church." — Ifliy are vc Diss., pp. 4, 5. Dr. J. Parker. — "Too often, I am afraid, the imthinliing are apt to confound bigotry with firmness." — Ch. Ques., p. 138. The loord bigotry, with which Baptists iu time past have been so pleutifully charged by theii" opponents, is not remembered to have been ■seen among the charges adduced by some of the most I'ecent and respect- able writers. We hoj^e that a partial abandonment of the word is the immediate precui'sor of a rejection of the idea. We are speaking only of bigotry as necessarily involved in the sentiments on baptism enter- tained by the Baptists, irresjDective of the views they may have adopted from the supposed teaching of inspiration respecting the extent of the atonement, or of communion, &c. We are quite aware that there may be bigoted Baptists or Peedobaptists, Churchmen or Dissenters. The sentiments of none preclude its possibility ; nor do we now assume the seat of judgment, that we may inform the Cluistian world where it most extensively prevails. Baptists are said to attach importance to what is circumstantial and unimportant. The importance of the Cliristian ordinance, and the importance of observing it scripturally, are two distinct things. Some of our opponents, as Mr. Stacey and others, are not chargeable with holding the ordinance in low estimation. The idea entertained by Episco- palians and Papists of its power to bless, and of its consequent importance, is well known. And amongst Protestant Psedobaptist Dissenters, expres- sions and actions have not been wanting to prove the efficacy and impor- tance of baptism in their estimation. We might astoni.sh some, and we should be exti'emely sorry to wound any, if we were to say that no charge ever came with a worse gi-ace from the lips of opponents, no charge involving greater ignorance, or want of modesty, than the oft- repeated charge that we who confine the Chi'istian ordinance to the immersion of professing believei's, " make too much of baiitism." But we would not, in vindicating ourselves, accuse our opponents of delibe- rately encouraging any known dei">avture from God's Word, althouglt some of their ex})ressions, being very unguarded and censurable, may appear to encourage iaidifFei'enco to trutli, and disobedience to the Divine legislator. We believe that the fallacy included in that frequent expres- sion, "mode of baptism," is not observed. But to the subject. Mr. Jerram says, " Who can see, without grief, the importance which is now attached to the circumstantials relating to baptism V (p. 144). A modest complaint this from a State-cliurch clergyman, Avho, along with all othei's in similar bonds, has been required to give his cordial assent to every- thing contained in the book of Common Prayer ! Dr. Cumming believes that "the mode, except so far as defined by Christ, is left to latitude, to convenience, to the taste, fancy, and })rcferencc of all," and he can deem FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. oOo it " bigotry and intolerance " were he " to say that immersion is wrong." And fi-om tis who believe it to be immersion as " defined by Christ," he demands that we are guilty of " bigotry and intolerance " if we " say that sprinkling is wrong" [Sab. Eve. Rea., on Matt., p. 458). So it will be, when it involves bigotry and intolerance to teach " them to observe all things whatsoever " Christ has commanded. Mr. Stacey, on the " mode of baptism," says, " The whole question at issue is one of form, not of substance; of ceremony, and not of trvitli" (p. 173). Thns, on the part of our friend, is there at the outset a gross begging of the whole ques- tion, and a blinding of the eyes of his readers who do not observe this, or whom prejudice has not previously blinded ; otherwise, if God com- mands us to immerse, — which the Baptists maintain, — we may sub- stantially obey the command in sprinkling. He may well, on such assumption, say, " It must therefore be a question of very subordinate interest ;" and, " our first remark, then, is a plea for liberty." Assuredly we allow to our opponents the right of judging what is the meaning of Christ's command; but the right of election in regard to immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, we deny that any person possesses, until it is proved that, in the time of Christ, hajytizo had the above meanings. We allow that the Gospel, in regard to carnal ordinances, is veiy different from the Mosaic economy ; but we deny that it grants liberty to man to depart from what God has ordained, or to change what God has fixed. If God has commanded immersion, then immersion is no accident of the rite. Thus, whilst our brethren regard it as inconceivable that Christ shoiild have enjoined immersion, we feel necessitated to believe that the Divinely-ajDpointed baptism is immersion, and nothing else than immer- sion. Our brethren can believe that God under the law commanded immersion, jDouring, and sprinkling; but it is inconceivable that under the Gospel he has commanded immersion ! It must be that under the Gospel we are left to our own election ! In a manner similar to this, the Serpent reasoned with Eve respecting not eating " of every tree of the garden," and respecting the threatening of death. Whilst assei-ting that baptism is immersion, and that the initiatory ordinance is thus " defined by Christ," we are far from advocating its administration other- wise than "decently and in order," and — so far as can be known — to persons in a I'ight state of heart. We have no contention v/ith our opponents about mode of baptism, but about baptism itself. They may immerse backwards, forwards, or sideways; they may immerse in garments black or white, and in any collection of water, huge or small, jiroviding that "all things be done decently and in order." Yet our principles are charged by Dr. Williams ^vith being nearly "allied to the interest of genuine bigotry," having "a direct tendency to make the x(,nprescrihed circumstances of a positive rite essential to the rite itself." Dr. Halley maintains " that in a sym- bolic service only the symbol is imposed on the church, and the mode of exhibiting it is of no importance; and further, that in the baptismal service only the use of water, and not the immersion, is symbolical of Christian truth" (p. 268). We do not deny that only the symbol is imposed on the church; and there would have been no begging of the question, and no " perfectly gratuitous assumption " on the part of Dr. 606 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. H. and Mr. S., if they liad I'efen-ed to chapter and verse in God's Word where, instead of a specific action being enjoined by Christ, He had simply taught " the use of water." The Word of God is as clear in its revelation of a j^urgatory as it is in revealing *' only the use of water " in the baptismal service. Yet on such a dishonourable but unperceived assumption are the Baptists, by not a few of their Paedobaptist brethren, held up to contempt for that which is deemed harsh, iincharitable, and bigoted adherence to what is circu7nstantial and unimportant. That Dr. H. and Mr. S. believe " only the use of water " to be required, we do not doubt ; but this is simply an inference, arising principally, if not exclusively, from supposed difficulties in the performance of immersion, which we have already noticed; whilst Dr. H. admits immerse to be the invariable import of baptizo unto the time of its adoption by the inspired writers. He has before said: "In our administration of baptism we contend that we change no symbol, for, as we believe, the ^lse of water is the only symbol ; but our variation, if we do vaiy, is in a part of the sei'vice which is not symbolic, but circumstantial, like the evening hour of the supper" (p. 251). Our opponents would have had ground for their sentiments, practice, and complaints, if the commission and other records had run thus: — " Go ye, therefore, make disciples of all nations, using water in the name of the Father," &c. " He that believeth and receiveth the application of water, shall be saved." " Rejient ye, and suh- Tnit to the applicatio7i of water, every one of you." " When they believed Philip preaching the things concei-ning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they received the use of water, men and women." We do not thus read in the oi-iginal, although the Holy Spirit could have left such a record; nor have we as yet thus read in any translation; and yet our friend Dr. H. attributes our exclusive adhei-ence to circumstantial immersion to " the sectarian bias with which," alas ! we " are heavily encumbered " (p. 248). Our reading is so limited that it would pass for little to say that we have not read another author exhibiting the same mixture of truth and error, intelligence and prejudice, candour and uncharitableness, as our learned and Christian brothei'. Dr. H. Our feelings necessarily oscillate between pleasure and pain, admiration and contempt. He has before told us that "the whole question is resolved into the meaning of a Greek word" (p. 236); an affirmation, the truth- fulness of which we admit, without approving of the spii-it or reasoning with which it is associated. If the whole question is resolved into the meaning of a Greek word, how can we be chai'geable with a bigoted adherence to what is circumstantial, when adhering simply to wliat we maintain to be the only import of the word, and to what they admit to be its primary and general meaning? If there is bigotry in adhering to what is circumstantial, where can it be but in adhenny exclusively to sprinkling or p)ouring, whilst believing that immersion is bajytism equally WITH THESE 1 Baptism, which we ai'e discussing, is a Divine appointment. If the action to be performed is a mere circumstance, what is baptism itself? Is it saying the words, " into the name of the Father," kc.l Some of us are strangely ignorant, if the ordinance is not called baptism from the very act of baptizing. Can the action, without which baptism neither FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 507 does noi' can exist, be a mere circumstance ? We might as well say that there can be a baptizing without a baptism. And yet we who believe that haptizo signifies to immerse, and not to pour or to sprinkle, and con- sequently that poui'ing and sprinkling, because they are not immersion, are not baptism, and who practise only immersion, ai'e represented as bigotedly attaching impoi-tance to a mere cii'cumstance. Yes, and we are earnestly invoked by our Psedobaptist brethren, in the name of charity and Christianity, to acknowledge spi'inkling or pouring to be baptism, because they honestly think it to be so ! As i-idiculous and uni'easonable is the conduct of some of our brethren towards us as if two persons wei'e disputing respecting the colour of cloth, one maintaining that it is green, and the other that it is partly gi-een and partly brown ; and the latter should appeal to his fellow, imploring him to admit that it is green and brown, because he honestly believed it to be so. Our Psedobaptist friends are so kind as to write volumes on the subject of baptism without having " the slightest wish to make a single convert to sprinkling. Having no pi'efei'ence for any mode," they will only attempt to vindicate their " right to be regarded as baptized Christians." That they have a perfect right to bring forwards every thing that can be brought forwards in vindication of theii' sentiments and practice, we freely admit ; but on the failure of their endeavours to alter our convictions I'espectiug what necessarily belongs to the action of baptism, we main- tain that their demands are somewhat like the demands of the papal hierarchy, that a thing should be believed because the holy and infallible church says so, but utterly unbecoming Protestants, and especially Pi'o- testant Dissenters ; and that their insinuations or assertions respecting our bigotry are in accordance with demands so flagrantly inconsistent. Suppose that a master were to command liis servant in plain English to immerse his dog in water, and the seiwant were to sprinkle the same; and in explanation were to say that he had applied water, which was all that the command required; that the entire covering or surrounding of the dog with water was a mere circumstance; would every one coincide with the sentiment of this servant, excepting such as are heavily encum- bered ivith sectarian bias, or such as through 'Hhe trammels of a theory" (S., p. 193), or some other cause, manifest "a most obstinate adherence to the supposed inflexibility of a term '?" (p. 206). We believe that the word of Christ explicitly requires immersion.* Or, suppose that Christ had lived in England, and had commanded His apostles to immerse disciples into the name of the Father, (fee, and Grecians should shortly be divided in opinion respecting the action enjoined by Christ, whilst the English were quite unanimous in the sen- timent and practice of immersing ; tha^one Greek believes it means to encompass with the element, and another believes that the sprinkling or pouring of water on the face, or on any part of the body, or indeed " any appKcation of water," any use of the symbolic element, fulfils the com- *" Either the Word of God binds us, or we are unbound altogether. From this dilemma we can see no escape. Does any one say that this is a narrow view ; a bondage to outward forms ? But remember who binds you — man or God ? " — Baptist Reporter, pp. 367, 368. 1857. 