Mli!' 1 ^ « «3^ CL .£ /? 3 * ft o to 5 o s CD C w O bfl §' »£5 &• < i*> g 3 ~ ft £ .^ ««> M ks "K* "S £ t/> "&« L." *** O 5 ^l -a ^ % c £ K 0) <#> ril 1° scJB xV UKod (U cwU^^jls' -%t \uJLhLaJ~ du* J ■ tew. J Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/manualonchristiaOOwood A MANUAL MODE AND SUBJECTS THE SUBSTANCE OP SIX LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE CONGRE ■ GATIONAL CHURCH, BRANTFORD, C.W., DURING THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1856, THE REV. JOHN WOOD, faster. TORONTO: MACLEAR, THOMAS & CO., PRINTERS, 16 KING STREET EAST*. 1857. PREFACE. Q The following lectures are printed at the request of the church of which the writer is pastor. They were not originally intended for publication, but were delivered to meet a peculiar local necessity. A most powerful religious revival, during the progress of which a large number of persons were hopefully converted to God, seemed likely to be suddenly arrested by an ill-timed discussion of the subject of baptism. The minds of the young converts were beginning to be disturbed, and the thoughts of the enquiring diverted from the great ques- tion of salvation to that of immersion. To avert the threatened evil, the writer publicly requested that during the progress of the revival all reference to this subject might be avoided, so that the work of God might proceed unimpeded. His request was misinterpreted, and taken as indicative of the weakness of his cause, and a conse- quent fear of discussion. Knowing such an impression to prevail he announced his intention of delivering a course of lectures on baptism at some future time; and, after a delay of nearly sis months, he redeemed his pledge, and the reader has before him in substance the result. It was impossible for the writer, amid the varied duties of a pastorate, to pay that attention to style and arrange- ment in the original composition of the lectures that he would like to have done. Some trifling alterations have, therefore, been found necessary in revising them, which it is hoped will add to the clearness and consecu- tiveness of the argument; while some few things of a purely local interest have been altogether omitted. It can hardly he 'expected that anything very new should he advanced upon a controversy of such long standing as is that on baptism, especially after so many men of learning and ability have directed their attention to it. The utmost the writer has hoped to do has been to state the arguments which have had most weight with himself, as simply as possible, and perhaps now and then to present an old thought in a new dress. Holding firmly and conscientiously the views he has endeavoured to set forth, his aim throughout has been to furnish the en- quirer with a little manual on this subject, that being, in his view, much more likely to be useful, in a general way, than a work of far greater pretensions. Brantford, May 1, 1857. • CONTENTS, LECTURE I. Introductory Remarks : Undue importance often attached to the question. — The style of argument often indulged in. Conscientious convictions of brethren often made the sub- ject of ridicule. — False issues raised. LECTURE II. Mode of Baptism : Analogy between the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism with water. — Greek prepositions. — The baptism of the Eunuch. — Discussion of Rom. vi. 4, " Buried with Him in baptism," &c. LECTURE III. Mode of Baptism, continued: Meaning of "baptizo." — Dr. Carson's position. — Quotations from the Classics. — The New Testament. — The Septuagint. — "Bapto." — Quota- tions — Objections to which immersion is liable. — John's baptism. — Historical evidence on the mode. LECTURE IV. Ixfaxt Baptism : Argument from the Abrahamic Covenant. Household baptisms of the New Testament, involving in- fant baptism. — Historical evidence on infant baptism. LECTURE V. Immersion as a Term of Communion : The extent to which the practice is carried. — The argument for it. — Objections to it. LECTURE VI. Review of Rev. Thos. L. Davidson. .*' ♦ * A MANUAL CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. LECTURE I. 1 Peter iii. 15: — "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." Acts xxii. 1: — "Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which 1 make now unto you." The passages prefixed to this lecture must be regarded rather as mottoes than as texts, my intention being not so much to expound them, as to exhibit in them both precept and precedent for the course I am about to take. I am fully aware of the unpleasant attitude in which I place myself, by the announcement of a series of discourses upon the subject of baptism, especially towards those of my Christian brethren who conscientiously differ from me, many of whom I highly esteem. I doubt not that I shall be regarded by some as meddlesome and fond of controversy, "striving about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." I trust, however, to be able to show in the course of these lectures that they mistake me, and that I have no such desire. Controversy, under almost any circumstances, especially among the people of God, can hardly be looked upon as anything better than a necessary evil. That it sometimes becomes a necessity scarcely any one will deny, and if in such circumstances we avoid it from its unpleasantness, we are as much to blame as when we rush uncalled into the strife. To me the present seems such an occasion. Had I consulted my own inclina- tions I should have remained silent ; but silence has ceased to be a virtue, and let that be my apology for speaking. The preaching of the cross is, to a right-minded minister, a much more pleasant employment than contending with brethren. The loving and prayerful spirit seldom dwells long with the controversial, and an undue regard to modes and observances uniformly injures, in just such proportion as it is cherished, the love of what is spiritual and vital. So is it also with the hearer. If the Son of Man be lifted up he will draw all men unto him ; but if, in His stead, we elevate an ordinance, and fix the attention of the unregene- rate upon the baptism with water, instead of the baptism of the Spirit, we may expect corresponding results. Surely if ever there was a time when Christians were called to sanctify the Lord God in their hearts, and make Him their glory, it is the present. The world is always prone to attach undue importance to the forms of religion ; let the church beware of giving it the example ! Moreover, the disciples of Christ are all really "one," and it were well if they were more closely united in their outward organisations. It is hence extremely undesirable to make prominent before the malignant eye of the world the dissensions instead of the unity of the church. Contro- versy necessarily does this, even under the most favourable aspect, and is therefore, so far, an evil. For all these reasons I was very reluctant to do anything that could be construed into a love of debate and contention ; and it is only because I think the time has come to speak, after long refraining, that I have announced these lectures. Before entering upon the discussion of the question at issue, I have thought it better to devote one evening to some preliminary remarks on matters connected with the controversy, but much better dealt with in this separate form. The reason assigned for my course,* while it is the main one, is by no means the only one. There are some things which our Baptist friends need to know concerning themselves and their polemics, that, for want of better means of communicating, I shall endeavour plainly, yet I hope kindly, to tell them. We seldom see ourselves as others see us ; we are usually so self-complacent and indis- posed to look at our own faults and peculiarities, that but for their being pointed out to us by others we should never know them. To a certain extent we are to bear with one * See Preface. 9 another in these things ; but when the cause of pure and undefiled religion is suffering from them, one fulfils only the part of a friend, and the obligation of a Christian, in pointing them out. And it is because of the damage which the things I am about to mention are doing to the cause of God, that I speak of them. I have no right to occupy the columns of their religious newspaper; and but little that 1 could say through the columns of our own would reach them. I take, therefore, the present opportunity of giving expression to not my own views merely, but those, I doubt not, of very many of my Christian brethren of various denominations. I may be thought officious and assuming for my censure; the beam in my own eye may be pointed out; and if in judging another I be condemning myself, I hope it will be pointed out in the spirit of meekness, for "open rebuke is better than secret love." But, on the other hand, if I incur the displeasure of a party, I shall at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I have aimed at the furtherance of the Gospel. I beg therefore to say, once for all, that I shall speak very plainly, often perhaps warmly, but I hope never unkindly or untruthfully. I. My first preliminary remark is, that our friends of the Baptist denomination attach undue importance, and give undue prominence, to the whole question involved in this discussion. Upon this point alone do they differ from their Congregational brethren. We are one in doctrine and church polity, and were they dispassionate enough to allow us quietly to enjoy our conscientious convictions, Ave might still be one in organisation. We can bear and forbear, if they can. We receive Baptist brethren to our fellowship, and have them in it now ; but the act is not reciprocated. The consequence, of course, is separation, and separation is, under the circumstances, the lesser evil of the two ; for schism without the church is much better than schism within it. And this state of things must continue until the zeal of the Baptist body for immersion, and anti-pasdo- baptism, and close communion, shall become somewhat more temperate than at present. "But," say our friends, "we are put in charge of the truth ; we alone are baptized; and Christ has commissioned us to go into all the world, preaching the Gospel, and bap- tising men into his name." Admitting, for arguments sake, that this is so, should the mode of baptism be made their leading peculiarity ? And is not this the case with them at present ? Is not immersion inscribed on their a2 10 banner? Does not every one, on hearing their name, think of that as their chief distinction ? Oar Baptist friends surely cannot say, " We are of Paul ;" for Paul says, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," (1 Cor. i. 17.) : neither can they say, in this respect, " We are of Christ ;" for " Jesus himself baptized not." (John iv. 2.) Many of them, we rejoice to know, are estimable and devoted brethren, but, in common with not a few others, I cannot help regarding the body, as a whole, as "the straitest sect of our religion." When charging us, therefore, as is not uncommon, with adopting the trumpe- ries of Rome in the practice of infant baptism, it were well for them to beware of the bigotry and exclusiveness which are the very core of Romanism. The name, Baptist —implying that no other section of the Church of Christ baptizes — is an unwarrantable assumption; especially, since Immersers or Anti-pcedo-bapiists* would suggest much more readily their peculiarities of doctrine and practice. As Pasdo-baptists we have probably erred in the opposite direction. Our comparative silence has undoubtedly often been taken as an indication that we are not very sure of the ground we tread on. And truly, if declamation is to be taken for argument, and the frequency with which our opponents introduce the subject, as evidence that they have so much more to say than we have, we acknowledge our- selves at once liors cle combat. The confident, however, can afford to be calmer, and say less than the mistrustful ; and we can assure our Baptist friends, that we regard their constant preaching upon this subject as expressive of any- thing but calm conviction, and enlightened decision. May it not indicate the very opposite ? I have spoken of the comparative silence of Psedo-baptist ministers upon this question, but, in the case of many, the silence has been total. They have allowed the good old English Bible, in the homes and hearts of their people, to form their people's views, simply adding, on their part, the impressive comment of an occasional public baptism. For about eleven years I enjoyed the ministry of the Rev. Dr. W , of M , yet! I cannot recall the fact of his preaching a single discourse upon the subject of Baptism— at least, as to its mode — during that period. I know of a neighbouring minister, also, who was compelled to lecture upon the subject, under circumstances somewhat similar to my own, and who was afterwards told by his people, that * Rejectors of Infant Baptism. 11 his silence in relation to it had led them to think he could have very little t~> say in defence of his views. That brother had not preached upon it during a ministry of seven years in the same place — not once ! The same remark applies to myself; — for nearly four years have I been entrusted with my present charge, and never once have I preached upon the mode of baptism, although on five different occasions I have administered the ordinance to adults, on the profes- sion of their faith. I have on several occasions endeavoured to show the divine authority we possess for the practice of infant baptism, but never have I uttered a word publicly in defence of our mode. Will our Baptist friends tell us how many discourses they have heard on immersion, during the same period? The effect of this silence has been, either, as I have said, to create the surmise that we have very little to say in de- fence of our views ; or else, from the very rarity of the event, to lay us open to the charge of attacking our brethren who differ from us, when Ave venture to break our long si- lence on the subject. On botli horns of this unpleasant dilemma have I been placed by turns ; for although my discourses on infant baptism have invariably been an- nounced a week beforehand, so that no one might be com- pelled to listen to what they did not wish to hear, (and a Baptist, on such occasions, is always &rara avis,) yet in almost every instance have I been charged with attacking my brethren. Hitherto, however, I have simply stood on the defensive, avoiding, as far as possible, all reference to those who differ from us, and confining myself, in the dis- cussion of the subject, to baptismal services. The ground of complaint is, therefore, all on our side, and we do com- plain of the frequency with which it is introduced into their pulpits, and more still of their manner of presenting it. But we must not anticipate. The undue importance attached to this question by our Baptist brethren is exhibited in many ways, however, be- sides the one just indicated. The zeal of the pulpit en- kindles the zeal of the pew, and, indeed, is often fairly outstripped by it. What the latter lacks in piety and prudence is often more than supplied by its boldness and volubility. " Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketk." The popular taste forms the popular literature. The press echoes the sentiments of the party that sustains it, and allots to the favourite topic the prominence and space which it seems to demand. Tracts, and pamphlets, and minor publications without number, are put in requi- 12 sition, and distributed often with, a freer hand than the word of life itself. And these attempts at proselytizing are by no means confined to those in whose case the great question has been settled : the impenitent, and even the enquiring, whose anxious gaze should be fixed on the dying Redeemer alone, are often harrassed, and, we fear, some- times ruined, by this immoderate zeal. Indeed, the solemn scenes of a revival season appear to be selected, not un- frequently, as its most appropriate sphere. This is not only undeniable, but it is publicly defended ; and so common has it become, that I expected it during the gracious reviv- al of last winter. In three instances of remarkable and extensive awakening have I known it to occur. The mind of the young convert is so open to instruction, and his heart so tender, that any one may take advantage of it, and the golden moment is seldom allowed to pass unim- proved. Would that the same amount of effort were embarked in a better cause ! Would that the record of revivals killed out by means of this nature, had taught our friends to defer the agitation of this question till the great work is done ! We rejoice in the conviction that the firm stand which was recently taken against controversy at such a time, Was made, in answer to prayer, the means of protracting the season of religious interest far beyond its probable continuance, had not the "old leaven" been purged out in time. There are some, we believe, now in the fold of the Good Shepherd in consequence of it, who would otherwise have been only more opinionated on the mode of baptism. And such a result is of a thousand- fold more moment than one's reputation as a polemic. I am not sure but this zeal has increased in ardency, of late years. If I may rely on the testimony which I have received on this point, the ministers of the last gene- ration said less about immersion, and the churches thought less about it, as a term of communion. However this may be, it must be regarded by all but themselves as excessive at present. They are, of course, at liberty to seek the spread of their conscientious convictions — nay, more, they are bound to contend for the truth as they understand it. But denominational zeal must have certain limits — limits which I regard our Baptist brethren as having transgressed through the over-estimate they have formed of the import- ance of the mode in which their favourite ordinance is to be administered. It is this that has placed them in the false position which they occupy in the eyes of the Christ- ian public, many of whom regard them as making immer- 13 sion a saving ordinance, as well as a term of communion, notwithstanding all their protestations to the contrary. I rejoice in the conviction that their ministers, as a body, present no other Saviour than the Lord Jesus Christ, and that they utterly repudiate the idea of a salvation through baptism. And yet, by a nice distinction — too nice by far for ordinary hearers, — some of them seem not very sure of the safety of the unbaptized, their fears arising, apparently, from our disobedience to a command so plainly revealed as that which requires us to be immersed ! The result is very great danger, to say the least, of the less informed of their congregations thinking immersion essential to salvation. How can they avoid such a conclusion, when they hear quoted in almost every sermon on baptism, "he that be- lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved," with the emphasis on "baptized?" I have reason to know, moreover, that while, in common with other religious bodies, the Baptists regard adult baptism as involving a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, cases frequently occur, in which parties are urged and hurried into immersion, as if that were the one thing needful. Two persons in my congrega- tion, and one, a member of another Christian church in the town, are my witnesses in this indictment. One of them, a lady, was immersed when a girl of thirteen years of age, by a minister in England, who never asked her any question whatever. Another, quite a lad at the time, was immersed, after much persuasion, in K , C. "W., contrary to his own convictions, which were so strong that he could not be induced to sit down at the Lord's table ; and alas ! subse- quent life has shown his unfitness. The third, after much importunity, was at last persuaded to " take up the cross," the motive urged being that he would thus obtain peace of mind. I ask again, what impression are these things likely to produce ? Is there no danger in assuring a con- gregation that immersion will confer " a salvation from doubt," as was recently done, of some poor, unlettered hearer being misled ? Is this giving the trumpet a certain sound? Shall we joke, or indulge in fanciful allusions, when the plainest statement of the way of life is often misunderstood? II. My second preliminary remark is, that our Baptist brethren often adopt a style of argument upon this subject, that is neither kind nor convincing. The questions of the proper mode and subjects of baptism, are not questions for trifling, or banter, or dogmatism. They involve issues of considerable moment. The wise and good of many an age have differed, and differed conscientiously, upon them, and therefore assertion and assumption are altogether out of place here. Other things being equal, the opinion of one man is as good, and entitled to as much weight, as that of another. Its value depends entirely upon the intelligence and candour of the individual who offers it. Any attempt, therefore, to settle the question by the aggregate weight of human opinion must inevitably fail, since it would be vast- ly more difficult to determine it3 value than to settle the original question. Let all mere assertion, therefore, on either side, go for just what it is worth. I ask no one to take my assertion for anything, neither will I accept of his. No honest man has any use for it, any more than for coun- terfeit coin. It has a suspicious look to find it in a man's possession ; there is great danger of his using it in place of legal tender, or, in other words, of argument. Still less convincing are the hard words — the charges of ignorance, and want of conscientiousness and candour, with which we are sometimes met. If we are to have dis- cussion, let us have " soft words and hard arguments." I am not now fighting a man of straw ; I am censuring a practice by no means uncommon, and one that is very apt to provoke unkind replies, and lead to altercation and per- sonalities. One might endure even the charge of ignorance, for my ignorance may arise from the want of the powers of perception and induction necessary to comprehend an argument, and may, therefore, be more my misfortune than my fault ; but for a want of candour I am responsible — that is a crime. It is painful to hear such a man as the late Dr. Cos, of Hackney, one of the most eminent writers on the Baptist side of the controversy, expressing himself con- cerning those who differ from him, in the following lan- guage : — " Their churches contain vast numbers of theoretic Baptists, who have discernment enough to appreciate the force of evidence, but not piety enough to pursue the path of duty ;" i. e. they shrink from immersion. Such a sentence fully vindicates all I have said about assertion, and charges of a want of candour. The very same charge has been made to me personally, and doubtless with a personal reference. An intelligent christian lady hazarded the opinion that if we could only be freed from our prejudices for one month, and induced calmly to weigh the evidence in favour of immersion, and believers' baptism, we must be convinced of the correctness of their views ; adding, however, that she believed that 15 many were convinced, but were deterred from changing their relations by the thought of having to be immersed. Reply to charges of this kind would be useless. The parties who judge our consciences thus will surely depend but little on our truthfulness, and it would be the sheerest folly, therefore, to lay claim, as we might do, to as thorough conscientiousness as they possess. Still, I must be allowed to say, that if I am not a Baptist, it is neither from want of careful study, nor I trust from want of candour, nor, finally, from want of effort on the part of well-meaning friends in Brantford. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to convert me since my residence among you, by tracts sent anonymously, or inserted under my hall door, on the subject under discussion ; one of them accom- panied with the unexceptionable advice, written upon it in almost illegible characters, "read this with prayer." Not the least amusing part of this last named effort was that the tract was one of two pages, in which it was deemed such an irrefragable argument had been adduced as to be worthy of such an honourable mission as an attempt to convert a Peodo-baptist minister ! I am sorry to say that the style of argument of which I complain abounds in the writings of our Baptist brethren, as well as in their public discourses. They are extremely impatient of contradiction, and often seem to speak with the air of infallibility. Thus, for instance, Campbell attri- butes our views to "prejudice, bigotry, and interest," and disposes of our arguments as " boyisms, crudities, puerilities, mere trifling, and things beneath notice." Car- son, however, to whose work I shall frequently have occasion to refer in the course of these lectures, must be admitted to have borne off the palm for this kind of logic. Under his masterly hand the ablest arguments of Wardlaw, Ewing, and Beecher, become "mere trilling," "nonsense," "childish fallacy," "extravagantly idle," "perverse cavilling," "sick- ening," " false, fanatical, and subversive of all revealed truth," " heresy," and " blasphemy," while their authors are found guilty of "calling the Holy Ghost a liar." I have seldom met with an instance in which the style of a book has been so calculated to defeat the object for which it was written. No more striking contrast can be conceived than is presented between the style of Dr. Carson, and that of his opponents, and indeed of pEedo-baptist writers generally. " If our brethren will only use kind and gentle words — there are plenty of them — and thus express a catholic and loving spirit, they are welcome to use the strongest argu- 16 menfcs they can find, and we will give them all the conside- ration to which they are entitled." III. My third remark is, that the conscientious convic- tions of Christian brethren should be so respected as never to be made the subject of ridicule, however much we may differ from them. To sin against a brother is to sin against Christ, and in no way can you so deeply wound an humble believer as by speaking lightly of an ordinance which he regards as solemnly enjoined upon him by the Lord he loves. Should any, therefore, regard it as demonstrated that the baptism of the infant children of the Lord's people is wholly unwarranted by His Word, they would still be bound to respect the views of others who do not so regard it. How much more so, when the unscripturalness has not been demonstrated, and seems very unlikely to be ! Yet our Baptist brethren are very apt to be merry at the sight of " a sprinkling," or a "baby baptism," especially if the baby should cry. On one occa- sion a very attentive observer reported the number of drops of water that fell from my hand upon the head of a lady whom I was baptizing on profession of her faith. A most convincing argument in favour of immersion has doubtless been the result ! I am sorry he should have seen nothing but the water in so solemn a service. Not long since the Pasdo -baptists of Brantford were publicly invited, on the Sabbath day, to prove from the New Testament that the moon is made of green cheese before they attempt to show any warrant in it for infant baptism. I am fairlyashamed to quote such a remark, but if it be too gross to repeat, it was certainly unseemly to make use of it. On at least two occasions have we been told that we have precisely the same authority in the New Testament to administer baptism to an infant, that a certain infidel club in New York had, when, in their rampant impiety, they baptized a dog, and administered the Holy Supper to a cat, viz., that it is not specifically forbidden ! How can we characterize such an illustration but as inde- cent, and even profane ? Why should such offensive asso- ciations be thrown around what the great mass of professing Christians regard as a Divine and most precious ordinance ? If our Baptist brethren would study the advancement of their own cause, they will make less use uf this weapon than they have done. Intelligent hearers are very apt to turn away in disgust from such a mode of treating the subject. Apart from the sin of such a course, its legitimate 17 fruits are anything but desirable. A man won over by ridicule will be found wanting either in intelligence or in candour ; one convinced, whose judgment has been in exercise instead of his risible faculties, will be worth a dozen of him. The fact of a child crying while water is poured upon its face, however ludicrously represented^ never yet convinced any one of the errors of Ptedo-baptism. The infant screamed far more under the knife of circumcision. I must be pardoned, therefore, if I repeat what has so often been remarked before, that the fears and tears of a child are quite as natural in its circumstances, as the gasping and agitation of an