508 IMPORT OF EArTISM. niancl to imnier.se; and tliat the entire covering with water which takes place in dipping is a mere circumstance of the command, which nothing Ijiit bigotry itself would denominate either essential or important, should not we English think respecting the latter supposed Greeks as the Greeks think respecting those who practise pouring or sprinkling as Isaptism? Yet our Psedobaptist friends are sorely wounded, and they grievously complain, that we insist on immersion, not as the favourite badge of our party, but as the essence of the sacrament. It is the maintaining of its necessity to baptism that is to them so trying, and which also proves us to be so obstinate. We do not say that this involves no trial to our- selves ; but we cannot blame ourselves for this ; nor would we complain of the cross involved whilst we can remember Him who for us endured a very different cross. But some of our opposing brethren are kind enough to inform iis that, if we simply preferred immersion, the con- troversy with ns would be at an end. We presume from this that, if we simply preferred immersion instead of adhering exclusively to it, they too would prefer immersion without adhei'ing exclusively to it, which on their part is certainly very complaisant. It would seem, however, that if we adhere to immersion alone, they — free from obstinacy and unen- cumbered with sectarian bias — will practise only sprinkling or pouring ! We can inform our brethren that we have not such reasons for our sole adherence to immersion, nor are we afraid of impartial judgment declaring to wliicli conduct bigotry attaches. It would be less ofi'ensive to Roman Catholics to say respecting their alterations and omissions in the Lord's 'Supper, that yet the Lord's Supper with them is not essentially defective •or wrong, than to say that it is invalid. If we allowed the State domina- tion, the coercion, the baptismal regeneration, the sponsors, ifec, of the Established Church of England, to be not essentially wrong, not to jus- tify a separation, we should be preserved in some instances from appella- tions and from a conduct which we do not covet. It will, however, be admitted by many of our opponents that submission to the highest authority justifies our dissent, whatever obloquy or inconvenience may ensue. It might, to some, have been attended with advantages of a cer- tain kind, if they could have been Episcopalians in England, Pa})ists in Italy, and Mohammedans in Turkey; but we believe that all our oppo- nents would, equally with ourselves, condemn such nnprincipled yielding. Lt is, however, with sorrow that we find learned and Chiistian men teaching that if baptism was immersion in the time of Clnist and His apostles, yet if that method of administei-ing the ordinance was not signi- ficant of some truth which the other modes cannot rejiresent, we are at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from which we may •dejiait when expediency requires it. We believe that our brethren deceive and are deceived by the expression, " modes of bai:>tism." What ashould we think of a man who said in plain English that if the Lord has »ffljoined immersion and the apostles did in'actise it, yet if we in the pre- sent day have found out that s])rinkling or pouring will do as well, or better, we are quite at liberty to discontinue immersion, and to substitute spi-iaikling or pouring ? Shoidd we deem it wise to reason Avith one who would take such liberties with Christ and the Bible, except on the siii- fulioiess and danger of such a proceeding < Wi' tliink with Mr. Thorn FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 509 respecting sprinkling and immersion, — only that we object to their being designated two modes of baptism, — that, "as these two [modes] are du-ectly opposed to each other, it is not likely that both of them should be scrijitural and valid ; " and we again refer our readers to the rules of interpretation Avhich forbid a departure from the ordinary and most usual signification of words, except for the weightiest and most urgent reasons, yea, which requii'e proof that a word is used in a secondary meaning in any place, from the man who makes an assertion to that effect. The term haptizo being the enacting term in the institution, and meaning — as we believe — immerse, according to the conclusion to which we in candour, justice, and charity, necessarily come, there is not bap- tizing without immersing. And an exact observance of Divine laws we do not regard as superstitious, sinful, or dishonourable. If we substituted baptism, or the Lord's Supper, for the atoning sacrifice of Christ, we should be subverting the Gospel. But we know quite as well that we have redemption through the blood of Christ, as that the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you " (1 Cor. xi. 3). Should we take liberties with Divine commands, and alter or modify them at pleasure, because we are not saved by the merit of obedience % "Would such a conduct bear no resemblance to a turning of the grace of God into lasciviousness "? Is there no medium between baptismal regeneration and a deeming of strict obedience to Divine ordinances as mean, unnecessary, and contemptible 1 To avoid a legal spirit are we wai'ranted to neglect what God has appointed ? Can the Divine favoiir and blessing be expected to attend equally obedience and disobedience'? We ])lead not for this or that '■'■mode of baptism," but for baptism itself. If Christ had commanded all men to go to Jerusalem, and had said nothing concerning the mode of travelling, Christ's com- mand would be fulfilled by every one who went to Jerusalem, whilst every one had chosen his own mode. Christ has enjoined immersion, but has said nothing respecting the mode of immersion. If the word haptizo meant indifierently to immerse, to pour, or to sprinkle, we might then indifferently practise immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. There must be more than one action included in the word before there can be to us a choice of actions. If there be no command from God to us to pour or to sprinkle, both are acts of will-worship. If Christ had commanded his people to be immersed in a river, in a linen or woollen garment, then the river, the linen or woollen garment, would be as essential to the ordinance as at present immersion is. Whether such are Christ's direc- tions we need not assert. Yet how often is it complainingly and con- temptuously spoken and "sviitten concerning the Baptists: "Dipping is of such importance, according to their system, that there can be no Christian baptism unless the whole body be immersed in water," Have we power to modify or to alter what Christ has enjoined'? Shall we doubt the wisdom or the grace of Jesus'? Did Old Testament saints rejoice that God's commands were pure, and right, and perfect? And shall not we say, "Let my heart be sound in thy statutes; that I be not ashamed" '? (Psalm cxix. 80.) But these Baptists are so bigoted ! They think no way right but 510 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. their own ! Primitive Christians might, under tyi'annical Emperors of Rome, have escaped much persecution if they would have acknowledged Jesus to be a god, in addition to all the idols of Home, and deserving of adoration along vnth the rest. But do not Protestants believe both paganism and Poperj'- to be wrong 1 Do not Dissenters believe that the State-establishment of i-eligion is wrong 1 Do not Predobaptists believe that we are wrong, and that they are right ? If they think our sentiments and practice to be right, why do they yet find fault? But these bigoted Baptists pay no resjiect to the opinions of others, and their sweeping doctrine confines the visible church of Christ to the dipt ! It is not easy to believe that a doctrine so un-Cliristian coiild ever be countenanced by Christ ! Whatever the sentiments and practice of the Baptists may imply in regard to church order, they do not un-Christianize those who have like precious faith with them in the obedience of Christ unto death on the sinner's behalf, who are born again of the Spiiit, and who, though, in our judgment, in error in regard to a solemn, significant, and important institution, are, in their own judgment, rendering conscientioiis obedience to the commands of Christ. The rendering of obedience to Christ's commands, it might be said, is surely not stigmatized as bigotry by Protestants, and especially by Protestant Dissenters ! They who ai-e so conscientious and charitable cannot thus. malign their Baptist brethren! In the autumnal meeting of the Congregational Union, I860, Dr. J. Kelly is reported to have said respecting denominational principles: "If these principles were not worth inculcating, they were not worth main- taining." He maintained that "their mouths must not be closed from an unmanly fear of giving offence to brethren whom they might esteem, but to whom such topics might be distasteful." His paper, after com- mendation from T. Barnes, Esq., M.P., and E. Morley, Esq., he is requested to allow to be published as one of the series of Congrega- tional Tracts. After the reading of this paper on Congregational Principles, it was agreed, the resolution being proposed by the Rev. A, Reed, and seconded by the Rev. G. Smith, " That this meeting, . . . believing, as it does, that Christian candour consists not in ignoring religious principles through fear of giving offence, but in the avowal and maintenance of personal conviction, while conceding the same right to others, urges," ifec. We heartily wish every one to be fully pei'suaded in his own mind from a prayerful examination of God's Word, and to act accoixlmg to the convictions to which he is thus brought. But if he and we, having thus acted, have different and opposing views, we will still maintain, let each act according to his own convictions of God's will; let neither exercise lordship or sit in judgment over the other. Each "to his own master " " standeth or falleth." Yea, we believe that each of these servants of God "shall be holden up." We will not, nevei-theless, so reflect on Christ and on His truth as to say that both are right, which would involve a contradiction; or that our directory is obscure, which would be a reflection on the Author. We will rather say that one of us is mistaken and in error, either through insufficient examination, thi'ough prepossessions, or through something else. Nor will we, because of this diflference, charge either party with bigotiy for conscientiously obeying FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 511 what it is believed that God has enjoined; nor ■will we say that the precept, evidently misunderstood by one or other of the opponents, must necessarily from this circumstance be one of little importance. Surely both we and our opponents sometimes read, if we do not also preach, from Rom. xiv., as well as such passages as, " Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithei-soever thou goest " (Joshua i. 7). " Every man's work shall be made manifest : for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Cor. iii. 13). "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth " (Rev. xiv. 4). We believe that He who has commanded us to immerse into the name of the Father, (fee, had just said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;" and that the command to immerse was followed by an injunction to teach the observance of all things ivhatsoever Christ had commanded, as well as a promise of His continued presence. If we are chargeable with sectarianism and bigotiy in adhering to that alone which we believe that Christ has ordained, to what other conclusion can we come than that Christ has impi'operly ordained, that we are insincere in our professions, or that we ought to accept the interpretation of an uninsjDired teacher or church, bowing to that notorious usurper called ecclesiastical authority ? We differ, therefore, from the latter, as well as from the former part of the following quotation from Dr. A. Clarke: " To say that sprinkling is no Gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say that immersion is none. Such assertions are as un-Chiistian as they are uncharitable." We dilfer, it will be perceived, from those who deem baptism itself of insignificant moment, or who deem the application of water in any wssy to constitute baptism, and from those who ai)pear to confound indifierence to Divine teaching on this subject with candour, charity, and liberality; and to confound the practising, recommending, and defending of what is believed to be scriptural, with ignorance, superstition, and bigotry. But our opponents, on this subject, are either not very consistent with them- selves or with one another, or some of them must be excepted. Hence the previously -quo ted sentiment, that the symbols of our faith, if not of Divine au.thority, are profane inventions of men. BuDDEUS does not reflect on strict obedience when he says: "God had the wisest reasons why He would have an appointment administered in this or the other manner. It is not lawful, therefore, for men to alter anything, or to mutilate the appointment. Thus the sacraments are to be used, not according to our own pleasure, but in the manner appointed by God."— //^s-^. Theol. Mor. Seep, i., c. v., § 18; p. ii., c. ii., § 50. Bp. Butler. — "It is highly necessary that we remind ourselves how great pre- sumption it is to make light of positive institutions of Divine appointment ; that our obligations to obey all commands whatever are absolute and iudispeusable j and that commands merely positive, admitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them; an obligation moral in the strictest and most proper sense." — Anal, of Eel., part ii., c. i. Dr. Gerhard. — -"Seeing that a sacrament depends entirely on the appointment of God, when we do not what God has appointed it certainly will not be a sacra- ment."— Loc. Theol., torn, iv. De Sac, § 52. 512 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Dr. Grosvenor. • — "The diminutive things that have been said by some of the positive appointments in religion, and the extravagant things that have been said by others, are two extremes whicli true reasoning leads nobody into on either hand. It is as contrary to the nature of things to make nothing of them as to make them the whole of religion. ... A disposition to obey Divine orders, whei'cver they are discerned, either positive or moral, is part of that ' holiness mthout which no man shall see the Lord.' I may be saved without a sacrament; but I cannot be saved without a disposition to obey God's authority wherever I see it. A sacrament is a positive rite, and not to be compared with moral virtue : l)ut is not a disposition to obey God's order moral virtue and Christian grace ? Or can there be anj' moral virtue or Christian grace without a disposition to obey the aiithority of Christ, wherever I discern it ? Surely obedience to God's command is a moral excellence, though the instances of that obedience may lie in positive rites. The command to Abraham to sacrifice his son was a positive order, and a very strange one too; seemingly o])posite to some moral orders given ovit before : and yet his disposition to obey, when he was siire of a Divine warrant in the case, has set him as the head of all the believing world ; as the hero of faith, the father of the faithful, and the friend of God. The command of sprinkhng the blood of the Passover upon the door-posts of the Israelites was an external positive rite : if there had not been a disposition to oljey that order, it would have cost some lives ; as it had like to have done to Moses the neglect of circumcising his child, as good a man as he was in other rcsjiects. "The sincerity and truth of such a disposition is best known by its being uniform and universal (Psalm cxix. 6; Col. iv. 3). The Aiithor of our religion has told us, and added His example to His "Word, that 'thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness,' and so ordered himself to be bajitized. Baptism was a positive rite, an external thing; and yet he calls it righteousness. Such righteousness as became Him who was the Holy One of God ; became Him who had intrinsically no need of any outward ceremony; whose inwai'd purity was perfectly Divine: and if it became Him to fulfil svich a sort of righteousness, it can hardly become any who pretend to be His followers to neglect it. "As a competent evidence is supposed needful for anj^ external rite being of Divine appointment, so, again, a wilful ignorance of that evidence, or not discerning it through criminal causes, will not excuse from guilt. The criminal causes of not seeing the evidence for such appointments are, in this case, as in many other cases, non-inquiry, laziness, prejudice, lust, pi'ide, and passion. That an ignorance OAving to these causes cannot be pleaded for a neglect of any of God's appointments, is so much the general sense of all casuists, that I shall only add here, that it is at every mail's 2)eril how he comes not to hnoio the ivill of God, as tvell as not to do it. We must look to it how we come not to see the appointment, and must answer that to God and our own conscience. It is not enough to say. Lord, I did not know it xcas ajjpoinfed ; when the answer may justly be. You never inquired into the matter: j/oti never edlowed yourself to think of it: or if you did, you resolved in your mind that you vould not be convinced. You made the most of every cavil, but never minded the solution to any of your ohjections. . . . Where there is the Divine warrant, 'Thus saith the Lord,' it is worse than trifling to cavil and say. It is but an external rite. ... If there shoidd be any reasons of these injunctions that we do not know, it is sufficient that they are known to God. Our obedience is always a reasonable service, whether we kiiow God's reasons for the injunction or not. His command is always reason enough for us." In defending the positive rites which God has appointed from implying an arliitrary disjwsition on God's part, he says: "The idea of arbitrary, 1 think, implies a weakness incompatible to the Divine nature; whose perfection it is to do nothing but for some wise reason, and for some good end. . . . Though no jiositive appointments are absolutely necessary, yet the con- tempt of them, and of the Divine authority discerned in them, cannot consist with holiness. This contempt may be shown by contenqituous language, ... a careless attendance, ... a total neglect, . . . and by prostituting them to jiersons that do contemn them, and to jmrposes that are inurorthy. . . . "To conclude. External rites are nothing without the inward temper and * This is attrilnited to Dr. Grosvenor. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 513 virtue of mind; the inward temper is but pretended to, in many cases, without the external rites, and is acquired, promoted, and evidenced by the use of them. If ' I give all my goods to the pooi-, and have not charity,' there is the external act, without the inward moral temper, and so it is all nothhij. If, on the other hand, I say, I have the inward temper of charity, and give nothing to the poor, but say to my brother, ' Be thou warmed ; be thou clothed : ' how dwelleth the love of God in that man? Therefore what God hath joined together let no man put asimder. Whatever comparative excellence there may be in the two different instances of obedience, they are both instances of obedience ; and the direction of our regard is summed up in that text (Matt, xxiii. 23), 'These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.' " — 3lor. Obi. to the Pos. Appoi. in Bdi. Bp. Taylor, speaking of sacramental institutions and positive laws, is sufficiently stringent in demanding adherence to what God has enjoined. He says: "They depend wholly on the will of the Lawgiver, and the wiU of the Supreme, being actually limited to this specification, this manner, this matter, this institution : whatsoever comes besides, it hath no foundation in the will of the Legislator, and, therefore, can. have no warrant or authority. That it be obeyed, or not obeyed, is all the question and all the variety. If it can be obeyed, it must ; if it cannot, it must be let alone. . . . Whatsoever depends upon a Divine law or institution, what- soever God wills, whatsoever is apjiointcd instrumental to the signification of a mystery, or to the collation of a grace or a power, he that does anything of his own head, either must be a despiser of God's will, or must suppose himself the author of a grace, or else to do nothing at all in what he does ; because all his obedience and all the blessing of his obedience depend upon the -will of God, which ought always to be obeyed when it can: and when it cannot, nothing can supply it, because the reason of it cannot be iinderstood. . . . All positive precepts that depend upon the mere will of the Lawgiver admit no degrees, nor suppletory and commutation ; because in such laws we see nothing beyond the ivords of the law, and the first meaning, and the named instance: and, therefore, it is that in individuo which God points at; it is that in which He will make the trial of our obedience; it is that in which He will so perfectly be obeyed that He will not be disputed with or inquired of, why and how, but just according to the measures there set down ; so, and no more, and no less, and no othencise. For when the will of the Lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measure, and there can be no product but what is just set down. No parity of reason can infer anything else; because there is no reason biit the will of God, to which nothing can be equal, because His -vdW can be but one." — Due. Dub., b. ii., c. iii., § 14, 18. Nevei'tlielesR, some of our opponents, from our i)racticc of immersion alone, believing that this, irrespective of mode, is solemnly enjoined by Christ, regard us as bigotedly attached to circumdanticds and things imimportant ! Yet, says Dr. Owen: "Christ marrying His church to himself, taking it to that relation, still ex]iresseth the main of their chaste and choice afl'ections to Him, to lie in their keeping His institutions and His worship according to His a2)pointment. The breach of this He calls adultery everywhere, and whoredom : He is a jealous God, and He gives himself that title only in respect of His institutions. And the whole apostacy of the Christian cliurch unto false worship is called fornication (Rev. xvii. 5), and the church that leads the others to false worship, the motlier of harlots. On this account, those believers who really attend to communion with Jesus Christ, do labour to keep their hearts chaste to Him in His ordinances, institutions, and worship. . . . They will receive nothing, practise nothing, own nothing in His worship, but what is of His appointment. They know that from the foundation of the world He never did allow, nor ever will, that in anytliing the will of the creatiu'es should be the measure of His honour, or the ])rinciple of His worship, either as to matter or manner." — Commie, with God, part ii., c. v. Yet we Baptists who only immerse, and who believe tliat no word in the Greek language could more definitely have conveyed this meaning than the word used by the Spirit of inspiration, Avithout conveying either LL 514 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. more or less, are regarded as exhibiting hy our conduct a bigoted attach- ment to that which is circumstantial and iinimjyortant ! But V. Alsop has said : ' ' Under the Mosaical law God commanded that they should offer to Him the daily hvii-nt-offeriug ; and, in this case, the colour of the Vjeast (provided it was otherwise rightly qualified) was a mere circumstance : such as God laid no stress upon, and that man had proved himself a sui^erstitious busy-hody, that should curiously adhere to any one colour. But, for the heifer whose ashes were to make the tvater of separation, there the colour was no circumstance, hut made hy God's command a suhtitantial part of the service. To be red, was as much as to be a heifer: for when circumstances have once passed the royal assent, and are stamped with the Divine seal, they become substantials in instituted woi-ship. . . . We ought not to judge that God has little regard to any of His commands because the matter of them, abstracted from His authority, is little: for we must not conceive that Christ sets little by baptism because the element is plain, fair water ; or little by that other sacrament l)ecause the materials thereof are common bread and wine. . . . For though the things in themselves be small, yet His authdrity is great. . . . Though the things be small, yet God can bless them to great purposes (2 Kings v. 11). . . . Nor are we to judge that God lays little stress upon His institutes because He does not immediately avenge the contempt and neglect of them upon the violators (Eccle. viii. II ; Matt. v. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 30). . . . As we must not think that God appreciates whatever men set a high A-alue upon, so neither are we to judge that He disesteems anything because it is grown out of fashion, and thereby exposed to contempt by the atheistical wits of mercenary writers. ... If any of Christ's institutions seem necessary to be broken, it will be first necessary to deciy them as pooi-, low, inconsiderable circumstances; and then to fill the people's heads with a noise and din that C'hrist lays little stress on them ; and in order hereto call them the circumstantials, the accidentals, the minutes, the punctilios, and, if need be, the petty Johns of reh'gion, that conscience may not kick at the contemning of them. ... It would be injurious to conclude that God has very little respect to His own institutions because He may susjiend their exercise, 2>'>'0 hie et nunc, rather than the duties im])erated by a moral precept. Alint, anise, and cummin are inconsiderable things, compared with the weir/hlier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, faith; and yet our Saviour tells them (Matt, xxiii. 23) : 'These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.' . . . God is the .Sovereign and absolute Legislator, who may susfend, rescind, alter His own laws at pleasui'e; and yet He has laid such a stress ujiou the meanest of them, that no man may, nor any man but the man of sin dares, presume to dis])ense with them. . . . Positives may be altered, changed, or abolished, by the Legislator, when and how far He pleases ; but this will never prove that He lays little stress upon them whilst they are not changed, not abolished : nor will it prove that man may chop and change, barter and truck, one of God's least circumstantials, because the Lawgiver himself may do it. He that may alter one may, for aught I know, alter them all, seeing they all bear the same image and superscription of Divine authority. ... If God was so rigorous in His animadversions, so ])unctual in His prescriptions, when His institutions were so numerous, His prescriptions so multi- form, what will He be when He has prescribed lis so few, and those so easy and useful to the oliserver? If we cannot be punctual in the observation of a very few positives of so plain signification, liow shoidd we have repined had we been charged with a niunerous retinue of types and carnal rudiments ! If Christ's yoke be accounted heavy, how should we have sunk under the Mosaical psedagogy ! " — Sober Inquiry, pp. 289-304. Whilst directly and strongly censui-ed by some for our bigoted adlxe- rence to what is regarded as circumstantial and unimportant, we receive kindly the strong and indirect commendation of our brethren, although "the praise of men" we would ever consider as of very insignificant moment compared with "the praise of God." We do not deny the existence of bigotry in some Baptists on the subject of immereion, although we deny that this is proved by an exclusive adhei-ence to FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 515 immersion. We believe equally in its existence in some Psedobaptists on the subject of sj^rinkling. It would be well if in both there was more of the mildness and sweetness of Melancthon, without that occa- sional yielding to Rome which neither honoured the reformer nor advanced the Reformation; more of that mind "which was also in Christ Jesiis." The amiable Watts wrote: "As we must take lieed that we do not add the fancies of men to our Divine rehgion, so we must take equal care that we do not curtail the appointments of Christ" {Humble Attempt, p. 62). More strongly, and yet Avitli the approbation of Mr. Rowland Hill, does Mr. Wesley write: "A catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the sjiawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. ... A man of a true catholic spirit does not halt between two opinions, nor vainly endeavour to blend them into one. Observe this, you that know not what spirit you are of ; who call yourselves of a catholic spirit only because you are of a muddy understanding ; because your mind is only in a mist ; because you ai-e of no settled, consistent princii)les, but are for jimibling all opinions together. Be convinced that you liave quite missed yoiu- way. You know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ ; when, in truth, you are nearer the spirit of Antichrist." — In Mr. R. Hill's Full Ansivei' to Mr. J. Wesley's Remarks, pp. 40, 41. There is no commendation in these extracts of playing fast and loose with supreme aiithority; no encoiu-agement given to adopt as a Divine ordinance the practice of the last five or six centuries, or to take the liberty to alter the form of ceremonies, provided the spirit is retained, or to consider the letter of the Divine law an infringement on Christian liberty. " It is a maxim in law," says Blackstone, and it holds equally good in divinity, "that it requires the same strength to dissolve as to create an obligation." — Com., vol. i. , b. i. , C. 2. Mr. Thorn, on "modes" of baptism, says: "This is confessedly a subject of considerable importance, demanding the serious attention of all professors of the Gospel" (p. 2). The Rev. Geo. Gilfillax says : "We see abundant e^ddence that the support of the early ministers of the church, so far as it came from the members, was entirely free and voluntary, and that the New Testament has given no hint whatever of a day that was to arrive when it ought to be otherwise" (Alpha and Omega, vol. ii., p. 309). We believe it; and believe with equal confidence that God's Word has revealed as baptism only believers' immersion, and has given no hint of a day that was to arrive wlien it might be exchanged for infant sprinlding. Dr. John Morison says: "We have no dispensing power here. So long as truth remains truth, we must abide by its dictates, and no false notion of what is due to him that contends M'ith us can authorize a single concession at the expense of these living oracles which speak to all men with the authority of God." — Kennedy's Memoirs of Dr. Alorison, p. 157. If some who have recorded their strictures against our exclusive adherence to immersion, as an adherence to what is circumstantial and unimportant, were to hold up to scorn, and denounce as bigots, persons who intelligently are seeking to advance scientific truth, with what amazement would their readers be filled ! But is it more important to buy scientific truth and sell it not, than it is to buy Divine ti-uth and sell it not] Is it not also unaccountable or significant that persons whose starting-point is, that whether we practise immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, it is not of the least importance, and whose next efi'ort is a 510 JMPORT OF BAPTISM. most ardent plea for siirinkliiig in preference to immersion, should, thirdly, be unreluctant to abandon all their philological reasoning on the ground that the entire dispute is respecting the meaning of a Greek word, as if Clmst, in enjoining an action on all His disciples to the end of time, might have used a word so obscure and ambigiious that noljody can ascei-tain its import, or that everybody may atti'ibute to it whatever meaning he likes] The obscurity of the term, and the insignificance of the ordinance, we believe to be equally ojiposed to truth. That it is unim^iortant to immerse, if Christ has commanded us to immerse into the name of the Father, &c., is impossible ; unless there is no warning in the record that the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against them- selves, being not baptized of John; unless obedience and disobedience to our " heavenly Father " are unimportant. But it is only a ceremony, says our opponent. And what if it is 1 It is a ceremony ordained by Him who is unerring in wisdom, almighty in powei*, inflexible in justice, and infinite in love. And if immersion is the ceremony, sprinkling is disobedience to the command. Sincerity does not and cannot convert sprinkling into immersion. Intention to fulfil a command does not fulfil it, and may never fulfil it, if the nature of the command is mistaken. However God may pai-don the mistake of the sincere and erring. His ends in ordaining the form or cei'emony are not fulfilled by him who mistakes the form or ceremony. And, for aught wc know, the great worth of a ceremony may vanish by a human alteration, and especially by an entire substitute. If our opponents Avill pi-ove that we may sjiiinkle ov pour when God has commanded immersion, controversy on the action of baptism may cease. Or if, instead of assuming in the outset that the Gospel being the law of liberty, the manner of applying water is too nearly allied to questions of meat and diink to be of much importance among the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, they will first prove that sprinkling is enjoined, we will admit our obligation to sprinkle, and not to immerse. We believe it to be a serioxis matter to alter Divine institutions. But we and all our hopeful ojiponents are agreed that Jesus Christ is the Governor of His church ; that His revealed will is the only rule of Christian duty; and that it would be an iusidt to His dignity to advance the traditions of men above His authority, or even to a leA'el with it. We can unitedly say: "Let the messengers of God take heed that they neither act nor speak anything but what they have sufficient warrant for. It is an impious and dangeroiis thing to affix God's name to our own imaginations" (Owen, on Heb.); and especially do we admit the importance and applicability to all, of the following : " Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." — Mark x. 15. § 34. — FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMEESIOK, THAT MaRK XVI. 16, OR 1 Cor. I. 14-17, troves the unimportant tllARACTER OF THIS ORDI- NANCE. Jesus Cnnisx. — "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures."— Matt. xxii. 20. Philip, the KvANciUhisr. — " I'lukrstanile.st tliou what thou rcadcst?" — Acts viii. 30. Taul, the Apostle. — "All Scripture is given by inspiration of Gotl, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." — 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. FUTILITY" OF OBJECTIONS. 517 Dr. J. MoRlsoN. — " He would seek to rescue this ordinance of Clirist from all counterfeit glosses and interpretations, that it may occupy its own dignified position among the institutions of the New Testament." — Horn, for the Times, p. o47. J. A. Haldane. — "He is the most faithful pastor who has least desire for undue personal influence, and who strives most earnestly to promote implicit subjection to the laws of Christ." "It is unworthy your character as believers to treat anything connected with religion with indifference. We ought ever to tremble at the Word of God, and to remember that it Is our duty to listen with the most serious attention to whatever our great Lawgiver has condescended to teacli. A distinction of greater and less among the commands of Christ has been admitted to a certain extent. This is supported by the Word of God ; but how much has it been abused by men — liow mucli has it been misapplied even by the disciples of Jesus ! What are called His lesser command- ments have been treated as matters of indifference, deserving neither attention nor serious regard. Let us remember, however, that they are all greatly imijortant, that they all deserve our most serious consideration, and that the \vilful neglect of any of them is rebellion against the Lord." " How often are our Lord's words misapplied ! ' Ye pay tithe,' said He, to hypocritical professors, 'of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone,' Had they neglected tithing these things, it would have been highly sinful. This text is often used to expose attention to what are called smaller matters in religion, as if this were the mark of a weak and superstitious mind." — Sue. ICor., pp. 244, 245, 43G, 445. Dr. S. Davidson. — "Our standard" "is not early ecclesiastical tradition, however venerable or hoary." — Cong. Lee, pp. 1, 2. Dr. Wall. — "As to the necessity, we should, methinks, account all our Saviour's commands to be necessary." — Inf. Bap., vol. iv., p. 9. J. C. Ryle. — "Do not attach a superstitious importance to the waters of baptism." "Do not dishonour the sacrament of baptism" (Expos. Th. on Matt.). He also, on Matt. iii. 14-17, says: "We shall notice, firstly, the lionour placed vpon the, sacrament of baptism. An ordinance of which the Lord Jesus Christ himself partook is not to be lightly esteemed. An ordinance to which the great Head of the church submitted ought to be ever honourable in the eyes of professing Christians." Dr. Wardl.vw. — " If, therefore, it is our duty to ' contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,' surely such a subject must be entitled to a portion at least of the same earnestness. We cannot allow it to be set aside, as undeserving of serious discussion ; as some, under a false pretence, or an imbecile reality, of superior spiritual-mindedness, are accustomed to deal with many other points, which go by the convenient but often miscliievous designation of non-essen- tials."—On Ch. Est, pp. 5, 6. The record in Mark xvi. 1 G is : " He that believeth and is baptized sliall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." These words appear to us to import that when a person believes, he ought to be baptized ; or tliat when a person becomes a believer, he will be bap- tized ; that faith ought to precede baptism ; that the unbeliever is not ex- pected to be baptized ; and that imbelief is a damning sin, &c. The words appear not to us to express or to imply in any degree the insignificance of baptism. Dr. Halley, from the connection of baptism with salvation in this verse, takes occasion to urge his indiscriminate baptism, saying : " If Jesus says, ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' who- ever forbids water to any incurs a fearful resjionsibility " (vol. xv., p. 17). We judge that the scripiwal medium betwixt the insignificant, con- temptible character of this ordinance, and its administration to every applicant irrespective of character, is the solemn immersion of 2>i'ofessing believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The responsibility of forbidding water to the professed believer we conceive to rest on those who force water on .such as are incapable of belief, and who tell them, when they come to years of knowledge, that they are baptized. Dr. A. Barnes, on Mark xvi. 16, says : " It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made baptism of so much importance. He did not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without l^aptism, but He has strongly implied that where this is neglected, knowing it to be a command of the Saviour, it endangers the salvation of the soul. Faith and baptism are the beginnings of a Christian life : the one the beginning of piety in the soul, the other of its manifestation before men, or of a profession of religion. And no man can tell how much he endangers his eternal interest 518 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. by being ashamed of Christ before men." It would appear strange to us if these words of Christ taught that baptism was unimportant, when the same lijjs, after His own example in the Jordan, and His baptizing by means of His disciples, have bid His disciples to go, and " make disciples of all nations, immersing tliem into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." In opposing the insignificant character of this ordinance, we do not forget that many Ptedobaptists attribute a most uuscriptural efficacj" and consequent imjiortance to this ordinance. Any formulaiy of the Greek Church, of the Papal hierarchy, or of the Established Church of England, proves the assumed efficacy of baptism to effect regeneration. Also, among Dissenting Predobaptists, there are some who maintain the impor- tance of this Di^^.ne institution, without attributing to it regenerating and saving efficacy. Further, a few among the Baptists have spoken as degradingly respecting the unimportant character of this institution as have many of the Predobaptists; nor do we wish to shelter them from deserved animadversions. Also, because some of our opponents have repudiated the very objections on which others have most strenuously insisted, it is impossible to do justice to ourselves or our opponents without noticing objections which by. some are deemed puerile. We feel, therefore, the difficulty of referring to some objections on which much stress has been laid, lest we should be charged with seeking that which is contemptible, and manifesting an unkind and vmworthy disposi- tion. AVe are not aware that we ax-e adducing a single objection with unkind feelings and unworthy motives. Besides, the objections which have appeared to us most contemptible and unwarrantable have been from Piedobaptists of literary honours, which we account for oidy from their being warped and blinded by prejxidice. (See on the baptism of the eunuch, and the baptism of Israel in the sea and in the cloud.) Again, a distinction is made by our opposing friends betwixt baptism and the modes of baptism, and we are represented as contending for a certain and exclusive mode of baptism.* By Mr. S. and some others, only these pretended "modes of baptism" are held up as unimjjortant. We deny that we are contending for any mode of baptism. Our plea is for baptism itself in opposition to a human substitute ; whilst much that has been written about "rigid and inflexible uniformity," about "no variation in the mere cii'cumstance of applying water," we regard as a begging of the question, as an unfair representation of the dispute, as thoroughly fallacious. It will, however, be generally known, that baptism is frequently spoken of by our opponents as a "non-essential," "an external rite," " a mere outward form," " water," &c. ; and that the language of the apostle Paul to the church at Corinth is considered to encourage the unimportant character of this institution. The words of St. Paul * It would be well if all Baptists would abandon and repudiate such expressions as baptism by immersion, which is strictly immersion by immersion, and would oppose the illegitimate use of mode of baptism. Fallacious and improper phraseology tends to perpetuate erroneous views aud practice. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 519 are: " I tliank God that I baptized none of joxi, but Crispns and Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. i. 13-17). This text is not only adduced to sustain the insignificance of baptism, but to sui)press all anxiety as to whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion is Christian baptism. Even if baptism itself were proved to be an ordinance of very inferior moment, which we are far from admitting, — it being, in our judgment, as jilaiuly commanded as prayer and a commemoration of the Lord's death by broken bread and jioured-out wine, and it being beyond a doubt that in the keeping of God's commands there is great reward, — it does not follow tliat it is unimportant whether in our professed baptism we administer and receive the reality of what God instituted, or a substitute for the same of h\iman invention, which has stolen and misappropriated the Divine name. It is not necessary to maintain that baptism is of the first importance, in order consistently to maintain that when we profess to obey God, whether in the immersion of a believer, or in the sprinkling of a baby, it is of importance in solemnly performing an act in God's name that we should have God's authoi'ity. Whatever may be the importance of bap- tism, it is an institution Divinely-enjoined, and it cannot be unimportant in rendering professed, that we render real, obedience to the Lord of glory, to our once crucified, but now exalted Saviour. Whatever may be the importance or insignificance of baptism as a Divine institution, there is more than an insignificant difterence between the immersion of a believer and the sprinkling of an unconscious infant. This may surely be admitted without preferring baptism to the Gospel, or being justly chargeable with greater zeal for a positive institution than for that " holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." But the words of the inspired apostle of the Gentiles are thought to prove the insignificance of baptism ! We think that the slightest exami- nation of the passage by a candid mind will pi-ove that neither of the ideas of which we have been speaking is contained or encouraged thei'ein. He expressly states for what reason he felt thankful to God that he had baptized so few at Corinth ; and, instead of his reason for this being that baptism is a thing of no moment, it was " lest any should say that I had baptized in (into) my own name." If he had baptized more it might have augmented party feeling in his favour with some, and party feeling against him in others, or at least have increased the divided, disti-acted, and dishonourable condition of the church at Corinth. At all events, the reason of his gratitude is explicitly stated, whilst not one word is penned in contempt of the ordinance, or adapted to lower its importance. How could he, indeed, unless Paul and Christ were divided] He had personally baptized at Corinth; and where the ordinance had not been administered by him, it had not been neglected : it had been admin- istered by others, as appears generally to have been the case. For what he next says explains the motive of his conduct at the time, and implies that this was his usual course, which accords also with Peter's conduct at the baptism of Cornelius and them that were with him. The words of Paul are : " For Christ sent me not to baptize, bvit to preach the 520 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Gospel." Baptism could be administered by those that were with Paul as his assistants in his great and glorious evangelizing work, but who were not equal to him in his ability to publish the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. So Peter in reference to the centurion and them that were with him, after an ai)i)eal on behalf of their undoubted fitness, "com- manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Yet, judging from those with whom we have come in conta.ct, we should suppose that there are myriads of Ptedobaptists comforting themselves in their igno- rance on the subject of baptism, in their surmises of error, if not in their positive convictions of a departure from apostolic practice, by the words of St. Paul. Aiid these illegitimate inferences from Paul's words, by which the words of Paul are perverted, are encouraged by not a few preachei's of the Gospel. If these, although not apostles, like Peter and Paul, were simply committing the work of baptizing to others, that they might to a greater extent be employed in the publication of redemption through the blood of Christ, the present censure they would not deserve or receive. "When our Piedobaptist brethren are reasoning with Papists, Socinians, or the Friends, they do not dishonour God or themselves by sjieaking degradirigly on the insignificance of Divine institutions, or by ridiculing a strict adhei'cnce to the Divine directory. Previous quota- tions satisfactorily evince this. Also Di'. Halley says: — ' ' Althougli Quakers speak with marvellous complacency of the great apostle of the Gentiles being sent, not to baptize, but to preacli the C4ospel, yet even St. Paul sometimes baptized ; if seldom in Corinth, yet occasionally elsewhere. The Corin- thian converts were uncpiestionably baptized, and many of them, we have no reason to doubt, by the assistants of Paul, and under his direction. The remark, there- fore, which we made uixni the conduct of our Lord in not baptizing, will ec^ually apply to the practice of St. Paul. His commission was not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; and, therefore, he generally left the baptism of the converts to others ; yet its administration was sanctioned both by his practice and his authority" (p. 69). What but prejudice or " the trammels of a system" could lead a good man to speak of Paul as if he here taught that baptism was insignifi- cant, and might with impunity be neglected 1 Was he enabled to say in reference to one of the symbolic institutions of Cln-istiauity, " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," and was he left in ignorance res^iecting the other? Could the same Being who insti- tuted both with equal clearness, solemnity, and emphasis, encoui'age the neglect and contempt of one 1 But had not Paid himself been bid to " arise and be baptized," and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Loi-d 1 And have we not the fact rccf)rded, that he " arose and was baptized"? (Acts ix. 18.) And did not he, who was "an a2)ostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Chiist, and God the Father" (Gal. i. ], 12), and who has left it on record that thei'e is " one baptism " (E])h. iv. 5), ba])tize Crispus, Gains, and the household of Stej)hanas (I Cor. i. l-i-lG)] And is it not evident that Lydia, the jailor, and others, were bai)tized, if not by the apostle personally, yet under liis direction, or with his sanction 1 (Acts xvi., xvii., xviii., pellation. Do not we Avho believe nothing but immersion to be baptism, frequently speak similarly — partly to avoid a peri[)hrasis— respecting pouring and sprinkling 1 But the doctor, we say, conies at once to a practice of Avhicli Ave liaA'e no mention by any Avritcr that it existed till a.d. 250. Clinical affusion, the first on record a.d. 250, though seldom practised, and also strongly condemned — yet being coUoquiallu spoken of as baptism — an autliority for pouring or s]n'inkling ! And yet in the last i^agc of his volume i)icty and intelligence coerce the confession; "In conclusion, candour comjiels me to say that the passage Avhich I inserted from Nicephorus, on the FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 529 authority of Dr. Beecher, respecting the perfusion of Novatus, does not support either hinr or me. On consulting the original, I find the words, ' If it is fit to call such a thing a baptism.' Whether this clause refer to the man or to the affusion, I am sorry Dr. Beecher overlooked it; but I dare not siippress it." That this clinic baptism, if it is fit to call such a thing a baptism, called by Gregory of Nyssa, " the funeral bap- tism," continued, and inci'eased, notwithstanding strong protests against it, and that it eventually became the almost universal practice even in health wherever the Pope bore sway, has been already admitted on Pjedobajitist testimony. At the time referred to by Dr. H., he admits that the idea then attached to baptism was immersion, and also that the practice was immersion. " They did immerse," says he, and "with one immersion not content, they observed the trine immei'sion" (p. 340). We may also add respecting this baptism, froni Dr. Bennett : " To clinical baptism, or that which was administered to those who were sick in bed, lest they should die unbaptized, it may seem useless to appeal ; as the practice marks the advance of superstition" {Cong. Lee, p. 200). Dr. B. means that the ordinance was then begun to be i-egarded as inse- parably associated with a cleansing from sin and a meetness for heaven. Dr. H. in conclusion mentions " two passages in Tertullian which are thought by some to elucidate the controversy;" and he quotes Cyril of Jerusalem, as speaking of Simon Magus, " to men soma ehapsen hudati;" which he is pleased to translate, "he baptized his body with water." The want of the preposition en has before been mentioned in relation to some passages of Scripture parallel to others where it appears, because the same event is described by both, and in relation to grammar as not proving that loith and not in is the proper i*endering. Further, we believe that the most violent and bigoted Ptedobaptist that we have read, will admit that the proper rendering of ehapsen, where hudor, water, is the element with which it is connected, and where consequently dyeing or stainmg cannot be meant, is, he dipped. His second proof he endeavours to substantiate by adverting to the fact that " the Fathers frequently speak of three baptisms : tlie baptism of water for initiation, of tears in penitence, and the baptism of blood in martyrdom." Here the word baptism is used in: regard to tears and blood as we should use the English word bathe: and with equal force might it be mamtaiiied that the English Avord bathe, because we some- times speak of persons being bathed in tears, in perspiration, or in blood, does not require an entering into the water, or a being covered with it. Yet Dr. H. says : " When two of these three baptisms were obviously without immersion, can it be said that the term baptism, in the current language of the ancient church, was synonymous with immersion f And he proceeds, as if eis (not en) always occurred in Holy Writ, where there is a preposition along with the element, or as if the Baptists trans- lated en into, and not in; he proceeds dishonestly to inquire, "Woiild any person now speak of dipping the penitent into his own tears, or of dipping the martyr into his own blood "?" He might have said, Would any person be bewildered from an incompetency to understand the phra- seology, if a person spoke of penitents being bathed or immersed in tears, and of martyrs being bathed or immersed in their own blood ■? Or he MM 530 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. might have inquired if it is not very usual, exiDlicit, and well-understood phraseology, to speak of penitents being poured or sprinkled with or in tears, and of martyrs being spiinkled or poured with or in their own blood ! His third demonstration, or the third part of his demonstration, he endeavours to sustain by quotations from Theodoret, who flourished about A.D. 425, and from Cyril of Jerusalem, who died a.d. 386. He also refers to Cyril of Alexandria, who died a.d. 444, and to Gregory of Nyssa, who died a.d. 396. The strongest passage adduced is that of Theodoret, who, on Psalm li. 6, " Purge me with hyssop," says : " Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed, for the gift of baptism alone can produce this cleansing." But when this is considered along with the known practice of immersion, what proof is there — in applying to baptism, ivhich loas then considered necessary to forgiveness and salvation, either Psalm li. 6, or Eze. xxxvi. 25, or in marntaining that the sjoriukling of the blood of the paschal lamb was typical bajjtism, — that baptism is either sprinkling or pouring 1 Dr. H. does not profess his belief, nor is it necessary to his argument that he should believe, that these passages refer to baptism. Might not the Fathers speak of these things as baptism on accoimt of supposed similarity in their effects, not in the action? Also Origen, an earlier Father, who died a.d. 254, is quoted as saying, that " Elias did not baptize the M'^ood upon the altar, but commanded the priests to do that. How then was He who did not baptize himself, but left it to others, about to baptize when he came according to the prophecy of Malachi ? " When our friends begin thus to baptize the dear babes brovxght to them to have a good work wrought upon them, we believe that " the right of election " will lead to the choice of a single immersion as more convenient than such a trine pour- ing as caused the water to run "round about the altai-," and "filled the trench also with water." And we rather opine, i-emembering how all are constituted, that si;ch a practice would help in perceiving that the baptism enjoined in God's Word is nothing else than immersion. We might also remind our opponents that Origen appears to be very far from thinking with them that John's baptism must wholly have been administered by him personally, and not by his disciples under him. But also it is said that Irenseus, " alluding to water falling iipon the dry earth, compares the baptism of our bodies to the i-ain which is freely shed from heaven." Neither the text nor the context being given, we know not whether this Father i-efers to the refreshing influence of rain, as apparent in the subsequent fruitfulness of the earth — for the great impor- tance and advantages of ba])tism were early conceived — or whether he refers to the earth's surface as being saturated with the freely-shed rain, and to the believer as being encompassed with the water in immersion. His fourth proposition he sustains by quotations from Justin Martyr, who floui-ished a.d. 164, Clement of Alexandria, who flourished a.d. 210, and Tertullian, who flourished a.d. 196, &c., which pi-ove, says he, that "they explain the heathen ablutions as imitations of Christian baptism, although in many of them there was no immersion;" or as occupying a place in their idolatrous ser^'ices like that of baptism among the Christians. But surely this is no proof that baptism is a word FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 531 synonymous in import with sprinkling and pouring, and ^vitli any or every otlier ablution performed by the heathen. Even Cjqirian, who, speaking of the baptism of the sick or dying, says, that "perfusion is of like value with the salutary bath," does not say that baptism and its substitute, perfusion, are one and the same thing. Also the practice of these very men is a proof that they believed baptism to be immersion. And that they immersed we need not refer to historical evidence pre- viously adduced; for Dr. H. says, "They did immerse;" and he also says, "With one immersion i^t content, they observed the trine immer- sion as the sacramental emblem of the Trinity." And he concludes his argumentation by saying : " We appeal only to their language, and our Baptist friends are quite welcome to the benefit of their example, doctrine, and practice." To "their example, doctrine, and practice," which luimistakably say that baptism is immersion, the Baptists "are quite welcome " ! Certain things are designated baptism inconsistently with its action — as their wi-itings abundantly evince from their practice Avhat was their idea of the action of baptism — but not with their idea of the results of baptism, and these expressions, utterly worthless in the circumstances for the advocacy of 2:)ouring or sprinkling, are an unction sufficiently comforting, pei'fectly satisfactoiy to the worthy doctor ! Is not this a climax in logic and ethics worthy of all by wdiich it has been preceded ? worthy of sprinkling as a pretended baptism 1 Let not the reader suppose that the doctor has not written with ability, and that his work is not adapted to strengthen the pi'epossessed in favour of sprink- ling. We neither doubt his superior endowments, nor that he has put forth liis best endeavours to conA-ince us that something else than immer- sion may receive the name of baptism, and if honestly intended for it, may deserve the name. But a talented writer who is inferior to Dr. H., whose reading may have been wholly on one side, who is ignorant of numerous facts which prove or corroborate immersion to be the import of the Greek word, and to have been the apostolic and primitive practice, or who ean ignore these stubborn things, and represent them as being beyond the flight of fancy itself, may more effectually than Dr. H. confirm an attachment to sprinkling in the ignorant, the erring, or those preju- diced in its favour. 2. — On the toashing of a small pori of the body appearing, fronn John xiii. 10, to he, in a religious sense, equal to a washing of the whole body. J. A. James. — "Our young people do not sufficiently store their minds with the proofs and arguments of the opinions they have adopted." "What has been adopted on impartial inquiry and sufficient evidence, is not to be lightly given up on the mere occurrence of some new objec- tion."— Chris. FatJier'sPres., pp. 24, 26. The reasoning of one opponent is, " Even a partial washing is some- times spoken of as all that is necessary to a complete washing : ' Thou shalt never wash my feet,' said Peter to the Lord. ' If I wash thee not,' said the Lord to Petei", * thou hast no part with me.' Peter exclaims, ' Lord, not my feet only, but my hands and my head.' Peter desired a complete washing, not a partial washing. He supposed that in order to a complete washing he should be all washed. His master corrected this error by assuring him that a partial washing was all that was necessary : 532 IMPOBT OF BAPTISM. ' he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, hut is clean every whit.' Hence we learn that to wash a small part of the person, as the face or feet, is, in a religious sense, to wash the whole man." The original, having diftcrent words for the two occurrences of ivash in this verse, is free from even the partial obscurity that disfigures the English translation. The idea of the original is, tliat a |)erson who liad pre- viously bathed had no need but to wash the feet. It is not in proof that there is anything whatever symbolic in this record. The disciples, having previously washed or batlied, stood^n need of nothing more than •a washing of the feet. The eminent Ptedobaptist Professor, Dr. G. Campbell, renders the passage, "He who hath been bathing, needeth only to wash his feet." He also adds in a note : " For the distinction between louein and niiytesthai, see chap. ix. 7, N. This illustration is borrowed from the custom of the tunes; according to which, those who had been invited to a feast bathed themselves before they went; but as they walked commonly in sandals, and wore no stockings, it was usual to get their feet washed by the sei'vants of the family before they laid tliemselves on the couches. Their feet, which Avould be soiled by walk- ing, required cleaning, though the rest of their body did not. The great utility and frequent need of washing the feet in those countries, has occasioned its being so often mentioned in the New Testament as an evidence of humility, hospitality, and brotherly love." In John ix. 7, he maintains that niptesthai denotes to wash or bathe a part only of the body; but that louein is to wash or bathe the whole body; a difference which he maintains to be uniformly observed in the New Testament, not excejDting Acts xvi. 33, where he believes that the Greek phrase, not accurately rendered in our version, implies hathiny the whole body, for the sake both of cleaning their Avounds and administering some relief to their persons. On John xiii. 10, Scott, Doddridge, Hammond, and others, agree with Dr. C, whose fame, says Dr. Wilson, as a " divine and philologist has nothing to fear from tlie pen of detraction ;" nor docs "it require the aid of predatory appropi'iations from the republic of letters." We believe that usually louo, the same as hajjtizo, when used absolutely in I'egard to a person, has reference to the whole body. Hence the l\cv. A. A. Bonar, in his Commentary on Leviticus, thus writes : " Moses stood by the laver, and said, ' This is the thing which the Lord commanded to be done.' . . . Our Lord has been supposed to allude to this in John xiii. 1 0, ' He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean eveiy whit.' A man after being in the batli, is clean; only his feet may be soiled on the floor as he steps along. So a priest after this washing of his jierson on the consecration- day, is clean; only he may need to wash his feet or hands again" (on Lev. viii. 5, 6). Evidently this washing of the priests is regai'ded as a washing of the entire person. But Dr. Dwight, on this portion of