adult suffering immersion are in his. Neither the one nor the other forms any part of the ordinance. One cannot but be struck with the kindly manner in which our Saviour invariably spoke of little children. He calls them " little ones," " lambs," and such like, and "takes them up in his arms, and. blesses them." Our Baptist friends certainly cannot copy a higher example, and I would therefore respectfully suggest that the some- what contemptuous epithets in use among them, to which I have already referred, be in future dispensed with. They surely must know that there is much more connected with an immersion that is calculated to excite a smile than there is in the baptism of an infant. Ridicule is a sword with two edges, which might be turned with fearful effect against their own favourite mode. The crowd of giddy young people, who usually flock to every immersion, care much less about the devotional parts of the service, or the sermon, than they do about the dipping of one or more persons into the water, with its invariable accompaniments. They go to see, not to hear. They want a good seat, near the baptistery, commanding a full view of the sight of the evening. A back seat would be a cruel disappointment. Hence the restlessness often manifested till the preparations for the immersion begin, and then every one is attentive, every head is bent forward, every eye strained to see. And is it the solemn dedication of a soul to God that forms the attraction on the occasion ? I trow not. Who will believe that such an audience as is sometimes gathered at a bap- tismal service, could be got together to listen to an ordinary discourse ? No ! without the immersion the sermon would be very stale, and hence the universal practice of presenting the Baptist side of the question on such occasions, thereby compelling those to hear who come to see. "Whether it be right to throw these fictitious attractions 18 around the service of the sanctuary, and pander to what I cannot help regarding as a corrupt taste, in some instances bordering on the immoral, is not for me to decide. " It is written, my house shall be called the house of prayer," and certainly the more nearly we copy the Divine original the better. " Let all things be done unto edifying." The blame, however, does not belong wholly to our Bap- tist brethren. Our own people are at fault. Some of them have eyes that are "never satisfied with seeing." Their own sanctuary — their religious home — is too readily left for another, on a very trifling inducement. Oh ! that they desired more "the sincere milk of the word that they may grow thereby." The hungering and thirsting soul will not be satisfied with exhibitions of the nature referred to. It must have food, and will be content to look for it where it has usually found it. "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place." Were our Baptist friends left more to themselves on such occasions they would soon find discoursing on immersion an unprofit- able business, and would let it alone. But finding so many always ready to see, they, of course, improve the opportu- nity to the utmost, and hence the evil is perpetuated. I would earnestly recommend any who may be in doubt upon this subject, to sit down calmly to the investigation at home, with the Book of God in their hand, together with any helps to understanding it which may be within their reach, and "ask of God." Such a course is much to be preferred to wasting the precious hours of Sabbath worship in listening to so unspiritual a theme, and much more likely to lead to a correct conclusion. IV. My last remark is, that great injury is often done to the cause of truth, in this controversy, by raising false issues. The real point in dispute is not unfrequently alto- gether lost sight of in a laboured argument, in proof of what no one disputes for a moment. Probably, most per- sons have heard discourses, elaborate and conclusive enough so far as they go, in defence of the position, that the Greek verb bapiizo signifies to immerse; and many have gone away thinking that Paedo-baptists must be either strangely blind, or sadly perverse, in continuing to practise any other mode. But you will mark that our Baptist friends have to prove much more than that, before their mode is estab- lished. That is not a question at all. Everybody admits that bapiizo signifies to immerse, plunge, sink — sometimes ! I will admit that it does so very frequently. But now come two other questions. 19 1. Does it ever signify anything else? Is it ever used in the classics in the sense of, to dip partially, to cover by overwhelming, rushing, or pouring ; to wet or soak, without any reference to the manner in which it is done? If it be, as I believe it is, the corner-stone of the Baptist theory is gone, however numerous their quotations. I hope to establish this point in the course of these Lectures. 2. If it could be proved invariably to have signi- fied to immerse, in its use in the classics, is it certain that it retains, that signification in the New Testament ? Many words originally found only in the classics, receive, on their introduction into the New Testament, an entirely different meaning. Thus, ecclesia, used in one of its origin- al senses, in Acts six. 41, of a disorderly assembly, receives usually the special signification of church, an assembly of christians, — one entirely new. So, eulogeo, in the classics, signifies to speak well of: in the New Testament, to bless. Other examples might be named ; but let these suffice. I shall be able to show, I think, a similar change in the use of baptizo. I am willing, however, to rest the argument on the first of these questions, and have no hesitation in say- ing that, upon the presentation of clear proof that baplizo and bapto, its cognate, in every instance meant to plunge under water, or any other element, I will both submit to, and practise, immersion. Our Baptist brethren are generally guilty of asimi- lar sophism, when contending for adult or believers' baptism. They ought to know that they have more to do than prove the scripturalness of adult baptism, in order to disprove the Divine authoity of infant baptism. There is nothing in the practice of the one, antagonistic to the prac- tice of the other. As well, therefore, might a Unitarian hope to disprove the Deity of Christ by proving his human- ity. Any one may see the fallacy, that reflects upon it but a moment. The point in dispute is not -whether believers or their children are to be baptized, but whether believers and their children are to be baptized ? I shall endeavour to keep these several points distinctly before you when the proper time shall arrive to discuss them. May the Divine Spirit assist us in our investigation, and guide us into the truth ! LECTURE II. THE MODE OP BAPTISM. Luke iii. 16: — " John ansivered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with icater ; but one mightier than I comeih, $ * ■■ * l! *' he shall baptise you loith the Holy Ghost and with fire." AcTSxi. 15, 16: — "And as I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on lis at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized ivith ivater, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The disciple of Christ should always remember that so long as he lives he is to be a learner. His proper place is at the feet of the great Teacher. What He condescends to impart must be received unhesitatingly as infallible truth. The sum of this teaching we have handed down to us in the revealed Word of God. We should be careful, therefore, always to consult that Holy Oracle, in the spirit of an enquirer, and never more cautiously than when our minds are pretty nearly made up upon any disputed point or doctrine. He that approaches it as if he had nothing to learn will generally leave it having learned nothing ; the hungry are filled with good things, while the rich are sent empty away. "The doctrine of baptisms" is one such disputed point. Almost every one has a settled opinion both as to the proper subjects of the ordinance, and the mode in which it should be administered. In most cases, I fear, it is nothing more than opinion, a kind of hereditary creed, which, while it may be very well when it happens to be correct, often forms so faulty a medium of vision, as to distort or alto- gether conceal the object we desire to examine. There is, therefore, great danger of our coming to the Word of God to demonstrate our theory from it, instead of coming to listen to the voice of the Spirit of Truth ; to defend our practice, instead of asking counsel of the Lord. Supposing, however, some simple, unbiassed enquirer to light upon the passages which stand at the head of this lecture, in his investigation of this subject, what, think you, would be the impression he would gain from them concerning the mode of baptism ? The meaning of the verb baptizo is 21 a distinct part of the question under discussion, to be treated of in the next lecture ; my supposition, therefore, leaves that for the present unsettled. I am supposing the case of a " plain reader," (so often spoken of by Baptists) one incompetent to form an opinion of its meaning except by the connection in which it occurs. And, I ask again, what would be his conclusion on reading these, and similar passages in the New Testament ? Would he, could he for a moment imagine immersion to be the mode of baptism indicated ? We unhesitatingly answer, no ! and we very much doubt if Baptists themselves differ from us in this opinion. Indeed they publicly endorse it by their extreme anxiety to obtain a new version of the English Bible, in which the word immerse shall invariably be substituted for baptize. They are evidently confident of no great amount of success in converting the world to their opinions, so long as the word remains as at present. Despite all their zeal, and their positiveness as to the meaning of bap- iizo, plain readers of the New Testament will judge of its meaning for themselves, from the connection in which it stands, and the terms with which it is plainly synonimous. You will remember that our translators have wisely transferred or anglicised the original word baptizo to baptize, simply altering its final letter, instead of translating it. Hence, neither party has anything to complain of, as would have been the case had they adopted any one of the seven or eight different renderings of which the word is susceptible. Had it been translated by immerse or dip, those who prac- tise our mode of baptism would have had reason to complain of their haying prejudged the case ; or, on the other hand, had it been rendered by sprinkle, pour, or cleanse, our Baptist brethren might, with justice, have brought the same com- plaint against them. They affected no settlement of the question, however, by any deliverance of theirs, but con- tentedly referred it to the reader to decide, by an examina- tion cf the several passages in which the word occurs; and so we are willing to leave it. We think nothing can be fairer. We stand thus on equal footing, and we wonder, therefore, at this anxiety for a new version of the Bible, on the part of those who constantly tell us, that a candid perusal of the New Testament will make any man a Baptist. But we are digressing, and must return to our text. I have several remarks to oiler by way of elucidating its meaning, and exhibiting its bearing upon the question in hand. I remark, — 1. That water baptism is here spoken of as the inferno) 22 baptism, being nothing more than the emblem or represen- tative of the superior baptism, viz., the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The latter is referred to as exceeding the former in importance, as much as the work of Messiah was to exceed that of John. The difference between the two baptisms was to be as great as the difference between the two ad- ministrators. " I indeed baptize you with water, but * * * * He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." All that John could do was to apply the sign ; the Messiah alone could confer the thing signified. 2. That the superior baptism must be supposed to indi- cate, and fix the mode in which the inferior shall be ad- ministered, unless there be evidence to the contrary. The type must conform as far as possible to the thing typified. Thus, in the Lord's Supper, the breaking of bread and pouring out of wine, represent, as far as possible, in mode, the mangling of the body, and the shedding of the blood of Christ. So the eating and drinking of these emblems re- present, in a similar manner, the receiving of Christ into the heart, in the exercise of faith. To attempt to invert their natural order — to make the symbol regulate the mode of the Saviour's death, instead of his death controlling the symbol — would be absurd ; no more absurd, however, than it would be to suppose the mode of the Spirit's baptism to have been regulated by its own emblem, the baptism of water. Thus far, I presume, our Baptist friends and we are entirely agreed. I remark, 3. That the same word, baptizo, that is employed to de- signate the baptism of the Holy Spirit, being invariably employed to designate the baptism of water, we are shut up to the conclusion, that the mode of the former was in- tended to regulate the mode of the latter. If the former was an immersion, so must the latter have been ; or if one was an affusion, so must the other have been. This view receives additional confirmation from the fact that the ele- ments used, and hence the baptisms also, possess the same significancy. John uses water, Christ sends a flame of fire, — both employ purifying agents. No one will enter- tain any doubt as to the design in using water. It clearly exhibits the universal need of spiritual washing, and as clearly teaches us to hope for it from the operation of an influence altogether from without. Should any one ques- tion, however, the existence of any such allusion in the baptism of fire, a reference to the following passages will probably satisfy him: — Isa. vi. 7 , "And he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips : and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." Mai. iii. 2, 3 : " He is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's sope : And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver." 1 Cor. iii. 13 : " The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." In each of these passages fire is employed, figuratively, as a purifying agent, while in that from Malachi, both figures are made use of, — refin- ing and washing — and that with especial reference to the work of the Spirit. No one, therefore, can reasonably doubt that the baptism of fire, which is generally supposed to have been first received at Pentecost, was intended, like the baptism of water, to represent the inward cleansing of the Holy Ghost. Nothing now remains but to show, 4. That the baptism of the Holy Ghost was performed by an effusion of his Divine influences, and not by immersion in them. The Spirit was "poured out " upon the disciples. " Cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon each of them." All the prophetic allusions to this event, as well as all the phraseology employed in recording it, combine to support this view of the case. The prophecies read : — " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my bless- ing upon thine offspring." Isa. xliv. 3. " 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." Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26. "And it shall come to pass afterwards, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy ; your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids, in those days will I pour out my Spirit." Joel ii. 28, 29. " So shall he sprinkle many nations." Isa. Iii. 15. The record declares, that the gift of the Holy Ghost " was poured out." Acts x. 45 : that it "fell on all them that heard the word," x. 44 ; that it was " shed forth," in fulfilment of the promise, ii. 33 ; that it " came on them." xix. 6 ; and that Peter, astonished to see it descend upon the Gentiles also, remembered the word of the Lord Jesus, how that he said, "John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." xi. 16. Could phraseology be more concurrent, without absolute uniform- ity ? Who would ever have thought of immersion as the mode of the Spirit's baptism, had it not been for the desire to support a theory ? 24 Our argument is complete. The two baptisms — of water, and of the Spirit — designated by the same word, and shadowing forth the same truth, were administered in the same mode. The inferior or typical baptism must have conformed, in this respect, to the superior or spiritual, as the earthly takes pattern from the heavenly, (Heb. ix. 23) ; and hence, whatever can be shown to have been the mode of the Spirit's baptism, must be also the mode of Christian baptism. But we have seen, both from prophetic allusion, and inspired record, that the gift of the Holy Ghost was "poured out" upon the disciples; and hence, affusion is the scriptural mode of Christian baptism. It is not a little unfortunate for the theory of immersion, that the application of the blood of Christ should constantly be represented under the figure of sprinkling — the usual method of ritual purification under the Jewish economy. The sprinkling of blood, or water, from the priest's finger, or the hyssop branch, was all that the law required, in most cases, to remove ceremonial uncleanness. See Num. xix. 4, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21. So David prays : "Purge me (sprinkle, Sept.) with hyssop, and I shall be clean." Psalm li. 7. From the frequency with which this form of expression occurs, it is evident that, in tlie mind of the Jew, ritual purification was associated with the act of sprinkling rather than of immersion, — the application of a small quantity of water to a part of the body, rather than the submersion of the whole. This fact is of more importance than it might, at first sight, promise to be. The dispute " between some of John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying," shows that the latter regarded the baptism of John as a rite of this na- ture — a circumstance not easily accounted for, except on the supposition that his act in baptizing, and that of a priest in sprinkling the water of purification, bore a strik- ing resemblance to each other. Immersion was neither required by the Levitical law in any case, nor is there the shadow of evidence that it was ever practised among them. The bathing of the flesh in water, sometimes enjoined, as in the cleansing of the leper, was never performed in that manner ; and even had it been, it would prove nothing in favour of immersion, since the word which expresses the act is not baptizo, but louo, to wash. Indeed, dipping would have been much more likely to have suggested the idea of some heathen lustration, rather than anything Jewish ; es- specially when administered to persons of both sexes, in the presence of a promiscuous multitude. 25 Id is plain, therefore, that inward purification, our need of which is the cardinal truth taught us in baptism, can be symbolized quite as strikingly by sprinkling as by im- mersion. "He that is washed, needeth not save to Avash his feet, but is clean every whit ;" i. c. the validity of the aot does not depend upon the application of water to every part of the person. "But," say our Baptist brethren, " that Js apart of our case; for the Greek word for sprinkle is rhanUzo, and not b&pl&o." I know it, and Paul knew it, too ; and yet he uses the terms synonymously. It will be seen, by refer- ring to Ileb. ix. 10, compared with the 13th verse of the same chapter, that the "clivers washings" (baptismois) spoken of in v. 9, are said to have been performed by the "sprinkling [rhantizousi) of the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer," upon the unclean, (v. 13) ; and yet, I presume, no one will dispute Paul's claim to good scholarship, or regard it as at all inferior to that of Carson, Cox, or Gale. If it be objected, that these "divers baptisms" do not include the sprinklings of blood and ashes, but only the Jewish rites of ablation, we reply, first, that we require some proof that the language has this restricted significa- tion, since, if this objection were true, the enumeration of the observances of the ancient church, in v. 10, would con- tain not the slightest allusion to the bloody sacrifices which were, confessedly, the most important of them all. This we cannot believe. But, secondly, suppose the terms not intended to include these sprinklings of blood — what then? Why, to make the objection worth anything, our Baptist brethren must show that the " divers washings " were all immersions, while they can produce no evidence that any of them were. "Divers," (diaphorois — different), they could not have been, had they all been performed in the same manner. At least, then, if we cannot prove that some of these bap- tisms are called sprinklings, our opponents are still more at a loss to show that they were all immersions, as their theory requires them to do. We argue, therefore, that since God appointed sprinkling as the emblem and token of purification, employing the word even with reference to the blood of Christ, and the work of the Spirit ; since the various washings under the Jewish economy, all, like the ordinance of Christian bap- tism, setting forth our need of inward cleansing, have been actually called " baptisms " by the inspired Apostle; and, 26 finally, since the baptism of the Holy Ghost was bestowed by an effusion of his Divine influences upon the disciples — the ordinance of Christian baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling or pouring. Not only is it acceptable in the sight of God thus administered, but we have just as much ground for disputing the validity of immersh n, as our Baptist brethren have to dispute the validity of sprinkling. But to return to our text ; we have seen that the action of the Spirit's baptism must determine that of the baptism with water. No just criticism can ever make the mode different in the one case from what it is in the other. To translate bapiizo when applied to water, by immerse or dip, and when applied to the influences of the Holy Ghost, by any term signifying to pour upon, or affuse, would be a vio- lation of the commonest rules of interpretation too palpable to be allowed for a moment. Besides, our Baptist brethren do not, nay, dare not, admit that it has any other meaning than immerse. To concede that point would endanger their entire theory. Hence, to be consistent as well as safe, they have adopted a rendering of our test, and a number of other passages in which similar phraseology is employed, which is, to say the least, extraordinary. " I indeed im- merse you in water, but * " x " * * He shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." But truly, if the pressure of a very unpleasant conclusion has driven them to this, they have hardly bettered their case. They have furnished another illustration of the old saying, " Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Chary bdis ;" or, to quote an equally in- structive sentence from Scripture, " It is as if a man did flee «from a lion, and a bear met him." Neither horn of the dilemma can allow them much ease ; for if they will ac- knowledge any one to he immersed upon whom only "a cloven tongue, like as of fire," has fallen, they will surely acknowledge the use of water, in similar mode and quanti- ty, to be a valid immersion ; and if so, in what do we differ but in the name? Pouring is pouring, and not immersion, in whatever quantity the element may be used ; and, there- fore, how our brethren can discover an "immersion in the Holy Ghost" in this lambent flame, so partially covering even the head of the baptized, we cannot divine ! They are surely much more easily satisfied with the emblem of the Spirit's influence, than they are with water ; for in the use of the latter, nothing less than entire submersion will satisfy them. But, it may be said, the disciples " were filled with the Holy Ghost," and will not that justify the use of the term immerse? I answer, No! for several reasors: 27 First. That was plainly the effect, and not the mode, of the baptism, the inward spiritual grace of which the fire was the emblem. As well, therefore, might we speak of one being immersed in faith or repentance. Secondly. The cloven tongue " sat upon each of them," and could not be said, with any propriety, to have filled them. But even had it entered and pervaded then], it would still have been an infusion, rather than an imm&rstQi . And, thirdly. Whatever may have been the nature of the baptism, the influence and the emblem both descended upon them all, attended with " a sound from heaven," i. e. from above them ; and this, we repeat, is the characteristic of affusion. In no conceivable sense can the disciples be said to have been dipped or plunged into the fiery emblem, or into the Holy Ghost. It surely must require very special pleading, therefore, to satisfy even Baptists them- selves with the rendering of their new Version. Our own decided conviction is, that what they need, in order to help them over the difficulty, is a new Version of the Greek text, not of the English : nothing less will meet the case. As- suredly, if the plain reader of our present authorized version is unconvinced by it of the Divine right of im- mersion, he will be farther than ever from it, when he learns that it looks for support to such wretched perver- sions of Scripture thought and language as that just re- ferred to. Perhaps some one may be waiting with another objection. It may be urged, that the prepositions with which baptizo is generally construed are "en" and " eis," the primary meaning of which is in and into, respectively, and hence that they should have been so rendered. The same objec- tor will probably add, that in strict accordance with this view, the preposition " ek," out of, is used in Acts viii. 39, to describe the act of leaving the water, after baptism. The objections are plausible enough, and have doubtless perplexed the minds of many who have heard them. It will be necessary, therefore, to examine them, and ascer- tain their value. First, as to "En." Its primary meaning we admit to be in, but that is saying very little more than that it has an- other, or several other meanings'; for a primary involves a secondary. To demand, therefore, that we invariably trans- late it in, whenever it is construed with baptizo, is to ignore all its other significations, in the eager attempt to defeat an opponent. Two or three facts may help us to under- stand this question. Schleusner, a very able lexicographer, 28 assigns to this preposition no less than thirty-six different meanings in the Greek New Testament ; and it is actually translated, in our English version, by thirty-two different words. In three hundred and thirteen instances of its oc- currence it is rendered by at, on, or with, — e. g., "coming in and going out at (en) Jerusalem ;" " who is set on (en) the right hand of God;" "entereth into the holy place with (en) blood." To be consistent, our Baptist brethren should render it in, in each of these instances, and hundreds of others, because that is its primary meaning. But if they will not stake their scholarship upon such a transla- tion, they will surely allow us to understand that John baptized with (en) water, at (en) the Jordan. In our text, however, as well as in' several others, the verb is construed without a preposition, the noun being put simply in the dative case. The English translators had, therefore, to supply one, and they have very properly inserted \with. Anthon, in his "Greek Syntax." gays con- cerning this construction, " The means by which, and the instrument with which a thing is accomplished, are both put in the dative — as, ' the enemy threw with stones, and struck with swords ;' ' we see with the two eyes,' &c." Hence, we are not only unassailable in the use of toith in- stead of in, but the usage of language requires it. We come now to " Eis" and " Ek," which in Acts viii. 38, 39, (the only instance in which they occur in conjunc- tion,) are translated "into" and " out of." Upon these two prepositions our Baptist brethren build their argument for immersion, so far as the case of the eunuch is con- cerned. We are often pointed to the expressions referred to, as evidence amounting almost to demonstration, that he, at any rate, was immersed. " They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch : and he baptized him," &c. Now, to say the least, the narrative itself, apart from the rendering given to these prepositions, is no more in favour of immersion, than it is of affusion. Let any one read it, " They went down both to the water * * * and came up from the water," and he will see nothing left in it that does not agree with the latter mode quite as much as with the former. The eunuch, who had just been reading of Messiah — " so shall he sprinkle many nations," Isa. lii. 15 — being de- sirous of testifying his faith in Jesus, as the one to whom the prophet referred, and suddenly seeing water before him, asks, " What doth hinder me to be baptized?" After 29 reading of sprinkling, and knowing that to be a common Jewish act, would he imagine that baptism was to be ad- ministered by immersion? Did he, before all his attend- ants, in the face of day, change his clothing for baptism, and again attire himself for his journey? Or did he sacrifice comfort and appearance to his sense of delicacy, and ride on in his wet clothing? Furthermore, the locality through which the eunuch was journeying was "desert," (v. 26,) a very unlikely spot in which to find a stream of water deep enough for an im- mersion. Jerome, writing about three hundred years after, calls it " a small brook,/ such as we often cross in a country road, — a clear proof that he did not believe that the eunuch was dipped ; and modern travellers assure us that no traces of it remain at the present day. The entire weight of the argument, therefore, rests upon the force of the prepositions employed; and, truly, the burden is greater than they can bear. For, in the first place, there is no sufficient reason for translating them as has been done in the narrative referred to, as will be at once apparent from the following carefully ascertained facts : — " eis" is rendered "to," or "unto," in our English version, almost as frequently as "into," or 538 times against 575. In the Acts of the Apostles, indeed, the book in which the disputed terms occur, and therefore the best to determine their meaning, it is rendered " to," or " unto," more frequently than " into " the number of instances being 119 against 89. " Ek" is rendered more frequently "from," than " out of," in whichever way you make the comparison, the num- ber of instances being, in the Acts, 25 against 19, or in the New Testament, 186 against 153. And, Secondly. Even were their present rendering unexcep- tionable, the countenance they lend to immersion is much more in appearance than in fact; for, if "eis" and " ek" prove the immersion of the eunuch, they equally prove the immersion of Philip, since " they went down both into the water." Little intractable words ! They express either too little or too much, let the Baptist translate them as he will. Our rendering he cannot receive without abandoning his argument; while his own leads him into difficulties out of which he finds it impossible to extricate himself. One would think no one* could fail to see that going down to, or into, the water, was only getting into position for bap- tism ; and that coming up from, or out of, the water, was only leaving the stream after baptism. Any other view 30 makes the writer guilty of ridiculous repetition, since he immediately adds, "and he baptized him/' The emphasis, therefore, which our Baptist brethren uniformly lay upon these simple words. in reading the narrative, is altogether uncalled for. They may, in such a way, strengthen their prejudices, but they weaken their argument. The proof is yet wanting, that Philip and the eunuch wet even their sandals in the act of baptism ; though even if it could be demonstrated that they stood in the water ancle-deep, or knee-deep, the evidence of an immersion would be as scanty as ever, since the baptism might still have been ad- ministered by pouring or sprinkling, — a mode entirely agreeing with many very ancient representations of the baptism of our Lord. And this reminds us that, in both accounts of His bap- tism, in Matt. iii. 16, and Mark i. 10, the preposition " apo," the primary signification of which is undoubted^, from, is used instead of " eh." It occurs in the New Test- ament altogether 651 times, in 374 of which it is rendered by our translators, "from •" while in only forty-four in- stances is it rendered "out of" Luke (iii. 21) simply records the fact, without giving us any particulars ; but in ch. iv. 1, he informs us that, " Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from (apo) Jordan." Thus, in three instances, "apo" is used to describe the act of leaving the water after baptism, while " eh" is employed in only one; or, putting the two words together, they are translated in our New Testament, " out of," in only 197 instances ; while they are translated "from," no less than 560 times ! Hence the evidence in favour of the latter rendering is nearly as three to one, as compared with the former. Or, to take another view of the question, our Baptist brethren would have us render both " apo" and "eh" " out of" while the former, occurring 651 times in the New Testament, has been translated "from," in 374 instances, and " out of" in only 44 ; and while the latter, occurring about 900 times, has been translated "from," in 186 instances, and " out of" in only 153.* Surely, nothing could be more unreasonable. We arrive, then, at the following conclusions relative to the prepositions with which baptizo is construed, or which usually attend it : — * The reader may verify all these statements by a reference to Bagster's " Englishman's Greek Concordance." Harper and Brothers' edition. New York. 1855. 1. That while none of them can be legitimately quoted as opposed to the idea ol affusion, some of them manifestly accord best with the view we have taken of the baptism of the Saviour by John, and of the eunuch by Philip. None of them afford any reliable evidence of immersion in either case. And, 2. That we are thrown back again for the decision of this question, upon the meaning of baplizo, as determined by its use in the New Testament and the classics. This is, perhaps, the best place to discuss another ob- jection to our mode of baptism, founded upon two passages of Scripture, to which Baptists always appeal with great confidence, as presenting evidence in favour of immer- sion perfectly overwhelming : we mean Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12. We shall confine ourselves to an examination of the former of the two, since any remarks that affect the meaning of the one, have an equal bearing upon that of the other. The words upon which so much stress is laid are, " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ;" and these are paraphrased by such expressions as "following Christ to a watery grave," "buried beneath the bending wave" &c, — phrases that have become so stereotyped that no one who uses them questions for a mo- ment the scripturalness of the ideas they convey. An opinion, therefore, which has, in many cases, been instilled into the mind from infancy, and is continually reproduced in sermons and prayers, we cannot hope soon to change. What has not been reasoned into us cannot easily be reasoned out of us. Nevertheless, believing the Apostle's language to be totally misapplied by our Baptist brethren, as some of their own writers admit, I shall endeavour, first, to show the ground on which I differ from them, and then, to present what I conceive to be the true import of the passage. 1. My first objection to their view of it is, that it assignu a significancy to the mode of baptism, while the New Testament uniformly represents the significancy as attach- ing to the baptism itself. Where, except in these two dis- puted passages, does it ever teach any other truth than our need of spiritual, internal cleansing ? The Lord's supper, its associate ordinance, sets forth one great truth, — our need of pardon through the application of the blood of Christ, — and that is set forth not in any case in the mode in which it is administered or received, but solely in the use of the elements themselves. So, baptism is everywhere else represented as teaching the one great, and equally iro- portant truth of our need of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit — both pardon and renewal being essential to our admission into the kingdom of heaven. 2. The view I am opposing makes baptism significant and commemorative of truths, the setting forth of which the Saviour has specially assigned to oilier institutions of the Christian religion. Dr. Carson says, " To be born of water most evidently implies that water is the womb out of which the person born proceeds." Farther on he tells us that "the washing of the believer in the blood of Christ is figura- tively represented by the water of baptism." Again, " words cannot more plainly teach anything than that in baptism we are buried with Christ." And, lastly, "It (baptism) is designed to point out our own resurrection, as well as the resurrection of Christ." A strange jumble of ideas, truly ! — pardon of sin, the washing of regeneration, the new birth from the womb of the water, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of the believer with him. If baptism teaches us all this, it is surely not the simple ordinance I take it to be. Has the Lord's Supper but one meaning, and has Baptism Jive or six, and some of them of the most opposite nature ? Besides, the death of Christ is shown forth by a special commemorative ordi- nance, — the Supper, — and is not that sufficient? Shall baptism usurp its office, and teach the same truth, when its original significancy was cleansing ? So, also, the resurrec- tion of Christ has its appropriate remembrancer in the change of the day of rest, from the seventh, to the first day of the week. What need, then, of another ? 3. If there be any allusion in the passage to the mode of baptism, it is said to resemble the manner of Christ's death, rather than that of his burial. " We have been planted together [i. e. baptized] in the likeness of his death," v. 5. Hence, had any mode been prescribed, it would probably have been that of the Episcopal church, which administers it with the sign of the cross, or, in other words, in the likeness of his death, which was accomplished by crucifixion. The terms are singularly unhappy for the hypothesis of immersion. How perfectly meaningless would be, " immersed in the likeness of his crucifision !" 4. There is no such resemblance between the immersion of a believer, and the burial of Christ, as some have sup- posed to exist. Burial among the Romans, to whom this language was originally addressed, was performed by burning the corpse, and depositing its ashes in an urn. Without some explanation, therefore, of the manner of the Saviour's burial, the entire allusion would have been unin- telligible to them. But the Apostle offered no such ex- planation, and if he had", it would have bewildered rather than have enlightened them. The body of our Lord was not lowered into the grave perpendicularly, as is the case in modern burial, but was placed in a sepulchre hewn out of a rock, laterally. An examination of John xx. 11, 12, will show this to have been the case: Mary "stooped down, rind looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." The doorway of such a sepulchre was usually from three to four feet in height : hence the stooping, in order to look into the chamber of the dead. A writer in Kitto's " Cyclopredia of Biblical Literature," (art. Burials,) says, "Many such are still found in Palestine, along the sides of which niches are cut, or sometimes shelves ranged one above another, on which were deposited the bodies of the dead ; while in others the ground floor of the tomb was raised so as to make different compartments, the lowest place in the family vaults being- reserved for the servants." Again, speaking of those hewn out of the rock, as was our Lord's, he says, the entrance to these "was either horizontal, or by a flight of steps." Where now is the similarity between a person walking into a baptistery, and being plunged perpendicularly under the water for a moment, and the body of Jesus, wound up in grave-clothes, being gently borne along to the sepulchre, and there deposited sidewise upon one of these ledges of rock? The one walks into his watery tomb, the other is borne to his on a bier ; the one is plunged under the water that is said to bury him, the other is lifted up to his rest- ing place rather than let down ; the one is enveloped with the water, which comes into contact with every part of his body, the other is placed within the cave, without any contact with it at all : and lastly, the one is popped under the water for the shortest possible moment, the other peace- fully sleeps in the sepulchre till the third day ! Truly, the argument from any supposed likeness between the burial of the Lord, and the immersion of the believer, is rather one of sound than of sense. We are persuaded that it -de- rives all its force from ignorantly or unconsciously associat- ing the forms of modern, instead of Jewish burial, with the language alluded to. 5. Baptism is declared by the Apostle to unite us to Christ in three respects : — (1) We are baptized into Christ, i. e., into his life; (2) We are baptized into his death; and b2 Si (3) Into his burial and resurrection. Now, it is quite as important that our fellowship with him in his life and death should be represented by some symbolic act, as our fellowship with him in his burial and resurrection. Hecce, either the language contains no reference, whatever, to the mode of baptism, or it must prescribe a mode which shall, with equal clearness, set forth our relationship to Christ in all these three respects. But where shall we find such a mode ? The Roman Catholic uses salt, oil, and spittle, to represent his teaching, munificence, and miracles ; the Episcopalian uses the sign of the cross to represent his death ; and the Baptist, immersion, to represent his burial and resurrection. To attempt a combination of the three modes would be manifestly absurd ; and yet some such combination would be necessary to set forth all that is in- volved in the act of self- consecration to Christ. We con- clude, therefore, that there is no allusion in the passage to any mode of baptism. 6. We are said to bo buried with Christ, not like Christ, as our Baptist brethren seem to read the passage. No likeness whatever is said to exist between the manner of - our burial and that of Christ. The prefix to the vei'b suggests companionship with Christ in his burial, rather than any similitude between the acts performed, — our sym- pathy with him in the objects for which he suffered. As he died for sin, and was buried, so we die to sin, and are buried with him ; and as he rose for our justification, so we rise to newness of life. Our burial is, of course, only figurative ; and, therefore, to represent that by another symbolic act, such as immersion, would be to make im- mersion the figure of a figure, the shade of a shadow, the type of another type, which is hardly less than absurd. 7. The Baptist view of this passage does not suit the context, and the scope of the Apostle's argument. He is anticipating the objection to the doctrine of salvation by grace, that men will sin that grace may abound, and show- ing that the reception of the Gospel does in reality tend to holiness and not to sin. The 3rd and 4th verses are the proof he offers of this : — " 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 baptism into death," &c. Now, upon the supposition that the burial is only another term for immersion, the Apostle is made to assign the fact of their baptism as proof that believers will walk in newness of life ! A strange argument, truly, for an inspired Apostle to use — " We cannot continue in pin, for we have been buried with Christ in baptism, i. e., irtimerded !'' "We submit, however, that such is the argument of the Gth of Romans, if the Baptist view of the words under discus- sion be the correct one. And when we find language like the following from Dr. Carson, we are almost led to the be- lief that some, at least, regard such an argument as sound and convincing — " That we have died along with Christ, he [the Apostle] proves from our baptism."* To modify his language, as he afterwards does, by telling us that " our death along with Him is implied in being baptized into his death," is, in our opinion, to give up the point for which he is contending ; for the thing implied in baptism — our renewal by the Holy Ghost — is the proof the Apostle produces that salvation by grace is not liable to the sup- posed objection — not baptism itself. The argument would then stand, not, "we cannot continue in sin, for we have been immersed," but, "we cannot continue in sin, for wo have experienced that of which baptism is the emblem, — the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." The allusion to water baptism, if there be any in the passage, is entirely incidental, and derives all its significance from the fact, and not from the mode, of its administration. As burial is the last and most indisput- able proof of natural death, finally and publicly separating the deceased from the world around him, so the baptism rit' these Roman christians formally separated them from the unbelieving world around them. They had died to sin the moment they exercised faith in the dying Saviour, and so they were buried with him, — buried to the world, and thus publicly separated from it — when they professed faith ;u his name. I cannot but regard the entire passage, therefore, as figurative. Every other term employed, down to the 11th verse, is certainly so ; — " dead to sin ;" "planted together;" the " old man crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed;" "freed from sin;" "dead with Christ;" "dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God." How purely gratuitous, therefore, to say tho least, to make the burial a physical act, when the death, planting, and resurrection are spiritual ! * Edinburgh edition; 3831; page 170. The italics are mice. LECTURE III. THE MODE OE BAPTISM.— (Continued.) Acts s. 47 : — " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" In my last lecture I endeavoured to show the primitive mode of Christian baptism from analogy, laying the found- ation of my argument in the fact that the inspired writers uniformly represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost, of which water baptism is the emblem, as, not an immersion, but an affusion — a descent, or pouring out, upon the disciples, of his sacred influences. I argued that the mode of the former must have determined the mode of the latter, es- pecially since the word which is used of them both, is the same ; and that we have, therefore, very strong pre- sumptive evidence that the primitive mode was pouring. I endeavoured, further, to show that the usage of the Greek prepositions, with which baptizo is construed, is, to say the least, not unfavourable to this view in any instance, while in respect of some of them, it is decidedly favourable to it. Thus far, I think I may say, we have found the evidence in support of immersion very meagre indeed ; and had any impartial enquirer been following us in our in- vestigation, as I must hope many have been, he would now return to the subject with impressions altogether in favour of our mode of baptism. "We come now, as our next step, to examine the meaning of the word baptizo, the term which is invariably employed in the Greek New Testament, to designate the ordinance of Christian baptism. Our Baptist brethren affirm, in the most emphatic manner possible, that it always signifies to immerse or dip, i. e., to plunge a person or thing totally under the water, or other element with which the act is performed. Dr. Carson, to whom I have had occasion already to refer as a very high authority among our op- ponents, publishes in capitals, "My position is, that it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode." Dr. McClay, late President of the American Bible Union, says, "It might as well be translated, ' to eat roast beef/ as 'to sprinkle.'" Drs. Cox and Gale are equally positive, though a little less vulgar. In fact, this is the Baptist's sheet anchor, to lose which is to lose the ship. On the other hand, Ptedo-baptists, with quite an equal array of scholarship, and I do not know but a good deal more modesty, affirm that it does not always signify to im- merse or dip ; and. that it does not I am now prepared to prove. Before proceeding to do so, however, we must define the term immerse, since even its meaning may not be dis- tinctly understood. Immersion, then, is performed by the plunging of the person into, or under the water, — the ap- plication of the subject to the element ; while affusion is performed by the application of the element to the subject — pouring the water upon the person. This, mark you, is not my interpretation of the word, but that of Baptists themselves. Dr. Carson, speaking of the dew-baptized Nebuchadnezzar, says, " If all the water of the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immersion;" or, in other words, a man at the bottom of the ocean can- not be considered as immersed, unless he has been plunged to the bottom of it. A village may be buried beneath an avalanche of snow, or completely inundated by the over- flow of some mighty river, but neither the avalanche nor the river could immerse it, since immersion can be performed in only one way, viz., by plunging the person or thing into the water. The mode of contact, and not the quantity of water, determines the nature of the act. Hence, if I suc- ceed in adducing one clear example from the Classics, Septuagint, or New Testament, in which the disputed word means something else, or something less, than a total im- mersion — as. for example, rushing upon, overwhelming, drenching, &c. — I establish my position, and our Baptist brethren ought to acknowledge themselves defeated ; but if I fail to produce any such instance, I will acknowledge that I am defeated. I do not for one moment dispute that it sometimes dem*ands the interpretation which our Baptist brethren uniformly give to it. It is frequently used in the sense of drowning and sinking ; and, therefore, quotations from Greek authors, to prove that to have been one of its meanings, are altogether unnecessary, — a work of super- errogation. Nay, such quotations evade the question. What our Baptist friends have to do, is to prove their own assertion, that it never means anything else than immerse, and that they are much slower to attempt. I shall not encumber my lecture w r ith a long list of learned men about whom you know nothing, who have as- signed more meanings than one to the word in question. Great names cannot decide this controversy ; though, if they could, we are quite prepared to abide this test also. And even had we no great names to publish, as holding our view, we should be prepared to settle the point by the admissions and self-contradictions of Baptist writers them- selves. Let me give you one, as a specimen, from Dr. Carson. Immediately after announcing his position, that haptizo " always signifies to dip," he adds, " Now, as 1 have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be neccessavy to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons."* He then tells us that as " lexicographers have been guided by their own judgment in examining the various passages in which the word occurs, it is still competent for every man to have re- course to the same sources." Most certainly ; but to us it does seem to savour not a little of presumption, and de- termination to see and know nothing but immersion, for even Alexander Carson to set up his judgment against the unanimous decision of " all the lexicographers and com- mentators-" It is surely, to use his own expression, " an instance of the boldest scepticism." Here we have Dr. Carson vs. the World ! We can hardly be long in deciding upon whose judgment to rely. Imagine a parallel case : — All the scientific men of the world, from the days of Gali- leo and Isaac Newton down to the present, have been agreed that the Copernican theory of our planetary system is the correct one, — that the earth revolves on its own axis, and performs an annual revolution round the sun. A thousand times has this been demonstrated, till any ad- ditional proof seems only an encumbrance. But now, up starts some amateur astronomer, who tells us, "My position is, — notwithstanding that all the astronomers and scientific men of the last two or three centuries are against me in my opinion, — my position is, that the earth stands still, and that the sun revolves round it." What would you think of the modesty of such a man, to say nothing of his claim to rank among men of science ? Yet is not this pre- cisely Dr. Carson's position, — one he seems, indeed, to have courted ? Talk of the admissions of Ptedo-baptists after that ! Where do our Baptist friends find anything at all equal to it ? We beg to submit a query or two on this quotation, be- fore dismissing it : * Page 54. 1. If baptizo " always signifies to dip," how comes it that Dr. Carson is betrayed into speaking of its primary meaning? E.g., he says, (page 56,) " Parkhurst gives six meanings to baptizo ; I undertake to prove that it has hut one : yet he and I do not differ about the primary meaning of the word." Now, primary is to most minds a term suggestive of something secondary — they are cor- relates. Dr. Carson is inconsistent with himself, and surely lie is not the one to instruct " lexicographers and commentators " in the use of words. Besides, dip and immerse are terms not exactly synoni- mous : the former often expresses much less than the latter. Immersion always involves dipping, hut dipping does not always involve immersion. Aware, doubtless, of this distinction, Baptist writers are generally very guarded in the use to which they put them. Nothing but immerse, and its derivatives, will suit them in translating the New Testament, or in speaking of the ordinance of Christian baptism ; to designate an immersion as a dipping, or those who practise it as Dippers, would be at once regarded as an offence, though we certainly cannot imagine why it should be, if baptizo " always signifies to dip." On the other hand, dip is generally employed to convey its mean- ing when it occurs in the classics, because, we presume, they think it less awkward to speak of " dipping hay into honey," as Aristotle does, than of immersing hay in honey. We claim that the maintenance of such a distinc- tion is unfair, if the original word have but one meaning. If it signify to dip, then let our Baptist friends change their name, and their phraseology, to accord with it; but if it mean to immerse, let them fairly meet the difficulties to which an uniform translation of it exposes them. 2. If " all the lexicographers and commentators " are against Dr. Carson, whence come the long lists of names, and quotations from Pasdo-baptist writers which are some- times published as favouring immersion ? We have seen Chalmers' honoured name, and even Greville Ewing's, mentioned ; while every body knows that Chalmers, a commentator, and Ewing, a lexicographer, were both, in principle and practice, opposed to that mode. We fear some little chicanery is sometimes practised in this way. One thing is evident with respect to all such quotations, — the writers referred to either were honest and conscientious in the practice of their mode of baptism, or they were not. If they were, their admissions, which Baptists are so fond of parading about, clearly were not of suffioient importance 40 to lead them to alter their practice : if they were not, their admissions are entitled to no weight with others. Hence, all such quotations we set down as evidence of one fact, and one only, which is, that they are adduced for want of anything better. And 3. If " all the lexicographers and commentators " assign to baptizo other meanings than the one given by Dr. Carson, is not the Baptist body " a house divided against itself" on this point? Gill and Ripley must have differed from Carson, for they were commentators ; and surely they could have had no " turn to serve'" as he suspects soaie have had, in assigning secondary meanings to baptizo, for they were Baptists. But alas ! doctors are proverbial for differing. The ablest and most reliable authorities assign from five to eight meanings to the word in question, every one of which is well sustained by examples of its use in classi- cal and sacred writings. But, unexceptionable and over- whelming as this testimony is, it becomes, if possible, more convincing still from the fact that the word has been rendered into English, in the translations of various classi- cal works, by at least forty-two different words, among which may be found the following : — to stain, daub, dye, imbue, dip, plunge, drown, sink, wash, wet, overflow, over- whelm, oppress, pour, soak, sprinkle, tinge, fill. Now, you will observe, we do not simply affirm that baptizo is capable of so many translations, but that learned men, — the most eminent Greek scholars, to whom the language was as familiar as their mother tongue, — in endeavouring faith- fully to express its meaning in English, have actually em- ployed all these forty-two words, and have done so without any reference whatever to this controversy. That is a hard fact for our Baptist friends. Imagine, then, the utter nonsense that would have been produced by invariably rendering it, immerse, or dip ! The English reader may obtain some idea of it, by procuring a list of the passages in which the original word occurs in the New Testament, and attempting so to translate it. .Look, for instance, at Matt. xx. 22, 23 : " Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be dipped with the dipping that I am dipped with ?" " Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and be dipped with the dipping that I am dipped with," &c. Mark i. 4, 8 : "John did dip in the wilderness, and preach the dipping of repentance." " He shall dip you in the Holy Ghost." Mark vii. 4 : " And when they come from the market, except they dip themselves, they 41 eat not. And many other things there be which they have Deceived to hold, as the dipping of * * * tables ;" (or, couches.) 