Scripture, dares to assert that " Christ has expressly taught us that immersion is unnecessary to the administra- tion of this ordinance." This is just as true as his assertion that " the body of learned critics and lexicographers declare that the original meaning of baptizo and ba2)to, is to tinge, stain, dye, or colour, and that when immersion is meant, it is only a secondary or occasional sense." We believe that " the body of leai-ned critics and lexicographers declare FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 583 tliaf. the original moaning of" hapto is to immerse; and we believe that the meaning of to tinge, to stain, or to dye, nowhere belongs to haidizo. Possibly, from such an import of hapto, lie has, without examination, jumped to this conclusion. Nothing but blinding prepossessions, and these not innocently, could enable a holy and learned man to leap to conclusions so diametrically op])osed to truth. Our further reply to him, which is also a rejjly to some othei's, for the sake of " convenience," shall bS in the words of Dr. Cox : — "1. Christ has not exjiresshj taught us anything, in this passage, upon the sub- ject of Ijaptism, if by the word expressly we ai-e to understand, ' in direct terms,' which is its essential signification. If anything is taiigbt, it is obvious by impli- cation only ; but that the implication is that ' immersion is not essential to bap- tism,' cannot be maintained. "2. Were it admitted that anything is taught by inference respecting baptism, the fair deduction would be in favour of the sentiment which Dr. Dwight opposes. There is an allusion in the narrative to washing the whole body, and to wasliing the feet ; but in either case the washing is of a kind to imjily immersion. Bathing, the practice alluded to in the fomaer case, will be allowed to have been performed by immersion ; washing the feet is also an act of immersion, as commonly per- formed, and as specifically rejiresented in this jjassage. Jesus ' poured water ' — not upon the feet, but — 'into a bason, and began to wasli the feet of the discifJes.' If this action, therefore, be considered as symbolical of baptism, so far as the mode is concerned, it would require immersion, "3. There is a lurking sophism in the use of the expression, 'symbolical wash- ing.' It may be time that the washing represented sanctification, or rather, sincerity of heart; but it is not said to represent baptism; it was not therefore baptism. "If tliere were any propriety in the phrase, 'symbolical washing,' or any such signiiicance in the conduct of oiu- Lord as woidd sustain the Paidobaptist objection, this must have been the performance of an ordinance, not a simple expression of humihty. It was in every sense a common loasliing of the feet, and not a symbolical rite; intended solely to give a practical exhibition of the spirit which it became the disciples to cultivate. ' If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet.' From the cleansing nature of the water, the Saviour taices occasion to advert to the general purity of his followers, and to the lamentable exception which existed in the particiilar case of Judas. But are we justified in denominating this action a 'symbolical washing,' because our Lord availed himself of the favourable opjiortunity of allusively communicating some important truths ? And if we were, has this any connection with the rite of bap- tism? The argiiment of Dr. Dwight would amount to this — ' Because Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, and because washing the feet was as good an emblem of sanctification as washing the whole body, therefore baptism may be administered by sprinkling or pouring' ! Is it possible to conceive of any statement more illogical and inconclusive ? If, however, it were even conceded that there is an allusion to baptism, it might admit of another inference which woidd not be at all gratifying to our opponents, but which would cei-tainly be much more natural and obvious than that which Dr. Dwiglit endeavours to estal^lish. Tlie inference would be, not, as he says, tliat immersion is unessential to baptism, but that ivashing the feet is essential. We might demand of our opponents why they pour, and sprinkle, and do not vmsh? And why they pour or sj)rinkle, or simply touch with a drop of water the face, and not the feet, or the hands? Where is their symbolical washing, when they never attemjyt to wash at cdl?" (pp. 123-126). 3. — On one 2^^^'son not being enjoined under the law to immerse another. Dr. L. Woods. — "Systems of error will always be found to contain a portion of fundamental truth." — Worl:s, vol. 1., p. 5. I)r. WARDL.iw.^" There is nothing so weak as not to be caught at by some minds, in the absence of something better." — Vol. Oh. Lee, j). 10. 534 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. Assuredly a command under the law tliat one person immerse another is not necessary to determine the meaning of the word haptizo. We look not to heathen or to Jewish rites to find a model for Christian baptism. If since the world began one had not immersed another, its injunction by Christ would be sufficient. Whether we are to immerse ourselves or to be immersed by another, we learn, not from the meaning of ha2otizo, or the practice of nations, — Jewish or heathen, — bu:t from Christ's commission, and New Testament records of the administration of this ordinance. 4. — On dipping, pouring, and sprinkling bei7ig all vaHously used as signs of cleansing, or of spiritual blessings. J. Cox. — "The infinite mind of God alone can estunate the evil resulting from but one wrong principle. Such a 2irinciple may seem at first, even to its opponents, to be but a very slight devia- tion from the truth ; a good man may be its author, and although he may not be conscious of any wrong motive in maintaining and diffusing it, its consequences may be most deplorable. Once introduced by him into the world of mind, it is soon cherished by those who differ widely from himself ; it is trained and disciplined beneath their care, and when grown to maturity becomes a monster of destruction. It is tlius that in all ages the 'mystery of iniquity' liath worked. Most of the abominations of Kome had their birth in the true church of God: this fact shows the fatal con- sequences of the least departure from 'the simijlicity that is in Christ.'" — In I'es. of Jim. Peed., pp. 69-71. Supposing that pouring, sprinkling, and immersing, are variously used as asserted, will it follow that a person might practise sprinkling when God commanded pouring, or might j)ractise pouring when God commanded immersion 1 If the ordinance of baptism is emblematical of purifi.cation, it does not follow that we may adopt any action but such as is included in the Greek term haptizo. We do not say that God might not have used a word indicating His approval of pouring or sprink- ling; or that He might not have said, Let water be used according to the option of each individual ; we say that, instead of giving such a precept. He has enjoined immei"sion. Whatever facts, doctrines, and blessings are symbolized in the action of Christian baptism, are sym- bolized in immersion.* 5. — On Baptists as assuming that baptism is immersion. D. Waxlace. — " I ask you to produce a single example of its use, either figuratively or literally, in which the object baptized is not wholly covered. If it is the finger, or hand, or body that is spoken of, the whole of tlie finger, or hand, or body are in the element." — Ecjoinder, p. 13. We know not that the charge of assumption is justly applicable to the writings as a whole, or to the chief arguments, of any Baptist writer. As to ourselves, our first endeavours have been to prove that baptism is immersion. Hence we have adduced the testimony of lexicographers, of Greek wiiters, of early translations of the New Testament ; testimony from Jewish proselyte baptism, and from eminent Paedobaptists ; testi- mony from the figurative use of the Avord, from the words "with which in Divine truth it is associated, and from the distinction existing between the actions poui'mg, sprinkling, and immersing; testimony from the appli- cability of immerse to all occvxrrcnces of the word, and from the absui'dity involved if any pretended meaning is applied to all instances of the occui-- rence of the Greek word in the New Testament; fi-om historical e\i- FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 535 dence of a change ; and from the futility of all known objections. It is aftei' all this that we come to examine minutely the baptism of John; the baptism of the Spirit; of the three thousand ; of the eunuch ; of the children of Israel in the cloud and in the sea, art with early Christianity when the .Jews called it heresy, and the CJreeks despised it as foolishness, and the Romans denounced and drove out its professors as atheists and enemies of the hiunan race, and it was everywhere spoken against, and its most illus- trious teachers were accounted as 'the filth of the earth, and the offscouring of aU things'?" — Oct. 2nd, 1853. This, as an argument against immersion, is not expressly adduced "by any whom we have read. And if the representation of this as given by several writers were literally correct, it would not follow, as a matter of course, tliat the great bulk of professing Chi-istians must needs hold sentiments and pursue a conduct accordant with the Oracles of God. Of Scotch Christians we presume that Presbyterians con.stitute the great niajoi'ity. In England, we doubt not, they constitute a small minority. Neither fact proves anything with regard to the scriptural or unsci'iptural character of their chuix-h government. Wc may express our regret that the representation in regard to numbers is not by some given moi'c fairly; and that the inquiry is not more earnest and extensive, " What is written in the law 1 " We do not advocate deviation from the conduct of others FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 541 without being able to assign a rational cause ; but we deem it a pitiful reason to be assigned for sentiments and practice: My fatliers before me thought and acted thus; my neighbours around me think and act in this way; that is all I know about its propriety or impropriety. Can it be otherwise than commendable for persons to be able to assign a sufficient reason why they deem Christianity to be of God, and not a cunningly - devised fable; why they deem a certain ceremony to be a doctrine of Chi-istianity, and not an invention of man ] If our conduct must be regulated by numbers and previous customs, we must give to Wyclift*, Huss, Luther, and others, a different place from that which we have been accustomed to assign them. The commen- dation bestowed on the Bereans we must reverse. The sect everywhere spoken against we must unite to condemn. The Romans, who wished to hear from his own lips what Paul, who belonged to this sect, had to say in self-defence, we must consider as foolishly and dangerously wasting their time. The law of heathen Kome, which forbade the condemning of a criminal until he had had the opportunity of vindicating himself, if jDOSsible, from the charge brought against him, we must regard as ridiculously needless. And the perusal of tracts and volumes in opposition to the customs of our forefathers, and to "the common, though not uni- versal judgment of the church," we may encourage as much as Popery encoiirages a reading of the Bible. Dr. A. P. Stanley says : " The solitary protest is always to be honoured : the lonely martyr is avenged at last. Churches and nations, and whole generations, often seem to lose their reason" {Gr. Church, p. Ixx.). Our ajjpeal is not, however, to numbers, many or few, but " to the laav and to the testimony." The Hon. and Rev. H. M, Villiers says: " Cultivate the Christian grace of courage. Courage to be singular for the Lord's sake." — Ex. Hall Lee, p. 283. 1851. § 38. — FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS WHICH RELATE LESS TO THE MEASING OF BAPTIZO, THAN TO THE PRACTICB OF IMMERSION. L — 0)1 not being an AnahcqHist. Greoory. — "That is not said to be iterated wliicli is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done." — In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38. Many of our opponents admit that the evidence in favour of immer- sion as the import of baptism greatly preponderates over that in favour of pouring or sprinkling; but they express their inability to deny that pourmg or sprinkling may be baptism, and they do not wish to be re-baptized. \Ye do not wish them to be immersed, if they regard that which they have received, or that which they have been told has been done to them, as scriptural baptism. We repudiate anabaptism as much as our opponents, however much by some of them we may be stigmatized with the name; but we regard Christian baptism as the voluntaiy act of a disciple of Jesus. " Doubtless," says Buddeus, " if baptism was not rightly administered with reference to those things which belong to the substance of it, it is all one as if the person had not been baptized; and, therefore, he is to be haptized, and not re-haptized'" {Theol. Dog., 1. v., c. i., § 10). We do not regard sprinlcling or immersion, administered to 542 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. an unconscions babe, or forced upon any Bubject, as the baptism enjoined by Christ; but rather as a substitute, good for nothing, and worse than nothing, causing in so many instances a neglect of Christ's solemn and significant institution. Does a person piit on Christ when he cannot put on the least part of his own clothes 1 Is a person buried with Christ by infant sprinkling, and does he ever then rise again to ne'waiess of life 1 Mr. Thorn may not have the same views and feelings as his brethren in regard to anabaptism, as he considers the Saviour himself, and the first disci}>les of Jolna and of Jesus, to have been Anabaptists. He says : " From the pi^evalence, and even universality, of baptism among the Hebrews, we may safely conclude that John himself had been baptized in his childhood or youth; that our beloved Lord had undergone this ceremony in His early years ; and that all the disciples both of John and of Chi'ist had received this ordinance while they were yoving." — In/. Baj)., p. 411. 2. — On the reflection which would he cast hy ^nesent immersion on previous sentiments and practice. Luke, the Evangelist. — "Rejoicing that tliey were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." — Acts v. 41. Paul, the Apostle. — "After ye were illuminated ye endured a great fight of afflictions" (Heb. X. 32). "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." — Heb. xii. 4. BuNSEN. — "A severe trial, therefore, awaits any one who looks primitive Christianity in the face." — Hip}^., vol. ii., p. viii. Mrs. H. JuDSON. — "I now, also, began reading on the subject, ■\vith all my prejudices on the Psedobaptist side. After close examination for several weeks, we were both constrained to acknow- ledge tliat the truth appeared to be with the Baptists. It was extremely trying to reflect on the consequences of our becoming Baptists. We knew that it would wound and grieve our dear Christian friends at home, that we should lose their approbation and esteem. ^\'e thought it probable our svipport wovdd be withdrawn, and, what was more distressing, we knew that we must be separated from our missionary associates, and go alone to some heathen land. These things were very trying to us, and caused our hearts to bleed for anguish." " I have been much distressed for the week past, in view of the possible separation between our missionary brethren and ourselves. Mr. J. feels convinced, from Scripture, that he has never been baptized, and that he cannot conscientiously administer baptism to infants. As we are perfectly united with our brethren in every other respect, and are much attached to them, it is inexpressibly painful to leave them, and go alone to a separate station. But every sacrifice that duty requires must be made. It is painfully mortifying to my natural feelings to think seriously of renouncing a .system which I have been taught from infancy to believe and respect, and embrace one which I have been taught to desi^ise; but while, if ever I sought to know the truth, — if ever I looked up to the Father of Lights; if ever I gave up myself to the inspired Word, — I have done so during this investigation. The residt is, that, laying aside my former preJTidices, and fairly appealing to the Scriptures, I feel convinced that nothing really can be said in favour of infant baiitism or sprinkling." " We are confirmed Baptists, not because we msh to be, but because truth compelled us to be. We have endeavoured to count the cost, and be prepared for the many severe trials resulting from this change of sentiment. We anticipate the loss of reputation, and of the affection and esteem of many of our American friends." Dr. S. Davidson. — "It is better to comply with the .suggestions of conscience than to please men. The favour of others, gained at the expense of conceding what conscience disallows, is too dearly purchased." — Con{j. Lee, pp. viii., ix. Prof. Walter Scott. — " We care not what may be the number or the nature of the preconceived opinions which we may have to reject, or however strange and contrary to our former belief may be the dogmas which we are required to receive, provided sufficient proof be afforded that the former are prejudices, and that the latter are the doctrines of the Word of God. We wisli to be prepared to follow truth wherever it may lead, or whatever the sacrifices of long-cherished opinions which it may recpure us to make." " We have often felt" " what painful sacrifices of feelings and wishes miist be made to the authority of Scripture, in order to embrace some tenets of a contrary system; — sacrifices so painful that nothing but deference to the testimony and command of God could induce us to make tliem." — Conf). Lcc, p. 13. Dr. J. MoRiHON. — "Those who are Christ's disciples must take up tlieir cross and follow Him ; and then only are His commandments not grievous when obedience is animated by love to himself. " — Horn, for the Time!:, p. 208. R. MiMi'Riss. — "We must not allow the opinions of even those we recognize in office under God to prevent us from doing what wc know to be His will." — Treas. Har., p. 91. J. A. Haldane. — "Upon the whole, it seems evident that it highly becomes us to attend to every part of the Word of God. Everything we there meet with is important. Were Scrijjture more studied under this impression, there would be a rapid progress among Christians, both in knowledge, in uniformity of sentiment and religious obser\'ances, and in the practice of holiness. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 543 . . We ought, indeed, cautiously to avoid being tossed to and fro \vith every wind of doctrine : but if our steadiness does not arise from regard to tlie autliority of God ; if it does not proceed from diligent attention to His Word, it no more deseiTcs the name of steadfastness in the faith than the parsimony of a miser deserves the name of econoiny." — Sor. Wor., pp. 16, 17. J. A. JAME.S. — "Be you, therefore, an advocate for truth; for error i.s sin. Error cannot sanctify." — Christian Fathers Pr., p. 131. Prof. Mansel. — " The highest principles of thought and action to which we can attain are regulative, not speculative." — lu Gold win Smith, ou Rat. Rel. and Rat. Obj., p. 3. One hesitates to be immersed because lie lias so long been a professing Chi'istian, and has not till recently doubted whether he has been scrip- turally baptized. We admit that bajitisni, the initiatory ordinance, is most appropriate at the commencement of the Christian course. This was the practice of apostolic times. Nor do we see how it can consistently be designated the initiatory ordinance, except by those who maintain that faith ought to precede baptism, the profession of this faith being made in the act of baptism, or by those who most erroneously believe that regeneration takes place in and by baptism. The consistency of nonconforming and non-tractarian Peedobaptists we do not perceive. But the fact of this ordinance having been neglected for years by any Christian, whether from error or some other cause, no more justifies continued neglect than neglect in embracing the Gosj^el justifies continued impenitence and unbelief. Shall there be continued neglect of what" Christ has ordained because obedience would imjily on our part previous ignorance or negligence 1 Shall Christ be thus treated 1 If there is a conviction from the records of inspiration that the ordinance of Christ has hitherto been practically disregarded, let there be willing and prompt obedience. What should we think of the reply of an aged sinner to God's message in the glorious Gospel, If I now receive Christ, it will seem as if I had been foolish and wicked all my days: I cannot take a course that will involve such a reflection on myself? Where is the evidence of our piety, and what practices in infidels and Papists, or in professing Christians, can we reprobate, if we ourselves are continuing in known disobedience to God ? What must be the result, if we delibe- rately and perseveringly dishonour God that we may not dishonour ourselves 1 Cannot we bear the idea of its having been thought that we have held erroneous sentiments in regard to one of Christ's ordinances ? Do we not pray for the forgiveness of sins of omission, as well as com- mission; that we may be guided into truth and duty; and that we may have grace to serve God acceptably, with reverence and with godly fearl Do we not sing : — "Make me to walk iu Thy commands; 'Tis a delightful road, " &c. "When I survey the wondrous cross On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt ou all my pride. "Were the whole realm of nature mine, That were a pi'esent far too small : Love so amazing, so Divine, Demands my soul, my life, my all. ' ' — Watts. •' Not a broken, brief obedience Does the Lord of heaven demand ; 544 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. He requires our wliole allegiance, Words and deeds, and heart and hand : God will hold divided sway With no deity of human clay." — BowraNc. ' ' Jesus, Thy boundless love to me No thought can reach, no tongue declare; O knit my thankful heart to Thee, And reign without a rival there ; Thine, wholly Thine, 0 let me be. And all my heart be wrapt in Thee." — Wesley. "Welcome, welcome, dear Hedeemer, Welcome to this heart of mine ; Lord, I make a full surrender. Every power and thoiight be Thine : Thine entirely. Through eternal ages Thiue." — Hastings. Under the Old Testament we have three examples of obedience to a Divine institution, which especially rebuke the dishonourable excuse for continued disobedience which we are now considering. First, the keeping of the Passover in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix., xxx.) : " They established a decree to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba even to Dan, that they should come to keep the Passover unto the Lord God of Israel at Jerusalem : for they had not done it OP A LONG TIME IN SUCH SORT AS IT WAS WRITTEN." They did iiot say, We shall reflect on ourselves and our forefathers; but they obeyed God. Secondly, we have an obsei'vance of the Passover in the days of Josiah (2 Kings xxii., xxiii.). To their honour, not infamy, it is written: " Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah." This accords with sincerity in praying to be strengthened and filled with the Spiiit, to be holy as God is holy. Thirdly, we thus read of an observance of the feast of tabernacles in the days of Nehemiah: "And all the congregation of them that Avere come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths : for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness " (Neh. viii. 17). Are they blamable for observing more minutely the ordina- tion of God than it had been observed for about a thousand years l Did the shame destroy the joy 1 Did not the shame have exclusiA-e reference to past neglect? "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I liave respect unto all Thy commandments." Neglect, how^ever lengthened, does not weaken or alter Divine laws. The discovery of neglect should be followed or be accompanied by the resolution, " I will keep Thy statutes : O forsake me not utterly" (Psalm cxix. 8). "I will delight myself in Thy statutes: I will not forget Thy word" (ver. IG). Did Dr. Judson, Paul, the apostle, or any other persons, ever repent their discoveiy and renunciation of error, at whatever cost it might bel One course is demanded from all who have " respect unto the recompense of the reward." Dr. Innes has remarks on a kindred subject that arc here applicable. An objector fears the impression "of a certain fickleness of mind" which will be ])ro- duecd by a change of sentiment on this minor matter ou this external institiition, FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 545 whicli may have an "unfavourable effect both on those who believe the Gospel and those who do not." Amongst othei- things, Dr. I. replies: "I am sure you have too just views of the importance of regarding the dictates of conscience, and of the imminent danger of trifling with conviction, to wish any one to act in opposititm to what is the residt of his mature and deliberate incjuiry. Obedience to Jesus Christ, I am confident, not only enters into your definition of a Christian, but forms an essential jiart of it; and what is implied in this obedience must, in the case of every individual, be regulated by his conviction, after matiu-e inquiry-, of what it is that Jesus commands. All that is often brought forward, then, vidth regard to the relative importance of this sidjject, when compared ■svith others, has nothing to do with the way a man ought to act here. The ordinance of baptism, whether viewed as more or less important, all allow ought, at least, to 1)e observed conscientiously. The Divine authority ought to be recognized in it : and no man can do this imless he observe the ordinance in that way which it appears to him that authority enjoins." "To speak of fickleness, or a disposition to change, is here begging the question. All admit that if a man be wrong, it is an indication not of his fickleness, but of his attending to the will of God, if he change from error to truth. If a Socinian were to adopt just views of the Gospel, you would not say it indicated fickleness, but every Christian would rejoice in such a revolution in his sentiments." "I have heard some good men speak as if they thought a change almost the greatest jiossible evil, and as if it were even preferable to continue the practice of error to a certain extent rather than incur the charge of versatility, and, as they say, lose their influence, by forsaking a practice they formerly observed. Now, I really have no conception of a Christian acting on this principle. Had our foi-e- fathers done so, what would have become of the Reformation ? and, I may add, if this principle were adopted, what woidd become of all those imi>rovements in the various departments of human knowledge which are progressively breaking upon the world, and adding to the general stock of our information ? Let it not be said tliat these changes tend to reflect on the excellence and perfection of Scripture. No ; they only reflect on our former interpretation of it. It is no disparagement to the volume of nature ■when one who is employed in studying it alters his sentiments respecting a particular department of its laws, from perceiving that his former interpretation of them was wrong ; and it as little reflects on the volume of revelation if a more minute examination of the doctrine which a particidar department of it contains should lead to a similar change." — Euge. and Epe., pp. 197-200. Also the following from Baptist and Pseclobaptist are equally good and appropriate : — W. Brock. — "What I want at your hands, gentlemen, is a solemn determina- tion to abide by well-formed convictions, through evil as well as through good rejiort. If you must suffer persecution for confessing Christ before men, be it so. Confess Him in face of the persecution, borne up against all temptations to cowardice by the jiromise of Immanuel, that then He will confess you Ijefore His Father and the holy angels. ' Him that honoureth me, I will honour. He that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed.' " "Sterling huniilitj'^ and genuine reverence for the Almighty will lead us to take His Woi-d for all that it means." [Yes, His word of precept as well as promise.] — Ex. Hall Lee, pp. 371, 379. 1851. Author of "God is Love," &c. — ^"I regard it as one of the worst features in the aspect of the religious world at this moment, that Chi-istians shrink from embodying in i)ractice all their principles, merely because some of these principles happen to be unpopidar." — The Dyints of Holy Writ need to be announced from the pulpit, and enforced by the denomination to which we ])elong, before they become binding on the conscience 1 If we may conscientiously disregard what is revealed and enjoined in Holy Writ, what commendation can FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 549 be given to those who search the Scriptures daily, that they may know and do the will of God ? Is it not a principle, not of Cln-istianity, but of infidelity, to claim the liberty of making our own selection from the commands of God as to which are to be obeyed ? Dr. Williams has appropriately said: "If it be an evident truth that this ordinance is of perpetual obligation, no sincere Christian can liesitate a moment from inferring that it is of some importance to know how he may best dis- charge any duty that relates to it." And he adds : "To say that it is of no consequence ivho is baptized, or immaterial how the rite is per- formed, without due examination, is incompatible with Christian sin- cerity. Whatever bears the stamp of Divine authority has an undis- puted claim on ovir reverential regards." In what we have prefixed are many quotations bearing on this and every Divine ordinance. We might have greatly augmented their number. We shall now refer to Avhat appears to be from the pen of the Rev. A. Cameron, in the Family Treasury, ou the importance of living to God on common occasions and in small things. It is on Luke xvi. 10. He notices in illustrating and proving this — I. '■'■ Hoio little loe knoio concerning the relative im^yorlance of events and duties." II. "That even as the world judges, small things constitute almost the tohole of life." III. He dwells on the fact " that God is so observant of small things." lY. He adduces it as " a fact of history and observation, that all ejficient men, while they have been men of comprehension, have also been men of detail." V. He observes "that there is more of real piety in adorning one small than one great occasion." VI. He says : " The impoi'tance of living to God in ordinary and small things is seen in the fact that character, lohich is the end of religion, is in its very nature a growth" (pp. 33-37. 