1 Cor. x. 2: "All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all dipped unto (or into) Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." The substitution of the word immerse for dip, will be found equally awkward. But I am pledged to establish my position with regard to baptizo, and I shall support it, 1. By quotations from, the Classics. The following have been selected with the view of exhibiting several of its more prominent significations. 3. " The Phenicians * * * * came to certain desert places, abounding with rushes and sea-weed, which at ebb- tide are not overfioivcd, (baptizesthai), but which at full tide are deluged." — Aristotle. In this instance the word is manifestly used to express the rushing of the tide upon the sea-weed. The rising tide baptized them, but could not immerse them, for in immersing, as I before remarked, the person or thing is plunged into the water, and not simply wetted or covered with it. 2. " Of the land animals, a great part, overtaken by the river, are destroyed, beiog overwhelmed (baptizomena) ." — Diodorus Siculus. 3. "The river rushing down with a stronger current, overwhelmed (ebaptize) many with water." — Ibid. To both of these passages from Diodorus Siculus, the comment upon the preceding one applies. Here, again, there was bap- tism, even to drowning, but no immersion, since the river rushed upon them. 4. " I myself also am one of those who were yesterday drenched {bebaptismenon) with wine." — Plato. 5. " Having made Alexander drunk [baptisasa) with much wine." — Ibid. 6. " Drenched {bebaptismenon) to insensibility and sleep by intemperance." — Josephus. Examples of the employment of the word in this latter sense abound. Will our Baptist friends tell us that these parties were immersed in wine, or dirjped into intemperance ? I have read. of some one in English history who, having to die, and being permitted to choose the manner of his death, requested that he might be drowned in a butt of wine, and was so executed, That was being immersed in wine, but assuredly no quantity of it poured down a man's throat can immerse him. 7. " For as plants are nourished by moderate, but choked 42 by excessive watering, in like manner the mind is enlarged by labours suited to its strength, but is overwhelmed (bapiiz-- etai,) by such as exceed its power." — Plutarch. In this instance it is undoubtedly used with the meaning of pouring upon, — the mode in which water, is applied to plants. 8. "He who bears with difficulty the burden he already has, would be entirely overwhelmed (bapiistheie) by a small addition." — Libanius. 9. " I am one of those who have been overwhelmed {bebaptismenon) by that great wave of calamity." — Ibid. 10. " Oppressed (bebaptismenoi) by a debt of 5000 myriads." — Plutarch. Nothing can be plainer, one would think, than that, in all these cases, the baptism was per- formed from above — by rushing, pouring, pressing upon the person or thing baptized, and not by plunging it into any- thing. Hence, baptizo does not " always signify to dip," nor does it always express a particular mode. 11. By quotations from the New Testament and Septua- gint. 1. We have already examined somewhat minutely seve- ral passages in which the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was promised, and have shown that the promise was fulfilled by the effusion and descent of his gracious influences on the day of Pentecost, and subsequent occasions. The word oc- curs so frequently in this connection, and with the un- questionable signification of pouring upon, that I shall content myself with simply naming a few of them, and dismissing them. Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 1G ; John i. 33 ; Acts i. verse 5 compared with verse 8 ; and Acts xi. 15, 16. 2. Turn now to Mark vii. 4, already alluded to : " The baptism (baptismous) , or purifying of * * * tables," or couches, on which, according to Eastern manners, they were accustomed to recline at meals. The question then arises, were these couches, — from fifteen to twenty feet in length, and of proportionate width, — taken to some river and dipped, as often as they suffered ceremonial defile- ment, or was there some convenience in every house for dipping them ? Either one or the other must have been the fact, if the word baptizo necessarily and invariably signifies to dip. Or, were the couches cleansed, as would be most natural, and most in accordance with the Jewish ritual, by applying water to them ? Barnes, the careful student and annotator, says upon this passage, " It cannot be supposed that couches were entirely immersed in water ; 43 the word baptism, here, must therefore denote some other application of water, by sprinkling, or otherwise. If the word here is used, as is clear, to denote anything except immersion, it may be elsewhere ; and baptism is lawfully- performed without immersing the whole body in water.'' The supposition that the couches were taken to pieces to dip them, is a purely gratuitous assumption to meet the difficulties of a hard-pressed theory. 3. The next to which I shall call your attention is to be found in 1 Cor. x. 2: "Our fathers * f * " :: " were all baptized (ebaptizanto) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Times without number has this passage been tortured and twisted to make it utter, if with never so faint and faltering a voice, " immersed unto Moses, &c." But as firmly as any sturdy old Reformer, it absolutely refuses to recant. (a) They were baptized " in the cloud." Now, if the definition I have given of immersion be correct, it could not have been performed, in this instance, without lifting up the whole camp of Israel into the cloud. Dr. Gill, indeed, an eminent Baptist commentator, supposes that the cloud "let down a plentiful rain upon them, whereby they were in such a condition as if they had been all over dipped iu water ;" — that was the best he conld make of it. But even so, how does that better his case ? If " all the water of the ocean," falling upon a man, cannot immerse him, as Carson contends, how much less a soaking rain ! But if the clouds are permitted to perform their baptism by pouring, why may not we ? And if Paul regarded that mode as valid among Jews, would he have doubted its "validity, think you, among Christians ? (6) They were baptized " in the sea." The same learned doctor supposes here, again, that as the waters stood up above their heads, "they seemed to be immersed in it;" — that was the best he could do with that sentence. But will our Baptist brethren be satisfied with dipping a man into an empty baptistery, because he seems to be immersed in it? I trow not; and hence cannot help asking, with Barnes, "whether, if immersion was the only mode of baptism known in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul would have used the word, not only so as not necessarily to imply that, but as necessarily to mean something else V 4. In Heb. ix. 10, the phrase, "divers washings" (bap- tismois) — literally, different baptisms, — occurs ; but as we have already examined it in a previous lecture, we shall dismiss it with a single remark or two. First — The 44 sprinklings of Wood and ashes, referred to in v. 13, afford a very simple and natural explanation of the Apostle's meaning in v. 10. Secondly — there is no evidence what- ever, of immersion having been one of the " divers wash- ings " of the Mosaic ritual. Yet, thirdly — our Baptist friends must prove that all these different baptisms were performed in the same manner, — by immersion, — other- wise, the phrase opposes insuperable objections to their view of the meaning of baptizo. 5. My last example of the use of this word I shall adduce from the Septuagint. It is found in Judith xii. 7, — an un- inspired book, but, as a source of reference on this subject, next in value to the New Testament, having been written but a century .or two before it. Judith, from whom the book takes its name, is there said \o have washed herself, (ebaptizeio) at a fountain of water, in the midst of a camp of 20,000 soldiers. I need not ask if this was performed by immersion ; delicacy forbids the thought. Nor is there the slightest evidence of it in the passage itself, for she washed at the well, or fountain, (epi te pege), — the very same terms being employed as are used in John iv. 6 : "Jesus being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well." There is, therefore, just as much reason to suppose that Jesus sat in the well at Sychar, as that Judith immersed herself in the fountain at Bethulia. These are by no means the only examples that I might have adduced from the New Testament, or Septuagint, but I have furnished eleven, in addition to the ten from the Classics, in none of which can baptize- be shown to have implied immersion ; and that should suffice. We pass on now to the evidence furnished, III. By quotations illustrating the use of bapio, which has generally been regarded by Baptist writers as exactly synonimous with baptizo. Dr. Carson says of it, " As to totality of immersion, the one is perfectly equivalent to the other,"* and Gale, Booth, and McLean agree with him. Hence, if any example can be produced, in which it can be shown to signify anything less than a total im- mersion, it will equally establish my position with refer- ence to baptizo. 1. We have already referred to one in Aristotle, iu which he speaks of " dipping hay into honey," or baptizing ( baptontes ) hay with honey, for diseased * Page 8. 45 elephants. The passage may be rendered in either way, and we are not particular which is adopted ; for, whether the hay was dipped into the honey, or the honey put upon the hay, in neither case could it have amounted to a complete immersion. 2. In a mook-heroic poem, at one time attributed to Homer, but now supposed to have been the production of a later writer, a frog is represented as being killed by a mouse, (Dr. Carson reverses it, by mistake, but it is of no consequence), and baptizing {cbapteto) the lake with its blood. Now, if bapto is " perfectly equivalent " to baplizo, and baptizo "always signifies to dip," it must follow that the lake was clipped, or immersed in the blood of this frog I Dr. Carson, indeed, tries to get out of the difficulty by rendering the word, in this instance, to dye ; but then what becomes of his own assertion respecting its meaning ? Dr. Gale, with more courage, stands up to his mark like a man, and tells us, "the lake was dipped in blood" — the blood of a frog ! What, we may exclaim, what will not attachment to theory do ! "We have all heard of the mighty feats of logic, but surely this was never exceeded ! 3. Aristophanes says of a certain colouring matter, " When squeezed it stains (baptei) the hand." 4. The same writer, describing some theatrical perfor- mers, says, " Their faces were daubed (baptomenos) with tawny colours," — lees of wine, and other odd substances. 5. Again, from the same — " Speak plainly to me, lest I paint (bapso) thee with purple colours." Scarcely a word of comment can be needed upon the last three examples ; in neither case can immersion have been intended. We smear, or paint a thing, by putting the colour on lo the article, and not by putting the article into the colour. Such is the mode indicated by bapto in these quotations, and Dr. Gale is constrained to admit it, at least in relation to the first of them. 6. iElion uses the word in the sense of anointing or im- pregnating : " Having anointed (bapsas) a crown with oint- ment ;" or, " having dipped a crown into ointment ;" — either rendering is altogether opposed to the idea of a total immersion. 7. My last example from the Classics is from Suidas de Hierocle, who records of some one who had been scourged before the tribunal, that, " having wetted {bapsas) the hollow of his hand [with his blood] he sprinkled it on the judgment seat." The blood flowed down upon his hand from the wounds that had been inflicted, and baptized it — 48 the word being used to express the simple act of wetting, ■without anji reference whatever to mode. I might have adduced a number of instances in which the word is applied to the process of dyeing the hair, the act of personal ablution, &c. ; but I must content myself with adding three other examples of its use — two from the Septuagint, and one from the New Testament. 8, 9. Daniel iv. 33 ; v. 21 : Nebuchadnezzar " was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet (ebaphe) with the dew of heaven." The terms are exactly the same in both passages. The preposition with which bapio is here construed is " apo," which, in Matt. . iii. 16, and Mark i. 10, our Baptist brethren contend should be rendered "out of," to suit the theory of immer- sion. Here, however, the theory requires a rendering the directly opposite of that, and they now demand that wo should translate it "into," or "in," the dew. It is amazing what an amount of time and ingenuity has been wasted in the vain endeavour to make these passages speak what they do not mean. I may safely appeal to every candid judgment, whether their natural, obvious meaning be not, that the heavy dews of that country, like those " that descended upon the mountains of Zion," Jell on the king, all night long, and wetted, or soaked him ? Here, again, the word bapto, as in my seventh example, is used to express the simple idea of wetting, without any re- ference to the mode in which it is performed. Dr. Gale admits this, insisting only that he was "as wet as though he had been dipped." But immersion is not simply a thorough wetting, but wetting in a particular mode. My objection to it lies in that, not in the quantity of water used, or to the entire, instead of the partial wetting of the person of the baptized ; for, while I regard a very little water as sufficient, I am willing to use a basin-full, or more, if it be desired. Dr. Carson's theory of explanation is really very obscure. He has either " darkened counsel by words without know- ledge," or his remarks are by far too profound for ordinary minds. He first admits that " the term wet gives the gene- ral sense of the passage well enough," yet objects to its being so rendered. He then translates it, " his body was immersed in the dew," but yet acknowledges that there was no literal immersion. Then calls Dr. Gale's exposition of it absurd, and further on says, "If we would fairly meet this passage," — an expression that seems to imply that it meets them, — " we must shew, not merely that 47 Nebuchadnezzar was completely wetted, but that a wetting in one mode may be figuratively designated by the words that properly denote a wetting in another mode." And then, after rejecting Dr. Cos's explanation of the difficulty, who thinks that baplo, in these instances, is used to denote, not the mode by which the body of the king was wetted, but its condition of " wetness"-*- a concession as broad as anything that we can wish, — he begs the whole question by saying, " Whatever may be the principle on -which tkia ■wetting of Nebuchadnezzar is called immersion, immersion it is called." But is this "fairly meeting the passage?" Is this the enlightened criticism Dr. Carson says so much about ? Has he untied the Gordian knot, or has he cui it 'I It seems to us that his explanation only •weakens his case ; for if " a wetting in one mode [i. e., by the falling dew) may be figuratively designated by words that properly denote a wetting in another mode," (t. e., by immersion), may not bajriizo, even if it mean immerse only, have this figurative sense, when applied to Christian baptism ? If Nebuchadnezzar was baptized, or immersed figuratively, by falling dew, why may we not be baptized, or immersed figuratively, by falling water ? One thing Dr. Carson has established beyond all dispute, and that is, that the passage in question has very greatly perplexed Baptist writers, who, so far at least, appear to be as far from agreeing among themselves concerning it, as they are from satisfying their Pasdo-baptist brethren. 10. Rev. xix. 13: " lie was clothed with a vesture dipped (bebammenoa) in blood." Now, observe, the Saviour is represented as a warrior riding, on horseback, through the battle-field, with his outer garment baptized with, or, ac- cording to Baptist phrase, immersed in, the blood of the slain. It is true, Dr. Carson tries to explain away the dif- ficulty by asserting that the "vesture dipped in blood" was only " a vesture of a red or purple colour ;" but the obvious meaning of the passage, — that which would strike ninety-nine out of every hundred readers, — is, substanti- ally, that conveyed by our English translation. An exact parallel to this language will be found in Isa. Ixiii. 2, 3 : " Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, &c. ? I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with me : for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." That is, as the juice of the grapes when trodden in a wine- press, spirted upon the garments of him that trod them, so 48 the blood of his enemies should bespatter his garments. We are quite aware of the different reading in the Septua- gint ; but the authority of the Hebrew is so much superior to it, that we cannot stay to consider it. The explanation which is thus afforded is simple and natural, while no one can entertain the idea of an immersion in blood without shrinking and horror. To imagine such a thing, we must suppose the triumphant Saviour to be unhorsed, and plunged, vesture and all, into the reeking blood of the battle-field ; for in no other way could the immersion be performed. -. 'Here, then, are ten instances in which bapto cannot signify to immerse, which, together with the twenty-one instances referred to under baptizo, make a band of thirty- ■&ne loitnesses against the correctness of Dr. Carson's position, and not his alone, but that of the whole Baptist body. Should any one take exception to these last examples, as not affecting the question in hand, because baptizo is the word employed in the New Testament, to designate the act of Christian baptism, and not bapto, I must be permitted to remind them of Dr. Carson's statement, that, " as to totality of immersion, the one is perfectly equivalent to the other." Assuming the correctness of his opinion, Baptist writers constantly argue from one to the other, and attempt to prove the obligation of their mode of baptism, from the meaning of bapto in certain cases. Indeed, Carson quotes bapto much more frequently than baptizo. Hence, if I have shown that bapto does not always signify immerse, I have also shown the same of baptizo, which is what I undertook to prove. It is worthy of mention that in the Syriac version of the New Testament, made probably in the first, or very early in the second century, the word baptizo is invariably ren- dered amad, the signification of which, before being so employed, was, to stand, expressive probably of the posture in which the ordinance of baptism was received, as well as of the decision of the individual who received it to serve God. Now, if immersion had then been the only mode of baptism recognized as valid, we should, without doubt, have found some word employed in speaking of it with that as its exclusive meaning ; as, for example, teba, which has that invariable signification. It does really seem strange that an act that involves the plunging of an indi- vidual backwards into the water, should have been expressed by a word that uniformly signified to stand upright ! But, enough ! I am satisfied that the evidence presented - 49 is sufficient to convince all who are open to conviction. I will, therefore, sum up this part of my argument with the testimony of three or four eminent authorities, and com- mend it to your candid consideration. Dr. Henderson, one of the editors in the employ of tho British and Foreign Bible Society, and, indisputably, one of the most learned men of the age, says, "I have not fallen in with a single instance in which it (baptizo) can be satisfactorily proved that it signifies the submersion of the whole body, without, at the same time, conveying the idea that the submersion was permanent; that is, that the body sunk towise no more." Dr. Owen, a man of profound learning, says, "No in- stance can be given from Scripture where baptizo necessari- ly means to dip or plunge." Dr. Dwight, after having examined almost one hundred instances of their occurrence in the New Testament, came to the following conclusion, among others (see his 159th sermon) : — " That these words, (bapto and baptizo,) al- though often capable of denoting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion, (since cleansing was familiarly accomplished by the Jews in all these ways,) yet in many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be made to signify immersion, and in others, cannot signify it at all." Albert Barnes, the commentator, says, on Matt. iii. 6, " It cannot be proved from an examination of the passages in the Old and New Testaments, that the idea of a complete immersion ever was connected with the word, or that it ewe?*, in any case, occurred." Perhaps some one, in a moment of anguish, may turn round, and say, "Well, but immerse is its primary mean- ing." Unhappy man ! he has made shipwreck of his case, for the Baptist theory demands that it be allowed to have only one meaning, and hence to speak of a primary mean- ing is to give up the point in dispute. The primary meaning of deipnon (the word used to designate the eucharist) is supper, a full meal; yet Paul applies it to the mouthful of bread, and the sip of wine, taken at the Lord's table. And reasoning from analogy, if immerse be only one of the meanings of baptizo, — its primary meaning, we will sup- pose, — who shall say that it is not employed in some secondary sense when it refers to baptism? Why may it not have a special sense, as well as deipnon, and indicate the application of a Utile water, just as deipnon indicates the use of a little food? The cases are precisely alike, and c 50 hence, any admission, or proof of a secondary meaning to baptizo, in our opinion, undermines the entire fabric of im- mersion. But we must now hurriedly glance at, IV. Some of the more prominent objections to which the hypothesis of immersion is liable. The first is, 1. That while Christianity is adapted to all countries and climates, immersion is not. In many countries it would be totally unsuitable, and even highly dangerous to health and life; while in some it would be next to impossible to administer it. In many parts of Asia, and central Africa, for instance, where water is so scarce as to be difficult to procure it in sufficient quantities for the ordinary purposes of life, Christian baptism could not be performed at all, were immersion the only valid mode. Then as to climate and season : with winters as rigor- ous as the last, what delicate female could be immersed in the Grand River, except in the warmer months of sum- mer and autumn, without leaping into the very jaws of death ? I know of one case in which a lady, a Baptist in principle, wisely declined, on the ground of her delicate state of health, to expose herself to such an ordeal. And if I am correctly informed, a young lady was recently im- mersed in Paris, C. W., in the winter season, and died shortly afterwards from the effects of it ; and her father, after listening to the funeral sermon, preached on the oc- casion, in which the minister had remarked upon the mysteriousness of Divine Providence in cutting off one so young and promising, rose and publicly charged him with the death of his daughter! Is this, then, the only baptism the New Testament acknowledges ? I am aware that our Baptist brethren make very merry over such difficulties, and usually reply to them by joking us on our want of faith, or our dread of the water ; but objections like these are not to be sneered at, but met. It will be time enough for our friends to joke wheu Greenland shall become tem- perate, and the Great Sahara a well watered garden : till then the objections urged are likely to hold good. 2. My second objection is founded on several incidental references to baptism, in the Acts of the Apostles, two of which I must name. (a) Acts x. 47 : — " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, &c. V This was the first instance in which the ordinance was administered to Gentile con- verts, and so great did the innovation appear to the Jewish 51 brethren, that Peter -was called upon to explain his course. Accordingly, he "rehearsed the matter from the begin- ning," (chap. xi. 4-17.) — the vision, its interpretation, his preaching, ad the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them ; arguing, that as God had given them the heavenly baptism, he dare not refuse them its divinely appointed symbol. It is, however, to the terms of the question contained in the 47th verse that I wish to draw your special attention : — "Can any man forbid water ?" &c. What construction would the plain, unbiassed reader put upon these words ? Would he not think that the Apostle meant them to bring him some water that he might baptize them? So, at least, Barnes, Doddridge, Whitby, and Bloomheld, understand it. Barnes says, " The expression here used is one that would naturally refer to water being brought, — that is, to a small quantity, — and would seem to imply that they were bap- tized, not by immersion, but by pouring or sprinkling." Doddridge says, " It seems most natural to understand it, (as Dr. Whitby does,) ' Who can forbid that water should be brought ?' In which view of the clause, one would naturally conclude that they were baptized by pouring water upon them, rather than by plunging them in it." Dr. Bloomfield says, " It would seem to point to water being brought by the hand, and consequently imply that they were baptized, not by immersion, but by affusion." Dr. Carson seems to think the less said about it the better, as he barely names the objection, and replies, in four lines, by telling us, that the water being brought, (which he seems to admit,) affects not the question, and asks, " Must the observance of the ordinances of Christ, never put us to trouble?" Trouble, indeed! for there seems to have been a houseful to baptize, and it would have required no small quantity of water to do it. A strange sequel, truly, — the hurrying to and fro of the servants with their leathern water-bottles, — to the solemn scene they had just witnessed in the baptism of the Holy Ghost! But follow out such a supposition to its legitimate con- clusions, and to what will it lead us ? Where were these believers immersed ? Clearly, in the room in which they were assembled, if anywhere. Then, of course, the room must have afforded conveniences for so doing. Peter asks for water only, not for a bath; with that, and all the other indispensables of immersion, we must conclude it was al- ready provided. And where could such conveniences be found, except in the bath-room — if there was one ? Hence, on the supposition of immersion in this case, we are forced 52 to the conclusion that Cornelius had invited all " his kins- men and near friends" to meet the Apostle in the bath- room of his house, and there to hold their solemn religious services ! (b) Similar difficulty exists in relation to the baptism of the Jailor and his family, recorded in Acts xvi. 33. The narrative is simple and natural when understood to refer to our mode of baptism, but requires a great deal of humor- ing before it will consent to lend any countenance to im- mersion. He " was baptized, he and all his, straightway ;" i. e., immediately, in the prison, — as soon as he had "washed the stripes " of the Apostles, and probably with a portion of the water that had been brought for that purpose. He had V brought them out" of the " inner prison," into which he had thrust them, (v. 24) but had not yet "brought them into his house" — his own apartments — (v. 34). The difficulty lies in finding conveniences for an immer- sion in a Roman prison, so speedily, and at such an hour of the night. Baptist writers could not fail to observe this, and have laboured most ingeniously and assiduously to overcome it. One supposes the prison to have been pro- vided with a bath; another, regarding that, perhaps, as more than doubtful, reminds us of the river at Philippi, at the side of which the disciples had probably met, the day before, for religious worship, and thinks it more likely that it was performed there ; a third, remembering that it would be as much as the jailor's life was worth for him, and his family, to leave the prisoners at such an hour, and in such a way, inclines to the belief that it was accomplished in one of the tanks, or cisterns, with which, he assures us, Philippi abounded ; and a fourth brings up the rear with the oracular statement that " there might have been a thou- sand ways of obtaining water of which we are ignorant," and then closes with the following beautiful syllogism, which, on account of its force and conciseness, I must pre- sent verbatim .; — "The jailor and his household were bap- tized, therefore, they were immersed!* It must be a very poor case, indeed, that can require such logic as that. Hitherto, at least, all the conjectures that have been hazarded on this case have left the difficulty as great as ever ; and, in our opinion, nothing that can be written upon it can ever materially lessen it ; for " that which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered." * Carson ; page 203. 53 3. My third objection regards the baptism of John; and here entirely new difficulties surround the theory of im- mersion. Now observe, first, (a) The immense multitudes that were baptized by John. It is said in Matt, iii, 5 : " There went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan," &c. What number of persons, then, would that expression fairly re? present? Why, without a doubt, more than all Canada contains, from Sarnia to Gaspe. Eleven hundred thousands perished in Jerusalem alone, at its destruction, a few years later than this, after all the Christians had fled from it, as instructed by the Saviour; and tbey probably numbered several hundred thousands. Josephus tells us that three millions of persons were present at the Feast of the Pass- over, about thirty-five years after the death of Christ ; how many were not present we have no means of knowing. Three millions, however, may be taken as a moderate esti- mate of the population of the places and region named. Of these we will suppose that one sixth went out to hear John, and were baptized, — a very moderate estimate, again, when it is said that " all the people" were baptized of him, — and we have thus half a million as the basis of our calculation. Perhaps it may aid you in conceiving of so vast a number, to say that, marching six a-breast, they would form a procession over forty-seven miles in length. Such was John's company. Observe, secondly, (6) The time occupied in baptizing them. As nearly as can be computed, it was accomplished in six months, and the mode of computation is as follows : — John was just six months older than Jesus, (Luke i. 26, 36) ; hence when he baptized Jesus, [after "all the people were baptized," Luke iii. 21), he must have been thirty years and six months of age, since Jesus was " about thirty years of age" (iii. 23) at his baptism. Now, by a reference to Numbers iv. 3, 47, you will find that Jewish priests did not enter upon the duties of their sacred office till they had arrived at thirty years of age. Jesus himself conformed to that rule, as he did not enter upon his ministry till after his baptism ; and there can be no doubt that John, the son of a Jewish priest, did not begin his work until he was of the age required. He thus had only six months in which to baptize half a million of people. Observe, thirdly, (c) He exercised no miraculous power in baptizing them, and received, probably, no human assistance. " Juhn did no miracle," (John x. 41) ; and hence he had to rely on 54 merely human strength, and powers of endurance. It is recorded of Jesus, that " he himself baptized not, but his disciples," (John iv. 2), but no such statement is made re- specting John : the presumption, therefore, is, that he alone baptized. Now let us set him to his task. He has half a million to immerse ; he has six months, minus the time occupied in preaching, to do it in ; and has nothing beyond human strength to depend upon. He immerses 200 the first day, — a larger number than I have ever heard of being immersed in one day, by one administrator, — but at that rate, with no allowance for Sabbath rest, it will take him nearly seven years ! He increases the number to 500 ; but even at the rate of 500 per diem, he will require nearly three years. Nothing less than 2770 a day, will suffice, if he would accomplish his task within the specified time ! Now, I ask, is it credible that John immersed his converts at that rate, and for that length of time together? Remem- ber, that great physical strength, as well as time, is re- quired to immerse any considerable number, in immediate succession. The person of each will weigh, on an average, 120 ft>s., on emerging from the water, almost the entire weight of which has to be lifted by the administrator. The labour of immersing one hundred persons would, therefore, be equal, in the aggregate, to raising a weight of six tons ; but if John immersed 2770 per diem, he must have performed the Herculean task of lifting 165 tons daily, or what would be equal to the unlading of a small ship, and that for six months in succession ! Moreover, it would not have been possible for him to have endured the action of the water upon his lower ex- tremities during that period of time. His flesh would literally have rotted from off his bones, long before his task could have been fulfilled. Mackintosh dresses are the in- vention of a later age. Now, I am not to be frightened by Dr. Carson's oft- repeated cry of "heresy," "blasphemy," &c, into his con- clusion — " They were baptized, therefore, they were im- mersed." My conclusion, in view of the foregoing considerations, is the directly opposite of his, — " They were baptized, therefore, they were not immersed." Which is most reasonable? I might add, fourthly, [d) Difficulties, equally great, attend the hypothesis of immersion, as respects the clothing of the people. One or other of three things is certain: — either they were baptized 55 in their ordinary dress, and left the stream, dripping, and thus went to their homes, some of which must have been many miles distant ; or, they were furnished with baptiz- ing habits, in which case they would sadly need the modern luxury of robing-rooms ; or, they were immersed in a state of nudity, which would have been preposterous. Concerning all these difficulties connected with John's baptism, Dr. Carson is wisely silent: we suppose he knew his case too well to meddle with them. He fails not, how- ever, to remind us that John baptized "in iEnon, near to Salem, because there was much water there ;" in reply to which I must content myself with offering two or three observations. In the first place, the original will bear, equally well, the rendering, " many waters," that being, in fact, the more literal translation of the two. The name xEnon signifies "springs," and was, no doubt, given to the locality, "because there were many springs there." Second- ly, the fact that John was everywhere followed by so large a company, would naturally lead him to select a spot with the requisite accommodation for them ; and as many of them must have come from a distance, with their camels or asses, an abundant supply of water would be essential. Like Paul, he was sent to preach, rather than to baptize; to lead men to repentance, and not merely to immerse them. Hence his first thought would be to locate himself in some place that would be suitable for his great " field- meeting," so that all might come who desired to do so. This, we cannot but regard as a much better reason for John's choice of JEnon than that usually assumed by Bap- tists to have been the one that influenced him. The Apostles found water in abundance everywhere for their baptisms, — in the temple, in houses, in deserts, in jails, and where not? — but John had to travel to JEnon to find enough for Ms ! This certainly needs explanation. I had intended, had time permitted, to have shown the difficulties attending the supposition that the 3000 con- verted at Pentecost were immersed, — arising from the want of time, the absence of conveniences for such a purpose in the temple, and the utter improbability that the Apostles would have been allowed to use them, even had they ex- isted ; but several similar points of difficulty having been already discussed, in my second and third objections, I omit further reference to them, and shall bring my lecture to a close by a very brief epitome of the early Historical Evidence upon the mode of baptism. 56 . The allusions to it in the records of the Christian church for the first three or four centuries, are few in num- ber, and often somewhat obscure, there having been no controversy during that period, in relation to either the proper subjects of the rite, or the mode of administering it. The following, however, may be regarded as reliable: — Justin Martyr — about A. D. 160 — speaks of Christians as being "washed with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;" and calls the heathen sprink- lings " an imitation of the true baptism." Tertullian — A.D. 190-220 — usually employs u lingo" as the Latin representative of " baptizo," rendered by Ains- worth — 1. To dye, colour, stain; 2. to sprinkle, imbrue; 3. to wash ; 4. to paint. He sometimes uses " mergo," also, to merge or dip ; but never " sub mergo," the equiva- lent of immerse. The same writer speaks of Christ pour- ing water on his disciples' feet as a baptism, which Peter refused. Origen — A.D. 185 — speaks of Elijah's sacrifice being baptized, — an allusion to an act which you all know was performed by pouring water upon it, in great quantities. 1 Kings, xviii. 33. Laurentius — A.D. 250 — is said to have baptized several persons with water, which he poured out of a pitcher — one of them his executioner. Lactantius, his cotemporary, calls Christ's baptism a perfusion. Cyprian — A.D. 250 — and Jerome, somewhat later, un- derstood Ezek. xxxvi. 25 : "I will sprinkle clean water upon you," &c, as referring to Christian baptism. A Council, called A.D. 3 13, recognized clinical baptism, i. e., baptism upon a bed, in case of sickness, as valid. Athanasius — A.D. 350 — speaks of baptism performed by sprinkling ; so does the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364 ; and so does Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 370. And lastly, Augustin — A.D. 380 — tells us, " The person to be bap- tized is either sprinkled with water, or dipped in it," The Baptisteries in use, moreover, were, many of them, so small that they could not have admitted of immersion. One of these, still to be seen in the Catacomb of Pontianus, and constructed probably as early as the beginning of the second century — possibly, earlier still — is described as being about two feet in depth, and the same in icidth. In the ab- sence of a regular baptistery, family baths, capable of containing only about twenty gallons of water, were often used — in capacity far too small for immersion, and of a shape that rendered it utterly impossible. Furthermore, ANCIENT CARVINGS AND REPRESENTATIONS of the baptism of our Lord, some of them executed as early as A.D. 400, and still extant, uniformly represent him as standing in the water, while John Baptist pours water upon his head. Such a mode will account for the apparent contradiction between different writers on this subject ; going into the water being quite compatible with a subsequent baptism by affusion. As far, therefore, as we can judge, the practice of the churches in the third and fourth centuries seems to have been, first, to wash the body of the candidate all over, (which in the case of females was performed by an order of Deaconesses,) and afterwards to administer baptism, — the candidate standing in water to the depth of two feet or more, while the minister (who stood, not in the ivater or baptistery, at all, but on the edge of it) poured water on his head. Immersion may have been one of the modes of bap- tism in the fourth century, and doubtless was, and so was trine immersion, and probably immersion in a state of nudity also ; but all history shows that it was not the only mode. And with so manifest a tendency in the early churches to multiply forms, and to abandon those more simple for those more showy, it is much more likely, to pay the least, that immersion was the innovation, and not sprinkling or pouring. c2 LECTURE IV. INFANT BAPTISM. Acts xvi. 15: — "And when she was baptized, and her house- hold, 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." The question to be discussed in the present Lecture is, ■whether the word of God affords a sufficient warrant for the baptism of the infant children of believers, on the ground of the faith of their parents? Before proceeding to its discussion, however, we must be permitted to offer three preliminary observations : — 1. The question now to engage our attention, is totally distinct from the one that has occupied it during the last two lectures. There is no kind of connection between them, except such as is derived from the custom of associat- ing them together. It by no means follows that a man must reject the practice of Infant Baptism, if he should fail to see what he thinks sufficient evidence for baptism by pouring, or sprinkling ; nor does it follow, on the other hand, that he must embrace the theory of immersion, be- cause he fails to see what he regards as sufficient scriptu- ral authority for the baptism of infants. Let this be kept distinctly in view ; it is often overlooked. 2. We must, at the outset, deny our opponents the right to prescribe the kind of evidence that we may use in the discussion of this question, or the sources whence we may derive it. The obedient child will run to do his father's bidding, in whatever way his will has been made known, ■whether by look, or signal, or toord. So the disciple of Christ will not be disposed to ask whether his Lord has made known his will in so many words, but whether he has given him intimation of it in any shape. Our Baptist brethren often ask us, -with an air of triumph, to produce one positive command in the New Testament to baptize infants, and we reply, jast as broadly as any of them could desire, ice cannot ! We will give them the look, the signal, but not the word of Christ ; tor our Lord, in this instance, has not thought it needful to add positive command to the various other methods he has left us of arriving at a know- 59 ledge of his will, in this particular. Let no one, therefore, jump at hasty conclusions, because of the admission I have made. The scripturalness of infant baptism does not depend, for a moment, on positive command. It rests on precisely the same ground with the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath ; and the blow that strikes at the one, because it is not specifically en- joined upon us, tells with equal effect upon the other. Both depend upon inference ; neither has the support of a single positive command. Consistency, therefore, would re- quire of our Baptist brethren, either that they return to the observance of the Jeicish Sabbath, as the Seventh-day Baptists, — driven to it, we venture to say, by this very principle, — have done ; or else, that they cease to oppose infant baptism on the ground referred to. And, by the way, the same flimsy objection might be shown to interfere sadly with their practice of close communion ; for, what- ever their JSew Version of the New Testament may do for them, our old version certainly contains not one positive com- mand to exclude unbaptized brethren, (even if we are un- baptized,) from the Lord's table. 3. We have no dispute with Baptists as to adult baptism ; here we are at one. We believe, as well as they, that a profession of faith is necessary before we can baptize an adult. V\ T e always require evidence of conversion in such a case. We may add, moreover, that if infant baptism were confined, as we think it should be, to the children of believing parents, the cases of adult baptism among Ptedc- baptists, would be much more numerous than they are. We come now to the question before us, and shall first present, as briefly and lucidly as possible, the argument from the Abrahamic covenant. The successive steps ui' the argument mav be concisely stated, in anticipation, as follows : — God entered into covenant with Abraham ; — that covenant plainly comprehended spiritual, as well as temporal blessings, and formed the basis of the ancient church ; — the seal of that covenant was circumcision, which was applied, not only to Abraham, but to his children, on the ground of his faith ; — that covenant, fulfilled as to its temporal conditions, is confirmed as to its spiritual condi- tions, with the spiritual seed of Abraham, under the New Testament economy, with the simple change of the seal from circumcision to baptism ; and hence, we conclude, in the absence of any prohibition, that as the children of members of the Patriarchal and Jewish churches were cir- cumcised, on the faith of their parents, so the children of 60 members of the Christian church should be baptized, on the faith of their parents. These several positions I shall endeavour to establish, in the order in which they have been named. I. God entered into a covenant with Abraham, which, in its amplest form, is recorded in Genesis xvii. 4-14, by which He bound himself to bestow certain blessings upon Abraham and his seed for ever. The condition on which these blessings were to be bestowed was, the circumcision of Abraham and all his male children. Circumcision was, therefore, the seal of that covenant, without which neither he, nor any of his descendants, could have laid any claim to its fulfilment. With this condition Abraham complied. " He was circumcised, and Ishmael his son, and all the men of his house;" (vs. 23-27.) the latter receiving the seal of the covenant, exclusively on the ground of their re- lationship to Abraham, their father, and master. So it continued to be applied, through all the subsequent genera- tions of his family, until the coming of Christ, — circum- cision on the eighth day having been uniformly practised among the Jews. II. This covenant plainly comprehended spiritual, as well as temporal blessings. The following are some of its terms : — 1. " Thou shalt be a father of many nations," (Gen. xvii. 4) ; i. e., not of the Jewish nation only, — his natural seed, — but of many nations, — a spiritual seed. Paul tells us that " he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncir- cumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be uncircurneised." Rom. iv. 11. And again, " If ye be Christ's, then are ye — Galatians, Gentiles, though ye be — Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii. 29. But of what promise were they heirs? Of Canaan? Assuredly not, for that was the heritage of the Jewish nation, exclusively ; but heirs of the spiritual blessings promised; for "we which are of faith — believers — are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii. 9. 2. "Thou shalt be a blessing," (Gen. xii. 2). " and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," (xii. 3, and xxii. 18.) In "thy seed, which is Christ," says the Apostle. (Gal. iii. 16.) The inspired interpretation of this promise is, therefore, that he should be the honoured 51 progenitor of the Saviour, and that, in Him, all nations should be blessed with the knowledge of salvation. Surely this was a promise of spiritual good. 3. "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen. xvii. 7. Remember that Paul explains this of the spiritual seed of Abraham — believers — to what- ever nation they may belong, Jewish or Gentile. Can any one doubt that this is a promise of spiritual blessings? When David exclaims, " God, even our own God, shall bless us," does he contemplate temporal good only, or even chiefly? Surely not; nor could Abraham, at least equally eminent for holiness, so mistake the nature of this promise, as to suppose it to refer to any mere worldly advantage. 4. But even that part of the covenant that secures to the natural seed of Abraham, " the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession," (Gen. xvii. 8,) points, probably, to a heavenly inheritance, as well as to an earthly one. Paul writes of the earthly Canaan, (Heb. xi. 13-16,) as a familiar type of " a better country, that is, a heavenly," to which Abraham, among others, looked forward with such longing anticipations. Of course, only his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles, could expect the heavenly inheritance, inasmuch as all the spiritual blessings of the covenant depended on the exercise of faith ; but that it was included, and understood, we think there can be no reasonable doubt, since there is no other mention made of it to Abraham. But even were there no such allusion as we have sup- posed to exist, in the promise of the land of Canaan, God's avowed object in bestowing it upon them, was the preserva- tion, among them and through them, as a separated people, of the knowledge of his name. So that even Canaan was a spiritual blessing, in disguise. It is most manifest, therefore, that not only was this covenant not one of carnal things exclusively, but that every article of it secured some spiritual good. To escape the force of this conclusion, our Baptist brethren have had recourse to two theories of explanation. Some of them allege that there were two distinct covenants, one of spiritual blessings, and the other of temporal bless- ings ; and that to the latter alone the seal of circumcision was attached. Others, again, fancy that each separate ap- pearance of God to Abraham, recorded in the 12th, 15th, 17th, and 22nd chapters of Genesis, was accompanied by 62 its own particular covenant, instead of a repetition of the same covenant diifering only in detail. Bat unfortunately for both these theories, the seal of cir- cumcision was attached to the fullest of all four statements of the covenant, — that in Gen. xvii, — the one -which con- tains the first, third, and fourth of the promises we have examined. Moreover, every covenant must have its seal ; but where is the seal of the spiritual covenant, if circum- cision belongs to the temporal covenant alone ? Neither of these hypotheses has the shadow of probability to support it, and no one would ever have thought of them, had it not been for the desire to invalidate the argument for infant baptism, drawn from the source referred to. III. The establishment of this covenant with Abraham was the origin of the Church of God, in its organized form. There had been myriads of godly men and women, doubt- less, before this, but never any church organization. God now constitutes one, in the family of his servant Abraham, and names the terms of admission into it, — "Every man- child shall be circumcised," — and Abraham himself leceives the initiatory rite. The church thus organized in this fa- voured household, grew with its growth, until in the family of Jacob it went down into Egypt. There it continued 430 years, oppressed by the Egyptians, after which God brought it " out of the house of bondage," by the hand of Moses, by which time it had become a nation. We need not trace its history farther, except to say that the cove- nant, on the basis of which it was constituted, continued in full force until the Angel of the Covenant — the Lord from heaven — appeared, and, as we think we can show, ex- tended its provisions, and changed its seal to baptism. IV. This covenant established a religious connection be- tween the believing parent and his child, and thus, between the church of God, and the children of his people. The initiatory rite of circumcision was to be performed in in- fancy, — " on the eighth day," — and solely on the ground of the faith of the parent. From this rule there was to be no deviation, so that adult circumcision was a thing un- known to the Jews, except on the admission of a proselyte into the church, and must have been a much less frequent occurrence with them, than adult baptism is with us. The infant Jew, therefore, stood in a relationship to the Church of God, in which no other child could stand, without the application of the divinely-appointed rite. He did not,— he could not, from his tender age, — enjoy the full connec- tion in wliich his parents stood. He was not expected to attend the solemn feasts of Israel until he Avas twelve years old ; but still circumcision at once established a visible and recognized connection with the church of God, fraught with spiritual benefit to the child ; otherwise, the threat attending the neglect of it — " that soul shall be cut off from his people" — could have brought no terror with it. V. This covenant is confirmed with the spiritual seed of Abraham, under the Christian dispensation, and still exists. Every true believer in -the Lord Jesus Christ may lay an humble claim, for himself and for his children, to all the spiritual blessings it promises, This will be made apparent by the following considerations : — 1. It is called " an everlasting covenant ;" hence, we might expect its continuance to the end of time, unless abrogated by Him who first established it. 2. We have no account of such abrogation. The Mosaic economy is explicitly said to have passed away ; but this covenant, like the Sabbath, not owing its origin to that economy, did not expire with it. Paul distinctly affirms that the law " could not disannul it." Gal. iii. 17. Our Baptist brethren totally mistake its character, therefore, when they speak of it, or of circumcision, as Jewish. The Saviour tells us expressly, that it was " not of Moses, but of the fathers." John yii. 22. 3. The covenant is distinctly said to have been "con- firmed of God in Christ," (Gal. iii. 17) ; and Jesus Christ is said to have been " a minister of the circumcision, (i. e., preached chiefly to Jews,) for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." Rom. xv. 8. And 4. The terms of the covenant itself require its continu- ance, in order to its complete fulfilment. " In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Now this could not have been fulfilled before the calling of the Gen- tiles. They were not blessed with the knowledge of salva- tion while the Jewish economy lasted : it was requisite, therefore, that the covenant should continue, till they were brought in to participate in its blessings, as the spiritual seed of Abraham. If it should be objected to this view, that God promised, by the prophet Jeremiah, (xxxi. 31) to make " a new cove- nant " with Israel ; we reply, that the new covenant was not to take the place of the Abrahamic, but of the Sinaitic covenant. See Paul's exposition of it, Heb. viii. 13. There 64 is, indeed, a very striking likeness between some of the terms of the new covenant promised, and those of the Abrahamic ; so that the passage quoted as an objection, is wholly in our favour. VI. The seal of this covenant has been changed, under the Christian dispensation, from circumcision to baptism. In proof of this I remark, 1. That both were divinely appointed as rites of initiation into the Church of God. 2. Both have ascribed to them the same significacy — that of purification. That baptism had this signification all admit; and that circumcision had also, is clear from such expressions as the following: — " Circumcise the foreskin of your heart;" (Deut. x. 16:) "Ye uncircumcised in heart and ears;" (Acts, vii. 51:) " Circumcision is that of the heart." (Rom. ii. 29.) 3. Both signified the adherence of the parties receiving them, to the covenant of which they were the seals. Here some Baptist brother, lying in wait for me, will smile at the idea of an infant covenanting with God in baptism. And so he may, for such a thing is impossible. But if he will bear in mind that the covenant is between God and the parent, on behalf of the child for whom he asks the bap- tismal seal, the difficulty will vanish at once. It can be no greater, at any rate, in the baptism, than it was formerly in the circumcision of a child. 