1851). His excellent illustration and enforcement it would not be proper for us to give. We desire in none singularity for singularity's sake ; but who admires not the man, if need be, "faithful foiuid Among the faithless : faithfiil only he Among innvmierable false"? Let the following, which is from Predobaptists, Foster excepted, have its merited consideration and application. Dr. Wardlaw. — "Wo nmst put the Bible first. We must hold the question of the Divine authority as paramount. With the discovery of the mind of God, inquiry ends and obedience commences. Honour done to the Scriptures is honour done to tlieir Divine Autiioe. We honour God when we honour His Word ; when, being fools that we may be wise, we bow, with inijilicit faith, to the intimations of His mind, and with imx^licit obedience to the directions of His will." "It would seem as if the sul)jects of Christ felt themselves at liberty to dissent from His judgment ; and even when they are satisfied that He has given a decision, to decline compliance, and to hold by the existing system. They follow custom. Habit is strong, faith weak. Tlie system is wrong, they allow; but they don't like change. But is this the amount of submission that is due to the King of Zion? This all the force which a conviction of His authority should exert upon the consciences of His subjects? 'To that man will I look, ' saith Jehovah, 'who is humble and of a contrite spirit, and who trembleth at my word.' Were there more of this trem- bling at the word of God, there would be less difficulty in settling many a question of controversy. I can conceive of nothing more preposterous, than for the professed servants of Christ to be squandering their powers of invention and ratiocination, in devising and vindicating plana of their own, — ai^itealing in their vindication to 550 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. principles of natural religion,- — to the dictates of human reason, — to the sugges- tions of expedience, — to the customs of nations, — to the experience of ages,— to the claims of long-existing institutions ; when tliere is one question which holds prece- dence of all, and of which the settlement shoidd settle all, — the question whether by the highest authority we are left thus at liberty." — On Nat. Est., pp. 59, 60, 06, 67. Hon. and Rev. H. M. Villiers. — "Every man bears a relationship to the com- munity at large." "It becomes, therefore, the duty of every thoughtful member of society, to so order himself and his possessions as most effectually to contribute to the present and eternal welfare of his fellow-creatures." — Ex. Hall Lee. 1851. Dr. R. S. Candlish. — "In one view, my pride may be gratified. These Divine commands are all subject to me ; I am their master : I receive them only so far as they commend themselves to my acceptance." — Ex. Hall Lee. 1851. Dr. J. P. Smith. — " 'The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.' . . . That which_is thus declared con- cerning the ' exceeding great and precious promises ' of Divine grace is equally true of every other part of what God has been pleased to reveal, for the purposes of His wisdom and benevolence to mankind." "I deduce a universal truth. That truth is, that every declaration contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles, which has a respect to the faith, the obedience, the consolation, and the usefulness of believers, and when understood in the sense intended by the Author of inspiration, possesses the purity of the best refined silver, the infalli- bility of unmixed truth. The sentiment, in an enlarged form, is given by the son of the writer of this psalm : ' Every word of God is pure. He is a shield unto them that i>ut their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou l)e found a liar.' Every serious mind will perceive how solemnly this case bears upon our proceeding in the endeavour to elicit the sense of the Scriptures. It not less cleai'ly follows, that one of our first duties is to ascertain, by those means which God has put in our possession, tlte genuine meaning of the Divine Oracles, without prepossession in favour of some interpretations, or prejudice against others. Our honest question must be, 'What saith the Lord?'" — Cong. i/ecpp. 213,214. John Foster. — "Conscience is extremely liable to be accommodated to each man's own interests, passions, and tastes. . . . What will he not do to reconcile it or make it submit to them? . . . The favourite interest or inclination he sets in the fairest light ; in excuse he recalls the circumstances that contribute to make it ascendant in him ; palliations of what is wrong in it multiply; it is far less culpable than many things in others which they think very venial." "In all things and at all events God is to be obeyed. . . . That cannot be right long in which there is no self-denial." "That which has the concurrence of so many to think, and say, and practise, is easily allowed to become a standard; not, it is acknowledged, a rigid and jierfectly justifying one, but one that may excuse. In spreading and becoming attemiated over the multitude, a censure becomes as nothing. Conscience, that ought to be ever looking at the throne and law of God, may be degraded to this most irreligious homage to man." — Lee, pp. 266, 267, 180, 264, 265. S. Martin. — " You are not saved by gazing ujwn Him [Christ] as upon a great sight ; but by receiving that which He presents to you, and doing that which He bids you do." — Westm. Cli. Pul., First Se. ; Ser. on Rom. xvi. 16. Dr. Eadie. — "All the will of God is to be done. Every part of Scripture is of the same authority. It is very wrong to make a selection among the commands of God, to obey some and neglect others. Saul, tlie king of Israel, was guilty of tliis sin, and God rejected him. You must therefore obey God in everything." — Lcc. on the Bible, p. 110. 5. — On Baptism as not essential to salvation. Jesus Christ. — "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him uuto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock." — Matt. vii. 24. Dr. T. AiiNOLD. — " I know Christ to have been so wise, and so loving to men, that I am sure I may trust His Word, and that what was entirely agreeable to His sense of justice and goodness cannot, unless through my own defect, bo otherwise than agreeable to mine." — L4fe mid Corres., p. 336; 7th edition. H. W. Beecher. — "It is often said it is no matter what a man believes if he is only sincere. FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 551 This ia . . . false of all truths whose nature it is to fashion a man's Ufe." — Life Thoughts, pp. 10, 11. Dr. J. FooTE. — " Religion does not, indeed, exist in a state of perfection, as to degree, in any one particular ; but it extends to every particiilar in the character which it influences ; so that the true Christian is not wilfuUy and liabitually negligent of anything he sees to be incumbent. It includes the least, while it is peculiarly concerned about the weightier matters of the law. The believer is not ' partial in the law.' . . . His language is, without exception, ' Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do ?' Let us think well of this, and let us see that we be able to say from the heart, with Da\'id, ' I esteem all Thy jirecepts concerning all things to be right ; and I hate every false way.' ' Thou hast commanded us to keep Thy precepts diUgently ; oh, that my ways were directed to keep Thy statutes.' " — Lee, on L\ike xi. 37-44. Dr. GuTHKiE. — ''He claims to reign supreme in your hearts," "Let His claims on our obedience be as cheerfully conceded as His claims to our faith; so that to our love of His glorious person, and His saving work, we may be able to add with David, 'O how love I Thy law.'" — Christ and the Inker., &c., pp. 67, 68. It is sometimes said, I admit that I am not baptised, but yoii your- selves believe that baptism is not essential to salvation. We believe that tens of thousands of unbaptized believers are now in heaven. And we never send, post-haste, for a minister, lest a child should die unbap- tized. Yet we do not believe that there are no cases in which baptism is essential to salvation. We believe it possible for the mind on this subject to be so enlightened that disobechence would prove determined opposition to God, and consequent unfitness for heaven. We believe the words of the Rev. J. Gr. Fuller to be applicable to some cases : " It is downright disaftection and disloyalty— pure, unmingled selfislmess. It is a daring affront to the Christian Legislator ; a virtual declaration that you love yourself more than you love Chi-ist. It is virtually, but deliberately saying, ' If it were essential to my salvation, I love myself well enough to take up the cross ; but, since it is not essential to salva- tion, I do not love the Saviour well enough to obey His command, and follow His example.' " It cannot evince a right state of heart, if the conduct or the lips say, I will follow^ the Lamb whithersoever He goeth, except in baptism ; but that is a galling yoke which I ^\all not wear, an oppi'essive burden which I will not bear. Does not this evince a spirit of "treason against the 'Lord of all'"? Can tliis be the response to Chi'ist's command from one who is redeemed by His precious blood 1 This spirit resembles not the spirit of the apostles, of martyi^s, and of those who consistently sing, "Yet if I might make some reserve, And duty did not call ; I love my God ^vitll zeal so great, That I should give Him all. " "Here, Lord, I give myself away." It more resembles the loathed spirit of the Laodiceans (Rev. iii. 16). A conscientious rejection of the ceremony (with the Society of Friends) is much safer than a belief in its perpetual obligation with an indifference to real obedience. Who does not perceive that the expres- sions, " Baptism will not save us," and " We can be saved without bap- tism," are not synonymous 1 The former may be true and not the latter. The latter may be true in regard to those who err through ignorance, and not in application to those who know the will of God, but obsti- nately refuse to obey the same, Wliere is the Scripture that encom^ages the latter class to expect admission into the kingdom of glory 1 Heaven and eai'th shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of the Divine law oo2 IMPORT OF BAPTISM. sliall fail (Matt. v. 18). "Omissions," says one, "have ruined millions." And the candid Doddridge says: "It will he readily allowed, that for any one to abstain from baptism, when he knows it is an institution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should subject himself to it, is such an act of disobedience to His authority as is inconsistent with true faith."— J/i'sc. Works, p. 490. The Rev. J. A. James sui)poses the following objection to membership, and thus replies to it: " ' I xiiay be a Christian, and get to heaven without being united with the church. ' That there are some in this case, I have no doubt ; but it becomes a question whether any one can really be a C-hristiau, who knows it to be a duty, and yet wilfully neglects it under the j)retext just stated." — Chris. Fa.'s Present, p. 25'2. Algo he says : "It may be difficult and altogether impossible for us to draw the line between doctrines essential to salvation and such as are not, and to fix on that kind or that manner of error which is incompatible with true religion ; and we had better nut make the attempt. . . . There is ill this respect the same difficultj' iu practical as in speculative error." — CIi. in Ear., p. 45. Thus E. Hooker : " If Christ himself who giveth salvation do require baptism ; it is not for us to sound and examine Him whether unbaptized persons may be saved, but seriously to do what is required." — In Dr. Wall's I)i/. Bap., vol. iv., p. 251. Canon Stowell says: "What is iu an opinion? Two huudi-ed uullions of civi- lized men are the slaves of an opinion, and that opinion makes them the vassals of ' the man of sin.' " — Ex. Hall Lee, p. 36. 1851. If heterodox opinions lead to Popery, why shoiild not scriptural opinions lead to practical baptism 1 We can say, " Stand fast by our tried and time-honoured institiitions," even the institutions of inspired men and apostolic times. Also, "Neither God nor man will honour the inconsistent career. Give nie the man that is true to his colours, even though he be true to false colours, rather than the man who has no colours at all ; or if he has tliem, never holds them fast " (p. 62). Rather than encourage a conscious neglect of Divine truth, or deviation from Divine direction, we recommend a practice accordant with the fol- lowing : " I do feel a profound obligation and desire to view every Divine truth just as God has unfolded it." " My wide latitude of belief and hojje with regard to others does not prevent my feeling the deepest solicitude to discover for myself, and to receive with revci-ential awe and simplicity every minute ramification of every minute truth which has descended fi'om heaven" {Power in Weakness, pp. 37, 75). Our advocacy of baptism is not in opposition to the following : — H. W. BEEcnER. — "First a cure for your sin-sick soul, and then theologies." — Life ThoiKjht.t, p. 2. Dr. Grosvenor. — "I may be saved without a sacrament, but I cannot be saved without a disposition to obey God's authority wherever I see it." — In Tcs. of Em. l\ed., p. 5. Dr. Owen. — "It is a hard and rare thing to have the minds of men kept upright witli God in the observation of the institutions of Divine worship." — Do. J. Sibkee. — " With an enlightened judgment, let us also cultivate a disposition to do the will of God from the lieart. A feeling of this kind is often a preparative to the communication of Divine truth, and a pi-oservative from error: for 'If any man,' saith our I^ord, 'will do tlio will of God, he shall know of tlie doctrine, whether it be of God' (John vii. 17). ' Tlie secret of the Lord,' says the i)salmist, 'is with tlieni that fear liim, and He will show them His covenant.'" — On Non- con., p. lOS. .1 . A. Haldane, — " A good subject never thinks of violating human laws, under FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS. 55S pretence of their being of little consequence. This would be justly deemed an impeachment of the Avisdom of the legislature by whose authority they were enacted, and would in eveiy case subject him to punishment. And shall Christians treat the laws of Jesus with less respect, the infringement of any one of which exposes to condemnation? (James ii. 10.)" — Hoc. Wor., pp. 8, 9. Dr. Eadie. — "Practise the Bible. Such an admonition, my young friends, most naturally follows our preceding lessons. It is the grand result of them all. If they issue not in this, they are useless indeed; they are 'clouds without rain.' To read the Bible, and yet to disobey it — to imderstand it, and yet to rebel against it — to profess to believe it, and yet to live in wilful opposition to it — to remember it, and yet neglect to obey it — is a sin cif great enormity and of numerous and heinous aggravations." "The heart is not a coffin, in which the truth of the Bible lies buried, but its cradle, where it is cherished, and where it gathers life and power." "Let yom- pervading sentiment be always, 'Thy will be done.' You may not know the reasons or grounds of God's will ; yet it becomes you to obey, iu the assurance that He is too wise to err, and too kind to injure." — Lee, on the Bible, pp. 100, 101, 112. 6. — Oil a Scriptural observance of this Ordinance as adapted in existinr/ circumstances to diminish usefulness. Solomon. — "Where there is no vision, the people perish." — Proverbs xxix. IS. Gregory. — " If there be