4. Baptism bears the same relationship to the Lord's supper, that circumcision did to the Passover. Each econo- my has had its two standing institutions. At the decay of Judaism, the Passover was superceded by the Lord's sup- per, — an ordinance of similar import, but more in accord- ance with the simplicity of everything pertaining to Chris- tianity. Then by what has circumcision been superceded, if not by baptism ? And since baptism teaches us, in a sim- pler way, the same truth as circumcision, does it not look a little like avoiding an unpleasant conclusion, to deny that it has taken its place, lest the next inference should be irresistible, — that as circumcision was administered to parents and their children, so should baptism ? And, 5. Baptism is distinctly declared to be the Christian cir- cumcision, in Col. ii. 11, 12; "In whom also ye are cir- cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- cision of Christ : buried with him in baptism," etc. The beginning of v. 12 clearly explains the closing sentence of 65 v. 11 : and this view of the passage is confirmed by the language of Peter, (1 Epist. iii. 21) who speaks of baptism as "the putting away of the fihh of the flesh," — an ex- pression very closely resembling that used by Paul, in the quotation referred to. The obvious inference from all this, is, YII. That in the absence of any positive prohibition of infant baptism, in the New Testament, we are fully autho- rized, nay required, to administer baptism to parents and their children, just as circumcision was administered. The absence of positive command to do so, is not only no argu- ment against it, but is, on the contrary, precisely what we should expect from the continuance of the covenant, with 'the simple change of the seal. The case, in our judgment, stands thus: — God says to his ancient people, " I establish a covenant with you, to be continued throughout all generations, by virtue of which I regard myself as pledged to the bestowment of certain blessings, the condition being that you signify your adher- ence to it by submitting to the bloody rite of circumcision. Be careful to circumcise your children, as well as your- selves." After about 2000 years, during which this re- quirement had been rigidly adhered to, God speaks again, and says, " I relieve you from the bloody rite you have hitherto received: henceforth, instead of being circumcised, you shall be baptized." Now, although in this change children are not expressly required to be baptized, must we not conclude, in the absence of any prohibition, that as nothing but the rite is said to be changed, the children who were circumcised with their parents before, are to be bap- tized with their parents now? To my own mind nothing can be plainer. The Apostles, as Jews, accustomed to see circumcision administered to the children of proselytes along with their parents, and regarding baptism as having taken its place, would naturally conclude, in the absence of express countermand from Christ, that they were to apply the new seal, as the old one had been applied. Had the commission read, "Go, teach all nations, circumcising them," &c, no one would have doubted for a moment that our Lord intended Gentile children to enjoy the privilege of a visible connection with the people of God, through their parents, as Jewish children had done before them. The household baptisms of the New Testament, would then have been household circumcisions ; and no one would have questioned the presence of children in these house- 66 holds, or the application of the rite to them, any more than in the re-circumcising of the children of Israel, recorded in the 5th chapter of Joshua. Where, then, is the ground for doubt as to the presence of children, or their baptism with their parents, now that the commission reads, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," &c ? It is for our Baptist brethren, therefore, to produce some passage of Scripture, in which, by positive limitation of the ordinance to adult converts alone, children are excluded from receiving it, and not for us to show positive command to ad- minister it to them. We have pointed out the statute : let them point out the act of amendment or repeal. Of the weight of the foregoing conclusions, in the argu- ment for infant baptism, we may judge with tolerable accuracy, by the anxiety of our opponents to overthrow' them. What cannot be done by reason, is sometimes at- tempted by wit. Some of you will remember the introduc- tion to a series .of articles that appeared in the Christian Messenger a few months since, signed " Eugenio," io review of the Rev. W. F. Clarke's essay on " The Divine Cove- nant and Infant Baptism,"* — " Here comes the Rev. W. I\ Clarke, with the Abrahamic covenant on his back ; make way for him I" The sole object of the writer, in adopting such a strain of ridicule, must have been to way- lay the judgment of the reader by a laugh, and unfit him fur serious reflection ; or, at any rate, that would be its natural effect in many cases. Another meets us with some such remark as, " How ab- surd to go to the Old Testament for proof concerning a New Testament institution !" To which we might with equal reason reply, " How absurd for Paul to quote Old Testament authorities in support of the New Testament economy ! Or to adduce Jewish evidence concerning the priesthood of Christ! Paul quoted the writings of the Old Testament to show that the Mosaic ritual was not intended to continue : we quote the same Scriptures to show that the Abrahamic covenant was intended to continue. We are in good company, therefore, and stand on solid ground in ap- pealing to the Old Testament, or else Paul did not. " Be- sides, if there is, as will be admitted, a universal harmony in the word of God, does it not follow that whatever is es- tablished from one part of it, is as really and effectually established as it could have been from any other?" The objection is, therefore, unreasonable, and we cannot but * See Canadian Independent, of July 9fh and 23rd, 1855. 67 regard it as calculated to undermine the authority of the Old Testament altogether, and cast suspicion upon its teaching in relation to other points, as well as to the one in hand. Let no ono suppose, however, that we derive our argu- ment for infant baptism from the Old Testament alone, or that the New Testament is silent in relation to it. We admit — if any one is disposed to regard it as an admission — that it contains no positive command for its observance, but we do not and cannot admit that it is silent respecting it. If our argument has been at all successful, we have shown already, from the New Testament, the continuance of the covenant made with Abraham, without any change except that of its seal; and, consequently, that we should expect infant baptism to take the place of infant circum- cision, just as adult baptism has taken the place of adult circumcision, and not a single sentence can our Baptist brethren adduce from the New Testament at positive vari- ance with such a conclusion. We observe, VIII. That our previous positions receive a striking con- firmation from the Apostolic practice of household bap)tism. We say, the practice of household baptism, for the several instances of its occurrence must be regarded as exhibiting the practice of the Apostles, rather than as isolated, and perhaps uncommon cases, for the following reasons, to which your special attention is invited : — 1. The four instances placed on record — those of Cor- nelius and his household, (Acts x. 48) ; Lydia "and her household," (xvi. 15) ; the jailer " and all his," (xvi. 33) ; and "the household of Stephanas," (1 Cor. i. 16), — are mentioned in such an incidental manner as to produce the impression that the baptism of a believer was usually ac- companied by the baptism of his family. 2. We have no instance on record in the New Testament of the baptism of any one in the presence of his family, without his family being baptized tcith him. This fact wo regard as very significant. 3. The household baptisms recorded in the New Testa- ment form one seventh of the entire number of the baptisms in which the name of the convert is mentioned. The num- ber of converts of whose baptism we have any particular account is twenty-eight. Of these, four were heads of households which were baptized with them, or one in seven. The entire number of converts whose names are given is fifty-five, while the number of Christian or baptized households named is eight— -the latter still bearing the pro- portion of one in seven to the former. Now if the Book of Acts may be taken as giving us a fair specimen of what was going on constantly, (of which there can be no reasonable doubt,) about every seventh case of baptism ad- ministered by the Apostles was the baptism of the head of a family, and of his or her household. Carry out this thought in relation to the tens of thousands who were baptized during the period embraced by the inspired narrative, and how many thousands of baptized families will you have! 4. We have no instance on record in the New Testament, of any child of Christian parents being baptized in adult age, upon making profession of faith, although the inspired his- tory covers a period of over thirty years after the organiza- tion of the first Christian church in Jerusalem. One such instance, could it be found, would do more to overthrow Psedo-baptism than all that has ever been written against it. In Baptist churches the child of Christian parents is baptized, as others are, only on profession of faith, and hence, had the New Testament afforded but a single ex- ample of the baptism, in adult age, of some Timothy, whose mother and grandmother were Christians before him, there would have been some ground for supposing that theij, at least, did not practise infant baptism. But no such example can be produced, and the fact is in- structive. 5. The Jews, accustomed to see children associated with their parents in the rite of circumcision, and regarding this visible connection with the people of God as the high- est privilege they could confer upon them, would naturally expect their children to be associated with themselves in baptism ; and would have murmured, and instituted in- vidious comparisons between Christianity and Judaism, had their households not been baptized with them. Yet we never read of any murmur of this kind, nor of any such invidious comparisons by Judaizing teachers; and the inference is that there was no ground for it, or in other words, that the Apostles commonly . baptized the believer's household when they baptized the believer himself. This con- clusion we regard as fully established by the instances on record, taken in connection with the foregoing considera- tions. IX. Household ^baptism - must havs" involved infant ' baptism. No satisfactory account can be given of it on Baptist principles. To infer, as Baptists do, in the first place, that there were no infants, or young children, in any of these families, or else that they were not baptized if there were ; and, secondly, that all the elder children and adults believed simultaneously, is surely inferring a little too much, after demanding positive injunction of us. You will observe the nature of the case is such that the evidence, on either side, can never amount to anything more than probability. We cannot prove that there were little children in the households said to have been baptized, nor could we have done so even had there been thousands of household baptisms actually recorded, unless it had been expressly mentioned that in such and such cases there were little children. On the other hand, our Baptist brethren certainly cannot prove that there were none. We must, therefore, weigh carefully the probabilities of the case, and in doing so we think it will appear that while the evidence in support of the Baptist hypothesis amounts to nothing beyond the barest possibility, that in support of our's amounts to everything but demonstration. 1. Of whatever these households were composed — adults alone, or adults and children — all connected with them ivere baptized. Lydia "was baptized, and her household;" and so was the jailer — " he and all his ;" not, Lydia " and all of her household that believed," or, the jailer, "and all the adult members of his family." No such term of limitation is employed: the entire household is plainly intended. The same remark applies to the baptism of the households of Cornelius and Stephanas. Hence, if there were any infants or young children in these households, they were bap- tized along with their parents. 2. The word " oikos " — rendered house or household, in each of the four instances referred to — properly signifies a family, composed of adults and children. The Greek language contains no term equally appropriate, on the sup- position that such households were intended. Take an example or two of its use in the Septuagint : — " God setteth the solitary in families" (en oiko) ; " He maketh the barren woman to keep house" (en oiko); "Thy house (oikos) which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman."" In all these quotations the word certainly includes infant children, and no reason whatever can be given for assign- ing it any other signification when applied to the baptism of households. * Psalm lxviii. 6 ; cxiii. 9 ; Ruth iv. 12. 70 Had the word " oikia" been used, our Baptist brethren might have told us, with some degree of plausibility, that the domestics were intended, though even then the children would not be excluded by the term. But the "oikos" was baptized — the family — parents and children — for that is its obvious signification. And this distinction has been care- fully observed by the inspired narrator, as will be seen by an examination of vs. 31, 32: — "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (oikos). And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house (oikia) ;" i. e., to his domestics also. To this it may be objected, that the " household of Ste- phanas," said in 1 Cor. i. 16, to have been baptized, are said in 1 Co. xvi. 15, to have " addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," and that they therefore must have been a household of adult believers. But here again the distinction in thp meaning of these two words is carefully observed, for while Paul says he baptized the "oikos" — family — of Stephanas, it was the "oikia" — household, in- cluding doubtless some pious domestics — of Stephanas, whose kind offices Paul so courteously acknowledges. The objection, therefore, only helps to establish our position — that "oikos" properly signifies a family, ordinarily composed of parents and children. 3. Apart from the meaning of the word employed, the probability is that there were infants, or young children, in some, if not in all, of these baptized households. Four fami- lies could hardly be mentioned pi"omiscuously, as these were, without having young children in some of them. I know it will be said in reply, that there are many house- holds unblessed with children, and many families in which all the children have arrived at adult age ; but many is a comparative term, for there are very many more that do contain children. You can easily put this matter to the test. Sit down, and make out a list of 100 persons, taken promiscuously from the circle of your acquaintances, each of them being a householder, and see what proportion of their households contain young children. I have twice tried the experiment myself, upon lists prepared for an entirely different purpose, and found that 158 households out of 210, contained children under seven years of age, or 3 out of 4! One of the experiments, indeed, made the proportion considerably larger — about 5 out of 6 — but I am willing to abide by the lowest result, although I am per- suaded that it is far below the actual proportion. You will observe that we are dealing now, not with probabilities, but 71 ■with an ascertained fact — three households out of every four contain young children ; and as no valid reason can be given fur regarding them as exceptions, the obvious inference is, that three out of the four mentioned in the New Testa- ment as having been baptized, contained young children also. We must not lose sight of our cigliiJi position, however. Hitherto our argument has been based upon the instances of household baptism actually recorded. But we have shown, we think, that these must have been, not isolated cases, but simply illustrations of the Apostles' practice in this respect, and that, as far as we can judge from the inspired narrative, whenever the head of a household was baptized, his household was baptized with him. There must have been thousands of such ca^es, therefore, of the particulars of which no record has been left us, just as there were thousands of individual believers baptized, whose names even have not been mentioned. Baptists will call all this conjecture, but to us it is fact, as well sustained as anything can be, short of explicit statement, and we cannot say that even explicit statement would strengthen our conviction of its truthfulness. Were all these households, then, composed entirely of adults? Or after it has been shown that all connected with the four of which we have any account, were baptized — old or young — ■ will any one assume that the Apostolic practice in the cases unrecorded was different? 4. The baptism of the households of Lydia and the Jailer, at least, was performed, in each case, on the ground of the parent's faith, which is an evssential feature of infant baptism. There is nothing, indeed, in either of the other instances against such a view, but in those referred to it is clearly in favour of it. Lydia's heart was " opened " — " she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" — "she besought" the Apostles to " come into her house and abide there" — and her plea was, " if ye have judged me to be faithful," &c. There is not the shadow of proof that any one believed but Lydia, yet when Paul baptized her, he baptized her household also. To suppose the household of this " seller of purple" to have consisted of a retinue of servants, is a pure assumption, unlikely in itself, unsustained by the meaning of the origi- nal word, and only increasing, instead of removing the difficulty ; for if the baptism of a child, on the ground of its mother's faith, be objectionable, what shall be said of the baptism of a servant on the faith of her mistress ! 72 The Jailer, again, believes, and straightway " he and all his" are baptized. No one is said either to have been con- victed, to have enquired the way of salvation, or to have believed, but he. It is true that our English version favours the supposition that his family believed with him, but it is only through an unauthorised transposition of the words that it does so. The record, as the pen of inspiration left it, reads, " and he rejoiced with all his house, believing in God." If any transposition of the words were allowable, it would be the uniting of the participle to the verb, with which it agrees in gender,. number, and case ; the passage woald then read, " believing in God, he rejoiced with all his house," both the verb and the participle being in the singular number. Where now is the evidence of faith on the part of the Jailer's household ? 5. The practice of household baptism among New Testa- ment, and modern Pcedo-baptist churches, to whom it is exclu- sively confined in the present day, renders absolutely certain their mutual adherence to some common principle, that, to wit, of infant baptism, without which it is almost impossible that household baptism should occur. As we have already seen, we never read in the New Tes- tament of the baptism of any one in the presence of his family, without reading of the baptism of his family with him. In Baptist churches, on the contrary, tho case is exactly reversed. To them, household baptism is a foreign idiom, so rarely does an instance of it occur among them. Is there no indication in this of a departure from Apostolic rule? In Pgedo-baptist churches household baptisms occur much as they did in the churches of the New Testament. The relation between parent and child is recognized and maintained, and the new seal of the covenant of grace applied to both of them, much as the old seal was applied in the family of " faithful Abraham." Now " Look on this picture, then on that," and judge which of the two copies most closely the Divine original ! Our argument then — every successive step of which we think has been fairly established — may be summed up thus: Thousands of years ago the spiritual kingdom of God — essentially one under both economies, Jewish and Christian — was visibly set up on earth in the household of Abraham. By a divine law, admission to this kingdom was to be gained only through the rite of circumcision, in 73 the reception of which children were not only permitted, but required to be associated with their parents. In the fulness of time the King himself appears, enlarges the privileges of his subjects, and changes the rite of admission to baptism. Nothing being said that could even imply its restriction to adults, his people look for the application of the new rite to their households, as formerly ; and agreeably to their expectation, those to whom the carrying out of the new law was entrusted — inspired Apostles — actually so ad- minister it, in every instance, as far as we can judge, in which they administer it to a believing parent. An exami- nation of several cases, incidentally recorded, leads us to the conclusion that some, at least, of these households must have contained little children, all of whom the narrative says were baptized, while it gives us no reason to suppose that any one but the head of the family believed ; and hence that infant baptism must have been the practice of the Apostles. "We have by no means exhausted our subject. Indeed, from want of time, we are compelled to omit noticing much collateral evidence which would have tended greatly to strengthen our several conclusions, had we been able to introduce it. We have endeavoured, however, to present, in as concise a form as seemed consistent with perspicuity, our more prominent reasons for regarding infant baptism as a scriptural ordinance. But we must now hastily notice several Objections com- monly urged against it. We shall be told, — 1. That believers alone are to be baptized, and hence, as infants are incapable of believing, they cannot be proper subjects for baptism. But, — (a) Where are we told that believers alone are to be bap- tized ? Will our Baptist brethren be kind enough to point out the passage, or anything equivalent to it. When they do so, we will at once abandon the practice they object to. (b) The objection is a begging of the whole question. The point at issue between us is, whether the infant children of God's people, yet incapable of believing, shall be baptized on theV ground of their parents' faith, just as Abraham's children were circumcised ? You will perceive that it is no reply to this question to say, No, because infant children cannot believe. Put into syllogism, the objection would run thus : — None are i.o be baptized but those who believe the Gospel: infants cannot believe the Gospel ; therefore, infants are not to be baptized. Now if the premises were a settled point, the conclusion would be inevitable. But we demur D 74 , at once to the premises, and call on the objectors to estab- lish them. When they prove that none are to be baptized but those who believe, they will have proved everything, and will need no more syllogisms about it. Besides, — (c) The objection, if valid, imperils infant salvation, as well as infant baptism. It is certainly equally true, and far more susceptible of proof from scripture, that " None are to be saved but those who believe ; shall we then follow that premise to a similar conclusion, " infants cannot be- lieve, therefore infants cannot be saved?" Now compare the two syllogisms, and see if the conclusion in the latter be not just as much warranted by the premises, as that in the former. Clearly so ; yet no one doubts the salvation of infants ; and the reason of the discrepancy between the scriptural and the logical conclusion is that the premises, while correct in relation to those capable of believing, needs qualifying in relation to those incapable of believing — in- fants, for example. And this, we beg to say, is the defect in the objection with which we are dealing: it is true of adidts that " none are to be baptized but those who believe," but we must have some proof from Scripture before we can admit it in relation to infants. If it be objected, 2. That the baptisms recorded in the New Testament were all administered upon profession of faith, — we reply, most of them undoubtedly were, but to say that all were, is to beg the question again ; for if it can be proved that none were baptized by the Apostles except on profession of their faith, infant baptism could not have been an Apostolic practice, and the controversy is at an end. We flatter ourselves that we have shown, in the eighth and ninth sections of this lecture, some reason for believing that this was not the fact. " Still," it may be said, " you admit that in most cases it involved a profession of faith." Most cheerfully. How could it be otherwise ? The parents of Paul, the Eunuch, Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus, &c, were not Chris- tians : they were either Jews or heathen, and hence the parties named had not been baptized in infancy. Indeed, Christianity itself must have been then a thing of the future ; so that adult baptism on profession of faith would, of necessity, be its more usual character at first, just as circumcision was first administered to adults in Abraham's household. The Gospel was commencing its career, and as now, on its introduction into heathen lands, every con- vert at first is baptized upon profession of faith, so it was then ; the cases are precisely analogous. The objection, 75 therefore, presents no difficulty whatever. Some one may ask, 3. "What is the use of baptizing an unconscious infant? — a grave objection, truly, but one very commonly urged ! To this we reply by asking two other questions ; — what was the use of circumcising an unconscious infant? or, what is the use of baptizing an adult t If our friends should tell us that God enjoined the observance of these — a very satisfactory reason — we reply again, That is just our reason for the observance of infant baptism. We be- lieve God has enjoined it upon us, and if so, it can neither be useless in itself, nor can it be useless in us to attend to it. We do not pretend that the child receives any spiritual im- pression from it. Itis designed to impress the parent rather than the child, — to teach him his infant's need of spiritual cleansing — a lesson which the indulgent parent needs to learn, but which adult baptism fails to teach. The last objection we can stay to notice is, 4. That infant baptism upholds the grievous error of baptismal regeneration. Perhaps, however, our Baptist brethren will find quite as little of that heresy in Congre- gational churches, as among themselves. The totally un- due importance which they attach to immersion, is, in our opinion, quite as likely to lead to a belief in the baptis- mal regeneration of adtdts, as infant baptism, to a belief in the baptismal regeneration of infants. We disavow the one just as emphatically as they disavow the other. But because a fraction of the Christian world, practising Pasdo- baptism, hold the error referred to, is it just cr ingenuous to hold up an abuse of the ordinance as if it were part and parcel of the ordinance itself ? As well might we charge all the errors of Smith, Campbell, and Miller, upon im- mersion, because Mormons, Campbellites, and Millerites baptize converts to their faith in that mode. Let our friends point out the evils of infant baptism, as we adminis- ter it, and we shall take it kindly of them. Though not before such a diet as that at Worms, it may not be inappropriate for me to dismiss this subject in the words of the noble Luther when cited before that assem- bly : — " Unless I am convinced by the testimony of scrip- ture, or by the clearest reasoning — unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted ; and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot, and I will not retract : for it is unsafe for a Christ- ian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand : I can do no other I" 76 A vey brief sketch of the Historical Evidence upon the subject of Infant Baptism must conclude this Lecture. The references to it in the writings of the earli- est Fathers are not very numerous. Such as there are, however, we will endeavour briefly to present for your con- sideration. 1. Justin Martyr, writing A.D. 160 — about sixty years after the death of the Apostle John — tells us that "many persons were then living, sixty, seventy, and eighty years of age, who were discipled to Christ from childhood." The value of this passage depends upon the exact meaning of the word rendered " childhood." Kobinson in his Greek Lexicon says the term is applied to " all ages, from infancy up to full grown youth ;" and Liddell and Scott give quota- tions from Xenophon, Plato, and iEschylus, showing that it is sometimes used of infancy. If that be its meaning in this instance, (and there is no reason why it should not,) this reference to it is decisive, since some of those of whom Justin speaks must have been baptized in the days of the Apostles themselves. The same writer also speaks of "being circumcised by baptism, with Christ's circumcision," — an expression which clearly indicates that he regarded baptism as having taken the place of circumcision, and as being therefore applicable to infants. 2. IrenjEus, a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John the Apostle, writing about A.D. 180, says, " Infants, little ones, children, and youth are regenerated to God." Now, the term rendered "regenerated," {renasaintur,) is very generally admitted to have been synonimous with baptized, among the Christian writers of that age, as they had already begun to ascribe to baptism a regenerating efficacy. Wall, Schrock, Neander, and other eminent authorities, declare that the word was constantly used in that sense, Eightly translated, therefore, Ireneeus tells us that in his day — only eighty years after the death of the last Apostle — " infants, &c, were baptized unto God." How far is this from being positive evidence that infant baptism was an Apostolic practice ? 3. Origen, born A. D. 185, says distinctly, " According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to in- fants." Elsewhere, that "infants are baptized for the for- giveness of sins." Again, " Because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized." 77 And once more, " For this cause it was that the church re- ceived from the Apostles an order to give baptism even to infants." "We quote this writer, of course, for his facts, not for his opinions ; for, like most of his cotemporaries, he entertained very exaggerated ideas of the efficacy of the ordinance. As to facts, however, he is an unexceptionable witness ; for besides being a very learned man, he had been an extensive traveller, having visited Cappadocia, Palestine, India, Egypt, and Greece, and must, therefore, have had access to the most refiable sources of information upon everything relating to the usages of the primitive church. Indeed, his own father, or, at any rate, his grand- father, might have conversed with men who had lived iu the Apostolic age : yet such is Origen's testimony con- cerning infant baptism. The genuineness of these quota- tions is altogether above suspicion, for they are found in every manuscript copy of his works. 4. Cyprian, Bishop of the church in Carthage, was president of a Council of sixty-six bishops, convened in that city, in the year 252, to settle the question whether it was lawful to baptize a child before it ivas eight days old, which he tells us was decided affirmatively. The divine author- ity of infant baptism no one thought of questioning ; the only point submitted for their decision was, the age at which it might be administered. 5. Augustin, who flourished about 290 years after the death of the Apostle John, assures us that infant baptism " was not instituted by any Council, but always has been in use." Elsewhere he speaks of " those who have been baptized when they were infants ;" and of infant baptism as " nothing else than a thing delivered by authority of the Apostles," and says that " no Christians will call infant baptism useless." Much more testimony of a similar character might be quoted from this author, but it is un- necessary. In his day the practice was undoubtedly uni- versal. 6. Pelagius, the cotemporary and theological opponent of Augustin, and the originator of the controversy that bears his name, maintained views that would probably have led him to deny the Divine authority of infant bap- tism, had he been able to do so. He was charged, indeed, with doing so, but he replies indignantly, " Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. I never heard oj any, not even the most impious heretic, who de- nied baptism to infants." For 700 years after this, not one solitary individual can be found who opposed it. 78 7. The testimony of early monumental inscriptions strik- ingly corroborates that which has already been advanced upon this subject. The following, which, along with a great number of others, may be found in Taylor's "Apos- tolic Baptism," are decisive : — " Achillia, newly baptized^ is buried here ; she died at the age of one year and, jive months." The accompanying figure of a dove — a christian symbol of the second century — sufficiently marks the period to which it belongs. " Rufillo, Newly-baptized, who lived two years and forty days. Quintillian the father places this," &c. " To Pisentus, an innocent soul who lived one year, eight months, and thirteen days. Newly-baptized," &c. "To Aristus, who lived eight months; Newly-baptized," &c. The date in this instance is fixed by the inscription itself— A.D. 389. " To Leoni, Newly-baptized, who lived six years, eight months, and eleven days," &c. A.D. 348. " Flavia Jovina, who lived three years and thirty-two days ; Newly-baptized," &c. A.D. 367. In other cases the term "Faithful" — never applied to any but the baptized — is used, as in the following : — " A Faithful, descended from ancestors who were also faithful, here lies Zosimus ; he lived two years, one month, and twenty-five days." The symbols accompanying this in- scription — "the anchor and the fish — mark a period of primitive and suffering Christianity:" that is, prior to A.D. 313 at the latest. " Cyriacus, a Faithful, died aged eight days less than three years." " Eustafia, the mother, places this in commemoration of her son Polichronio, a Faithful, who lived three years." Add to the foregoing evidence 8. The fact that not a single council, or sect, or writer can be found during the first ten centuries, who disputed the Apostolic origin of infant baptism, or pronounced it an in- novation. The evidence is all on one side. Gregory Nazi- anzen, writing about A.D. 370 urges delay till the child be three years of age ; and Tertullian — A.D. 200 — goes far- ther, and urges delay till after marriage, that all the sins of youth may be washed away by it at once. He says, " It is not rashly to be administered." " A delay of baptism is more profitable according to every one's condition, dis- * Literally, "newly planted" — the same term employed in Rom. vi. 5, of Baptism. 79 position, or age, but especially in regard to little ones." But he never once calls it unscriptural or wrong. Instead, therefore, of this writer disproving the Apostolic origin of infant baptism — and he is the only one upon whom our Baptist brethren have to rely — he actually certifies the general prevalence of the practice within the first century after the Apostle's death ! We are aware that some eminent ecclesiastical historians have assigned it a later origin, but after all their researches they have left us totally in the dark as to when, where, or by whom it was introduced. Dr. Neander admits its exist- ence in the time of Ireneeus, whose master, Polycarp, was cotemporary with " the disciple that Jesus loved." Is it likely that he, who tells us that he had heard Polycarp re- late " the conversations he had had with John, and others that had seen the Lord," could be ignorant of the teaching of the Apostles, in this particular, or would have practised infant baptism, had it been contrary to it ? And even Irenasus — the earliest writer that refers to it in terms which cannot be misunderstood — speaks of it in such a manner as to indicate its general prevalence in his day. In the face of such evidence then, — not a jot of which can be dis- puted, — who can reasonably arrive at any other conclusion than that infant baptism is of Divine authority, and was sanctioned by Apostolic usage ? LECTURE V. IMMERSION AS A TERM OF COMMUNION. Acts x. 15, — " What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." The subject of our present discourse is so intimately connected -with that of baptism, that a series of lectures such as that we are now concluding would really be incom- plete without some reference to it. "We propose, therefore, to examine the practice of the Regular Baptists in this particular, and to inquire " by what authority" they make immersion indispensable to communion with them, and exclude members of all other churches from the Lord's table, while they still acknowledge many of them as Christian brethren, and treat them as such in every other respect. In doing so, we may be brought into collision with the sentiments of valued friends, connected with the denomina- tion referred to, and possibly add to the offence we have already unintentionally given them ; but conceiving their practice to be both unscriptural and injurious — and to none so much so as to those who maintain it — we have what we consider the best of all reasons for discussing it. The first point to be considered will be, — I. The extent to which the practice of strict communion is carried. The general principle is, to exclude all unimmersed Christians from participation in the communion of the body and blood of Christ ; and the ground upon which it is jus- tified that immersion was the invariable pre-requisite to admission into the New Testament churches. To this general principle we believe all Regular Baptists will sub- scribe. They tell us, that not having conformed to the law of Christ's house, we have no right to sit with them at his table. Others — many others — go farther, and would exclude their unimmersed brethren on the additional charge of wilful and obstinate disobedience to the Lord's command. They say, there is no room for honest and conscientious difference in opinion concerning the proper mode and sub- jects of Christian baptism ; and hence, that all Psedo- baptists are either culpably ignorant and prejudiced, or 81 else are wilfully disobedient, and, in either case, unfit for connection with the church of Christ. " You lawio better," said a Baptist friend to a member of my church, tapping him on the shoulder and nodding significantly. — "You Anoiv better." And that brother who "knoios better," I have no hesitation in saying is one of the most conscientious men I ever met with. But I had nearly forgotten myself, for in deciding this question conscience is excluded from the wit- ness-box altogether. Even where we are admitted to be conscientious in the practice of our mode of baptism, we are still denied the privilege of communion with them, on the ground previously named — our ignorance, and consequent neglect of the Divine requirement. On these accounts Regular Baptists have separated them- selves from those with whom, in every other respect, they are at agreement, in doctrine, polity, and practice ; nay, more, from their own brethren of the Baptist denomination holding to free communion, whose principles they seem to regard with even more aversion than those of Psedo-baptism itself. Indeed, so great is the importance attached to this one question, that it has convulsed the Baptist body from centre to circumference, and separated chief friends, a result that by no means surprises us when we remember the tenacity with which the obnoxious principle is held. The following rules which, in substance, are rigidly enforcd by strict communionists everywhere, will explain my meaning : — 1, No Regular Baptist church will allow any unimmersed person to sit at the Lord's table with them, whatever may be his character or standing in any oilier church on earth. " Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job," were to apply for the privilege, not having conformed to their mode of baptism, they would be politely requested to loith- draw! The question is, not whether the applicant be a Christian, but whether he has been immersed. He may be fit for the kingdom of heaven, and for "the church of the first-born" there ; but, if he has not been dipped, he is regarded as unfit for the communion of saints on earth! The lowest standing in a Regular Baptist church entitles one to communion ; the highest standing in any other, however pure, confers no claim to it whatever. To us, at least, this seems like opening another "door into the sheep-fold," and exalting ritual observances far above christian character. 2. No member of any Regular Baptist church is allowed, under any circumstances, to commune with any other church d2 82 of Christ that does not make immersion a term of com- munion, under pain of discipline or excision. Such an act, unrepented of, (!) is dealt with in the same manner as drunkenness or dishonesty ; it is iniquity, and the soul that commits it must be " cut off from among his people." An illustration of this rule was given me a short time ago by a Regular Baptist minister, who related it to me with a great deal of glee, as if it were above all things to be gloried in, instead of being, as I take it, the very beau ideal of intolerance. My informant, when a student in the Baptist College at M , finding upon enquiry of one of the deacons of the Baptist Church in that place, that they would allow certain members of the Congregational church, who had been immersed, to sit at the Lord's table with them, if they desired it, replied that he did not call their's a strict Baptist church at all, and that therefore he could not, and would not commune with it. And, accordingly, never once, during all his stay among them, did he com- mune, either with that church or with any other ; con- science forbade it ! This is not to be regarded as an extreme course, by any means, for extremes are obviously impossible in enforcing a rule which admits of no exceptions or modifications what- ever. It is one which every strict-communionist endorses, and the only one left open to him in such circumstances ; for, if his principle be correct, it is undoubtedly better never to observe the dying request of the Saviour, than to do it in the company of the unimmersed, or even of those who, though immersed themselves, cannot see it to be wrong to keep company with those who are not immersed ! All such are " common or unclean " to him. 3. No inter-communion is allowed by Regular Baptist churches between open-communion, or Pgedo-baptist churches and themselves, in receiving or dismissing members by letter. Neither confidence in the piety of the person wish- ing to be thus transferred, nor identity of religious belief, on all points but that of Baptism, on the part of the church to which the transference is desired, nor the absence of any church maintaining the practice of strict communion, in the place to which the person is removing, — nor all of these considerations put together, — is allowed to have any weight in such cases. The rule is inflexible. Never was Jew more careful to avoid all dealings with Samaritans, than are Regular Baptist churches to avoid all fellowship with those who are less exclusive than themselves. Witness the following fact : — A lady belonging to the Baptist church in Brantford, applied last spring for a letter of dismission to this church, with which her husband had just connected himself on a profession of his faith. But no letter could be granted ; to have done so would have been to acknow- ledge the Congregational church as a scripturally organized church of Christ — a thing not to be tolerated for a moment ! Take another case, for the truth of which I can vouch: — An old lady, well-nigh eighty years of age, belonging to a Congregational church in Canada, became through infirm- ity unable to attend the church with which she was con- nected, or even to enjoy its monthly communion, as she was living a number of miles away from the place in which it assembled. Feeling naturally desirous of something more than a nominal connection with the people of God, and not knowing the straitness of the gate into the Regular Baptist Church, she sought the privilege of occasional com- munion with it, by letter from her own church. Was it permitted ? No, no ! She must be immersed — aged and infirm as she was — she must be immersed before she could sit down at iJieir table ! Staggered at the reply, and not knowing what to do, she asked her minister's advice as to whether she should submit to what she regarded as a "commandment of men/' or give up her cherished desire of communion with God's people. Her minister, as I think, very unwisely, advised her to submit to it, and ac- cordingly she was immersed — a trophy of strict Baptist principles. 4. Regular Baptists virtually deny the rigid of any min- isters hut their own, either to receive, or to dispense the Lord's supper. Their Pasdo-baptist brethren are sometimes in- vited to preach for them, just as a matter of convenience, or as any well-qualified though unordained brother would be, under similar circumstances. They are often invited, moreover, to take part in their tea-meetings and anniversa- ries, and the like, and on such occasions all is courteous enough. But supposing it to be communion Sabbath, and the pastor absent from home, — the Pasdo-baptist brother is in the pulpit, and directly before him the communion table is spread with the emblems of the Lord's body and blood, — will he be invited to preside at the supper ? Or even to par- take of it ? No ; the church will either omit the observance of it altogether, or the deacon will dispense it ; and the brother to whom they have just listened with pleasure and profit, as he has been discoursing upon topics suitable to so solemn and delightful an occasion, if he should take his seat among them, will be told, (in the gentlest manner 84 possible, it may be, but how can it be gentle in any case ?) that he can have no part nor lot with them in that matter ! Do you say this is an uncommon occurrence ? It may be so, but if it be, it is only because good care is taken, on both sides, not to be placed in so unpleasant a position. I can furnish two instances of this, however, which I know to have occurred, in both of which the parties thus ex- cluded were Congregational ministers with whom I am in- timately acquainted. In one case, the brother who preached, never dreaming that he had been preaching to a close-com- munion church, left the pulpit, and took a seat in one of the pews, thinking only of the feast of love he was about to enjoy ; when lo ! the deacon comes to him with the inti- mation that as their's was a strict Baptist church, they did not expect him to commune with them. And so, putting on his hat, he withdrew, with no very pleasant reflections, though perhaps quite as pleasant as the reflections of those whom he left behind him. Iu the other case, the pastor of a Baptist church being suddenly taken ill on the morning of the communion Sab- bath, sent for a Congregational brother, who had no pasto- ral charge at the time, to supply his place. On ascending the pulpit he observed that the communion table was spread in preparation for the Supper, but between the preacher and the table stood the open baptistery, looking, as he thought at the time, very much as if symbolical of the path he must tread before he could sit down at it — viz., through the ivater ! It was accidental, and the deacons apologized for it by telling him that the water, which was intended to be used in the evening, had been a little over- healed, and had been left uncovered to cool. His exclusion from the supper afterwards, however, was not accidental, but the enforcement of a principle, whether a good or a vicious one we shall see presently. I can only add upon this point the remark of Rowland Hill, so characteristic of that good and original old man, when excluded from the table of a strict Baptist church under similar circumstances, — " I beg your table's pardon ; I thought it was the Lord's table." Rowland Hill had caught the idea of the ordinance exactly. It is the Lord's table, and not our's or their's — where all are brethren, and all a.re to be received whom the Lord has received, and where nothing is to be regarded as " common or unclean " that "God has cleansed." But if the whole truth must be told, our strict brethren go farther still, for 85 5. Regular Baptists deny the validity of immersion even, when administered by a Pcedo-ba.pt ist. In other words, they do not acknowledge an unimmersed minister competent to baptize in any mode. Such a position is equivalent, in our judgment, to unfrocking nine-tenths of all the evangelical ministers of the Gospel in the present day, and establish- ing an Apostolical succession, equal in its pretensions to that of the Church of Rome. The administration of the two Christian ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper is usually regarded as the peculiar prerogative of the minis- ter of the Gospel. Deny him that, and you deny his ministe- rial standing altogether. Yet this is precisely the ground which Regular Baptists churches take in relation to every unimmersed preacher of the Gospel; they deny him the right to perform either of the acts which belong, par excel- lence, to the office he professes to fill. But lest I should be thought to bear false witness against my brethren in this matter, I must adduce the proof of what I have said of them. During the progress of the revival last spring, several persons, Baptists in sentiment, but preferring connection with this church, applied to me to know if I would immerse them. I replied immediately that I could not, but that I would make arrangements with some less scrupulous P^edo-baptist brother to come and do it. This was agreed to, and I obtained at once a promise from a neighbouring minister to come and immerse them. The want of a baptistery was the next difficulty, and as everybody does not like open-air baptism, it was likely to prove serious. At this juncture, however, I heard of an informal offer of the use of the one in the Baptist church for the occasion, provided thai the administrator had been himself 'immersed ! Truly " that was the unkindest cut of all." We might have been thankful for the offer had there been no such proviso about it, but such a condition as that, implying that none are competent to administer bap- tism but Baptists, is one which a Psedo-baptist church would not be very likely to accept if they had any respect for their principles, or their minister. But now, mark you what this involves. If all my bap- tisms, even should I perform them by immersion, are invalid, because 1 have not been immersed ; then, of course, no baptisms can be valid but those which have been per- formed by immersed ministers. Let me, then, interrogate some Baptist brother as to the validity of his baptisms : how many generations do you think we could go back be- fore we should find a defect in the suceession ? Mr. D. was 86 immersed by Mr. C.,— Mr. C. by Mr. B.,— Mr. B. by Mr. A., and so forth. But supposing that the person who im- mersed Mr. A. had never been immersed himself, then, according to strict Baptist rule, not only are all Mr. A/s bap- tisms invalid, but all those of B., C. and D. likewise. One defective link in the chain, no matter how remote, imperils every sccceding link down to the end of time. The as- sumption is therefore subversive of itself, and is, to say the least, rather delicate ground for Baptists to take, even for the validity of their own baptisms. To us it is the quintes- sence of the principle which runs through the claim to Apostolic succession. The Komanist, and the High Church- man say, "your ministers are not ordained, because their heads never felt the pressure of episcopal hands — the hands of those who alone are authorised to ordain :" the Baptist says, "your baptisms are not valid, because neither you, nor the persons who ordained you, were ever immersed by those who alone are authorised to do so, or to perform any other ministerial act." The question naturally arises in this connection, upon what does the validity of a baptism depend? If an immer- sion by a godly minister, who has not been immersed him- self, be invalid, would an immersion by an ungodly minister, who has been immersed, be valid ? Shall the act of a bad, man be valid and acceptable to God, because he has been immersed, and the like act of a good man be null and void, and an abomination, because he has not been immersed ? Our Baptist brethren — if we understand them correctly — say emphatically, yes ? — and my proof of it is, that while the validity of the baptisms of some who have turned out to be ungodly men among them, has never been doubted, the validity of an immersion by a godly Pasdo-baptist is distinctly denied. Is there nothing anomalous here ? But, enough upon this point. I intend no offence by it ; I have desired only to show to what an absurdity such an assumption would lead. I am satisfied that very few, if any, of those who are chargeable with it, really lay claim to all that it clearly involves. If any among them do assert such a claim, the only conviction it can carry with it is, that " even now are there many anti-christs." We will no more recognize the Church in the Baptist communion alone, than in the Papal. The practice, then, we are opposing, utterly annihilates all intercourse between churches of the same faith and order, — prohibits, under pain of discipline, any fellowship between acknowledged members of the same family of God, in that which constitutes one of their special privileges, — denies the validity of all ministerial acts but those per- formed by a Baptist — virtually unchurches all other com- munions of Christians — and all this on the pure assumption that the sorely-debated mode of baptism by immersion is the only scriptural mode. We come now to investigate, II. The argument for strict-communion. Our Baptist brethren would not, of course, take a stand so likely to be misunderstood, and to give offence, as that to which we have referred, did they not possess what they consider scriptural warrant for it. Mark you, we prefer no charge of schism against them ; for, while they separate from us, and exclude us from their fellowship, we believe them to act conscientiously, and often at a considerable sacrifice of personal feeling, in so doing. In spirit, many of them are o^n-communionists, but from what we cannot help think- ing a sad misapprehension of duty, they erect a new " middle wall of partition," between themselves and all others, quite as high as that formerly existing between the Jew and the Gentile, which Christ broke down to make all his people "one." They are just as clear and decided whom to eat with, as Peter was what to eat ; any one unim- mersed being, in their view, undoubtedly " unclean." The process by which they arrive at this conclusion may be thus stated : — Baptism, which can be performed by im- mersion only, was made by the inspired Apostles, a uniform and indispensable pre-requisite to church fellow- ship ; and hence to receive the unbaptized to communion, would be an alteration of the basis upon which the Chris- tian church has been organised. Or, put into strictly logical form, it would read thus ; — The New Testament requires us to exclude all unbaptized persons from the Lord's table ; Piedo-baptists are unbaptized ; therefore the New Testament requires us to exclude them from the Lord's table. The conclusion is legitimate enough, supposing the premises to be correct, but to both the latter we demur as assumed, and not established, and shall now proceed to assign our reasons for doing so. 1. The first point assumed is, that the New Testament requires us to exclude all unbaptized persons from the Lord's table. We ask, where does it require us to do so ? Where ? We might, were we disposed to "strive for masteries," rather than for truth, adopt our Baptist brethren's own principle, and demand of them explicit command to exclude the unbaptized, just as they demand of us explicit com- 88 inand to baptize infants. The retort would be perfectly fair, for the cases are exactly analogous. But we will be satisfied with a reasonable amount of evidence that in thus excluding them, they are fulfilling the Lord's will, in what- ever manner he may have chosen to reveal it. Can our strict brethren, then, produce any example or precedent from the New Testament, in support of their practice ? Any instance of some gifted minister, " whose praise was in all the churches," edifying the brethren by his preaching, and then being requested to withdraw from the communion which followed it ? Or even of some humble Christian being similarly dealt with for the same reason? Not one ! nor anything like it! nor any occurrence from which they might infer, even, that such a course would have been pur- sued had such a case arisen ! Upon what then does the argument for strict-communion rest? The reply is, the great commission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, &c." Mark xvi. 15, 16. The Apostles acted, we are told, in accordance with these instructions, in planting the early churches, uniformly making baptism a pre-requisite of Christian fel- lowship. Now, we not only admit this, but strenuously contend that they did so. We hold, as firmly as any one, to the perpetual obligation of baptism, as the initiatory right of the Christian church, and have never known of an instance in which any one was admitted to communion in a Paedo-baptist church without having received it, either in infancy or adult age. The statement made in the reply to my first Lecture, that a lady, now connected with this church, had been a member of the "Wesleyan Methodist church for a number of years without having been baptized, was not correct, and a charge of that nature against our brethren of that denomination we feel it to be simply justice to deny. The lady referred to never was a member of that or any other church, until received into our communion by baptism. We repeat, therefore, that we know of no body of Protestants, but Quakers, that does not make it a rule to receive only baptized persons into fellowship. But does it follow that because such is the rule, there can be no exception to it ? In the days of the Apostles there could have been no such dispute as now exists, in relation to the mode and subjects of baptism. Acting under divine direction the brethren were all of one mind, and hence any resistance to the inspired rule would have proved a total unfitness for Christian fellowship, in the party offering it. 89 No wonder if one so disobedient and contentious had been rejected, as manifesting the very opposite of the spirit ex- pected in a renewed man. But would such a case have been at all analogous to that of Pcedo-baptists in the pre- sent day, even if they are unbaptized? Do our Baptist brethren themselves think our refusal to be immersed, evidence that we are not the subjects of divine grace ? If they do, why invite us to preach for them, and otherwise cooperate with them in various Christian efforts ? If they do not, why deal with us as the Apostles dealt with the blaspheming " Hymeneus and Alexander," utterly devoid of saving grace ? To us, then, the mere absence of any case in the records of the New Testament churches, in which any one unbaptized gained admission to the fellowship of the saints, appears far too narrow a basis upon which to erect so grave a principle as that we are discussing ; and this will become still more manifest by attention to the following considerations : — (a) The New Testament affords indubitable evidence that the only condition of membership in the primitive churches, was the possession of Christian character. While none were received who did not confess Christ, none were rejected who did confess him. Here, again, our Baptist brethren and we are agreed. Both contend, that the churches, acting under the direction of the Apostles, re- quired evidence of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the renewal of the heart by the Holy Spirit, before they admitted any one to their communion ; and both contend, further, that the practice of the primitive churches, in this particular, is binding on us in the present day. The great question for every soul is, " Dost thou believe on the Son of God 1" What question is there that can rival it in im- portance ? Put it side by side with any other, and see how every other is eclipsed by it ! Place yourselves in imagina- tion upon your dying bed, and while some one offers to baptize you, let the Saviour stand beside you with the offer of salvation, and to which would you attend? Oh how your anxious eye would turn to Him who loved you, and gave Himself for you ! Baptism ! what is that to faith ? Truly, but as the small dust of the balance in the sight of God. Not that we would for a moment underrate its value, for everything is of importance that God enjoins. But yet, comparing the two, which, think you, was likely to be made the term of admission ? I appeal to the judgments, and Christian feelings of God's people present, for an answer. 90 The writings of the New Testament generally, bear me out in this position. Among those who have " put on Christ," — i. e., dedicated themselves to him — the Apostle says, " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii. 28. Again he says, " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." Gal. v. 6. Again, " Ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him ; where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor un- circumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all." Col. iii. 10, 11. And once more, " God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; and as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Gal. vi. 14-16. Furthermore, the parties to whom the Apostolic Epistles were written, were addressed as believers, — saints, — holy and beloved, — their renewed nature, and not their baptism, being recognized as their chief distinction. They are com- manded to receive one another in the faith, and not to doubtful disputation, the grand motive presented being that God had received them. Their essential unity is spoken of as consisting in their having been all baptized, not in one mode, as our Baptist brethren seem to understand it, but " by one Spirit, into one body,"— the body of Christ. 1 Cor. sii. 13. Indeed, we hardly know where to begin or where to end in adducing quotations in support of this point. There can be nothing more clear, one would think, than that evidence of faith in Christ was made by the Apostles the sole condition of church membership ; baptism is never once hinted at in such a connection. And that, we main- tain, should be the only term of communion among christians now. What should any church want more ? Who shall call them unclean whom " God hath cleansed?" (5) The Lord's Supper was instituted, and observed, before the institution of Christian Baptism ; hence those who first partook of it, must have done so unbaptized. When, let me ask, did Christian baptism originate? Clearly not until after the death of Christ, while the Supper was instituted before it. Our close-communion brethren themselves tacitly admit this, in laying the 91 foundation of their argument in the great commission al ready referred to, that not having been given till forty days after the resurrection. The simplest way of settling this point is by enquiring when Christianity originated, for Christian baptism before the establishment of the Christian religion, is hardly less than absurd. It certainly originated neither with the birth of Christ, nor with the ministry of Christ, for during his whole life-time he carefully observed the feasts of the Jews, and the requirements of the Mosaic law. It must, there- fore, have originated with the death of Christ, the great Sacrifice for sin, when the veil of the temple was rent in twain, emblematic of the opening of the " new and living way." All, we believe, are agreed that that moment closed the Old Testament dispensation, and began that of the New. No baptism, therefore, could be Christian baptism before that period. Neither that administered by John the Bap- tist, nor even that administered by the disciples of Christ, under His inspection, can have been so regarded, from the circumstance named ; for to say nothing of several import- ant points of difference between these baptisms and those subsequently recorded, the re-baptism of some of John's disciples, mentioned in Acts xix. 1-7, sets the matter at rest. The fact, moreover, that Peter, when preaching to the thousands present at Pentecost, many of whom must have been among the multitudes baptized by John three or four years before, recognized no distinction among them on that account, but commanded them to " repent and be baptized, every one of them, in the name of the Lord Jesus," places the point beyond dispute. How could John have administered Christian baptism, when he distinctly tells us (John i. 33) that he did not know Jesus to be the Christ until he saw the Spirit descending upon Him at the moment of His baptism ? Nothing, then, can be clearer than that the Lord him- self, the Master of the feast, administered its sacred em- blems with his own hands to unbaptized disciples. (c) Not only had the Apostles never received Christian baptism when the Lord's supper was first instituted, but there is no evidence of their ever having received it. "When, or by whom, were'they baptized? The only act re- corded at all resembling baptism, is the washing of their feet just before the institution of the Supper. If that be accepted as baptism, it certainly was not performed by im- mersion, for our Lord says, "He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." But if 92 that be not acknowledged, as we know it is not, where else do we read of their baptism ? Now if immersion was in- tended to be a term of communion in the Christian church, is it at all likely that so singular and important an omission should have occurred, either as to the fact, or as to the record of it ? Our strict brethren may be very much shocked at it, but we avow it as our deliberate opinion that the Apostles never received any other baptism than that of the " cloven tongues, like as of fire " — an opinion by no means peculiar to ourselves. Should any object, that as none were ever permitted to partake of the Passover without having first been circum- cised, no one has any right to sit at the Lord's table without having first been baptized, we beg them to beware how they institute such a comparison, lest by admitting the existence of the analogy, they should concede a point we endea- voured to establish in our last Lecture — that baptism has taken the place of circumcision ; in which case it would be difficult for them to maintain their ground against Infant baptism. But supposing them thus to jeopardize their argument against Infant baptism, for the sake of an argu- ment in favour of close-communion, what force is there in it ? " Circumcision is expressly stated as a necessary condi- tion of admission to the Passover ; a similar statement res- pecting baptism will decide the controversy. The neglect of circumcision, which could proceed from nothing but presumptuous impiety, incurred the sentence of excision — ' that soul shall be cut off from his people/ "* Hence the cases are totally dissimilar, there being neither the express condition that baptism shall in every instance precede ad- mission to the Supper, nor the manifest impiety on the part of the unbaptized, that formed the ground c f excision in the case of the uncircumcised. We have thus, we think, fairly overthrown the first of the propositions upon which the argument for close-communion is based, viz., that the New Testament requires us to ex- clude all unbaptized persons from the Lord's table, by showing that evidence of faith in Christ, and not baptism, was the only term of communion among primitive Chris- tians ; that the Supper having been instituted before Chris- tian baptism, those to whom it was first administered must have received it, being yet unbaptized ; and that, so far is baptism from being indispensable to communion, there is no evidence of the Apostles themselves ever having been baptized at all. * Hall, on Terms of Communion. 93 The overthrow of one of their premises invalidates the conclusion at which the advocates of strict communion have arrived ; but we will now look at the other and see if it be any more tenable than its fellow. It is affirmed, 2. That Pcedo-baptists — or more strictly speaking, those who have not been immersed — are unbaptized. This proposition assumes, of course, that we have not the shadow of a reason for believing that baptism is properly administered by aiFusion or sprinkling, totally ignoring the fact that nine-tenths of the Christian world, and an equal proportion of the learned among them, have deliberately reached that conclusion. The assertion lying at the very foundation of this premise, that baptizo always signifies to dip, we have already shown to be totally incapable of proof. It may serve an end to assign to it now a literal me.ming, and now a figurative, just as it may suit the purpose of the party translating it; but the end is surely victory, and not truth, that is sought by such means. To dash past every crooked sentence that will not be squared and straightened by Baptist rule and compass, as figurative, may be very skilful in argument, but is much less valiant for truth. The wetting of Nebuchadnezzar with the dews of heaven — the drenching of a man with wine — and the pouring down of the influences of the Spirit, were nob figurative but literal baptisms. Until our Baptist brethren can prove that in none of these instances did anything actually descend, they fail to prove them figurative. To take such liberties with language would utterly destroy its meaning. Let a Unita- arian read the first verse of St. John's Gospel with such an example before him, and what will he make of it ? " In the beginning," that is, at a very remote period, the time of the creation of Adam, or earlier — "was the Word," a figur- ative expression for God's attribute of wisdom — " and the Word was God," that is, either the divine attribute spoken of, or a god, an inferior deity, a creature of exalted rank. This is precisely the manner in which Unitarians do treat that passage and a thousand others. This one they inter- pret literally, and that one figuratively, just because it suits their purpose to do so. We are sorry to see our Baptist brethren copying so unsafe an example. To us it appears not a little like presumption in our oppon- ents,withsuch a weight of opinion and evidence against their theory, to take to themselves the exclusive title of Baptists, and tell all the rest of the world that they are unbaptized, because they are unimmersed. Who are to settle the point — the o«e-tenth, or the Jime-tenths ? If Baptists refuse to 94 bow to the opinion of the majority, we certainly have much more reason to demur to that of a small minority, especially when their theory is encompassed by so many difficulties that to us, at least, appear insurmountable. We can assure our friends that they will have to compassionate the case of their unimmersed brethren for some time longer yet, unless they can do more to convince them than evade the literal meaning of hard sentences, and quote the admissions of Ptedo-baptist authors, who conscientiously continued, never- theless, the practice of infant baptism and affusion. Strange that their admissions, so eagerly caught at, had so little weight with themselves ! But why, if immersion alone was to be recognized as baptism, was not the matter placed forever beyond dispute by the use of a word to which " all the lexicographers and commentators" could have assigned but one meaning? There is conscientious difference of opinion about baplizo, the sad consequence of which is, if Baptists are right, that nine-tenths of the Protestant world are unbaptized, and multitudes of real Christians are excluded from the only Scriptural communion. About Buthizo, Duno, Dupto, Ka- taduno, Pontizo, and some other Greek verbs, there could have been no dispute. Each of these expresses, unques- tionably, a total submersion, in every instance ; and we cannot doubt but some such word would have been employed to designate the act of Christian baptism, had it been intended to confine it to that one mode only. No such objection lies against the practice of sprinkling or affusion, since we do not regard it as necessary in order to the validity of a baptism that it be administered in either of these modes ; but for the success of immersion, the choice of such a word was essential. The argument against our mode of baptism fails, there- fore, in two important particulars — the absence alike , of any statement in the New Testament that would clearly invalidate it ; and of any evidence that the word by which the ordinance is designated of necessity expresses the act'of immersion. Hence our Baptist brethren fail to substantiate their second proposition, that Psedo-baptists are unbaptized ; and, in our judgment, the whole argument for close-com- munion falls to the ground. But we must briefly notice, III. The objections to which the practice of strict-com- munion is liable. We regard it, 1. As a direct violation of the law of Christ concerning our treatment of those who conscientiously differ from us 95 on the non-essentials of the Gospel. By non-essentials we mean, of course, those doctrines or practices, the reception or rejection of which does not affect our salvation, of which baptism is acknowledged to be one. Concerning these points differences of opinion have existed in almost every age of the church, not excepting the Apostolic ; as for instance in relation to the observance of circumcision, the keeping of certain days, the eating of herbs, and of meats offered to idols, and afterwards sold in the markets by the priests of the idol temples, &c. Foreseeing these differences, the Lord, rather than lay down specific rules for every con- ceivable case, has seeh fit to provide us with one general principle to regulate our intercourse with brethren who differ from us. It may be found in several of the Epistles, but it is stated most fully in Rom., 14th chapter ; 15th chapter, 1-7 vs.; and 1 Cor., 8th chapter. We commend the whole of these passages to your prayerful attention ; the following verses, however, will be found especially in point: — " Him that is weak (i. e., doubtful as to any minor point of doctrine) in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? to his own master he standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall be holden up ; for God is able to make him to stand. One man esteemeth one day above another ; another man esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Rom. xiv. 1-5. Close-communion, with such plain intimations of Christ's will, standing on the pages of the New Testament, is to us nothing less than an unaccountable anomaly. It is no reply to these quotations to tell us that baptism is not mentioned among the things which were to be made matters of forbearance, and that the neglect of baptism is a much more serious affair, than the eating of meat that had been offered to an idol ; for according to the testimony of our opponents themselves, baptism is nothing more than a non-essential, and all such points are plainly comprehended by the principle laid down. Besides, how have our bre- thren been led to the conclusion that baptism is of such superior importance ? Do they not think so, just because they have long been accustomed to making it a term of communion ? We presume to think otherwise, and for this reason : the eating of meats that had been offered in sacri- 96 fice to idols was looked upon by some as an impious par- ticipation in heathen idolatry, and is our sin in the neglect of immersion equal in enormity to that ? " Sitting at meat in the idol's temple," (1 Cor. viii. 10) actually imperilled the souls of some for whom Christ died, but does our refusal to be immersed endanger any soul ? We leave you to judge, therefore, whether baptism is a matter of such vastly supe- rior importance as not to come within the range of the principle referred to. But now, mark the reason why they were commanded to receive one another as brethren, notwithstanding these diversities of opinion upon minor points. " Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received Jiim," v. 3. The argument is clear: no matter how much a brother may differ from you in such matters, if God has received him ; or, in other words, if there be evidence that he is a Christian, you must receive him, "What God hath cleansed that call not thou common." The question then, resolves itself into this form, has God received that weak and erring Paedo-baptist brother that wishes to sit down at that close-communion table ? If there be evidence that He has received him, the command of the Apostle, nay of the Church's Head, is " receive ye him ; judge him not, to his own master he standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him to stand." He that is an heir of glory, may surely be a par- taker with us in the means of grace. Andrew Fuller, though a strict-comm unionist in practice, says he never had ventured to oppose open'communion when placed upon that ground. Nor is it any reply to what has been advanced upon this subject, to tell us that we will not receive any one to the Lord's table unbaptized, and that the only difference be- tween Baptists and Pasdo-baptists on this question is as to what constitutes baptism ; for while that is the ride, and a very just one, we can easily conceive of exceptions to it. For example, Quakers, — among whom there are many of the excellent of the earth, — deny the perpetuity of the ob- ligation of Baptism, and the Lord's supper ; but were one of the members of that Society, giving evidence of piety, to come to me as an applicant for fellowship, toithout baptism, could I refuse him ? I dare not, with such a law of Christ before me. I should probably endeavour to convince him of his error, but even were I to fail, I should still feel bound to receive him. We admit that his conscientiousness alone would not be sufficient reason for entertaining his applica- 97 tion, tut if our Baptist brethren cannot discern any dif- ference between the conscience of such a man as Saul the persecutor, who " verily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," and the conscience of an humble believer, we can. The argument therefore, — ad Jtominem, as was supposed, — that Baptists are really no closer in their terms of communion than Con- gregationalists, utterly fails. Under certain circumstances we would receive a conscientious christian to the Lord's table, unbaptized; and we should be rejoiced to see our brethren do the same, and thus substantiate their assertion, that they are as open as we are. 2. "We regard the practice of strict communion as having a tendency to alienate the affections of the people of God from each other. How can we feel as cordial with our Baptist brethren as we otherwise should do, while they con- tinue to exclude us from participation with them in that observance in which above all others the unity of God's people is symbolized ? "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread." 1 Cor. 10, 16, 17. What does their fellowship amount to if this is withheld ? My brother will speak brotherly words to me out of doors, but if I should sit down with him althe family meal, he would rise, and utterly refuse to eat, unless I am excluded. Entire cordiality under these circumstances is next to impossible, especially since we regard such a course as totally at variance with the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus prayed that all his people might be one, that the world might believe that God had sent him, but the prac- tice alluded to appears, to us at least, to have quite an op- posite tendency. The influence exerted by it on the members of the Bap-- tist body themselves is anything but salutary. Others, ■besides the present speaker, can see some of its sad results in the general exclusiveness of those who adhere to it, and the excessive touchiness they betray whenever any one pre- sumes to differ from them in opinion. But as I do not wish to increase the offence I have given by my plainness of speech, I forbear to say more on this point. We object to the practice, 3. As tending to sow discord among brethren. It has done so among Baptists themselves. Open-communion- ists, though quite as strenuous as their stricter brethren E 98 in their opposition to any other baptism than immersion on profession of faith, are ostracised and disowned by Regular Baptists, for believing, as we do, that Chris- tian character, and not baptism, should be made the only term of communion. It is tiue that they are only a small minority on this continent, but we are gratified to learn that in England the two bodies are much more nearly equal in number, and that far less prominence is given to the whole subject of baptism there, than is common in this country. A lady of my acquaintance, who regularly at- tended a Baptist chapel in England for six years, does not remember having once heard the subject presented, during the whole of that time, except in a few brief remarks pre- paratoi-y to administering the ordinance. I may state also, that while on a visit to that country, five years ago, I had the privilege on one occasion, of communing with the Bap- tist church under the care of the Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel who is an open-corn munionist. John Bunyan, and Robert Hall, — two of the most celebrated names that have ever been connected with the Baptist body, — were both of them of the same school. And it is an interesting fact, that Bun- yan's church, in the town of Bedford, still nourishes, with a membership of between three and four hundred persons. A recent visitor reports that baptism is performed by im- mersion, or sprinkling, as the candidate may desire, and that those who wish it can have their children baptized. It is clearly not necessary, therefore, that one should be an advocate for strict-communion because he is a Baptist, since the most determined opponents of the practice are ound among Baptists themselves. LECTU11E VI. REVIEW OF REV. T. L DAVIDSON .* According to announcement I purpose now to review a few of the more prominent points in the Lectures which have been delivered in the Baptist Chapel in reply to my own. The remarks I have to offer will necessarily be of an exceedingly desultory character, since the points requiring notice cover the entire ground which has been gone over ; and therefore, to maintain anything like connection will be altogether out of my power. All that can be done will be rapidly to glance at them in the order in which they were discussed, and dismiss them. Some few statements have already been replied to in the previous lectures, when they have fallen into my path ; for I beg to say instead of their having been prepared for months before-hand, as my reviewer has twice stated, they have been written from week to week, just as his own have been. The review of my I. Lecture, was chiefly occupied in a stout denial of the se- veral "railing accusations," as the Lecturer was pleased to term them, which I had brought against the denomination to which he belongs, his texts or mottoes. Acts xxviii. 22 : 1 Peter iii. 9 ; iv. 14-16, — being chosen to fix upon the pre- sent speaker the odium of employing language in relation to them, which Michael the arch-angel would not use " when contending with the devil." — which was one of his illustra- tions. (Jude, ver. 9.) I could not help thinking that some of his texts were singularly inappropriate ; for whether * The foregoing Lectures, which were delivered on Monday evenings, were reviewed by Mr. D. on successive Friday even- ings. The writer, however, anxious to avoid anything like debate, refrained, as much as possible, from any allusion to his reviewer during the delivery of his own course, but thought it needful to reply to him in an additional Lecture. When first requested to publish, he had thought of incorporating his reply with the previous Lectures ; but as the committee to whom their publication was entrusted, expressed a wish that they should appear substantially in the form in -which they were de- livered, he has waived his own judgment in the matter. 100 my lecture was of the stamp alluded to, or not, I certainly did not reproach my Baptist brethren "for the name of Christ," but for things which I thought dishonoured that name. My first remark was, that they attach undue im- portance to the whole question of Baptism. I did not charge them with making immersion a saving ordinance ; on the contrary, I distinctly disavowed such an opinion. What I did say was that expressions are often used, and means employed to induce young christians, and even others, to be immersed, which are calculated to produce such an impression on . the popular mind ; but was that reproaching them for the name of Christ ? My second was, that they often employ mere assertion instead of argument, and charge their Paedo-baptist brethren with ignorance, prejudice, and a want of conscientiousness when they presume to differ from them ; — was that " per- secuting them for righteousness sake ?" My third remark regarded their disposition to ridicule our mode of administering the ordinance of baptism ; and if I did indulge in what might be thought a similar dispo- sition, on one occasion, it was only to show them that im- mersion was quite as open to ridicule, as " baby-baptism." And now that they know how it feels, to have their own conscientious convictions trifled with, I hope they will henceforth be more careful of any conscientious convictions their neighbours may entertain upon the subject, and not trifle with theirs. My last remark was, that great injury is often done to the cause of truth, in the discussion of this subject, by rais- ing false issues — obtaining a show of victory, by demon- strating some point which no one ever thinks of disputing, while the question itself is totally lost sight of. Was that reproaching them " for the name of Christ?" Whatever my sin has been, therefore, it certainly has not that complexion ; nor do I think I have been guilty of roiling at all. In what does railing consist? Did Paul rail on Peter when he " withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed?" Or did he not rather exhibit a commendable example of brotherly faithfulness and regard ? Now while I lay no claim to the high and noble feeling evinced on that occasion, I can say that I referred to these things because I thought our Baptist brethren were to be blamed for them. I needed not to be reminded of the Judgment seat, or of my accountability to God for my course. I was aware of that, and acted in view of it all. "Nothing would have induced rne to say what I did, but a 101 deep sense of the evils I endeavoured to point out. If my spirit was unkind or uncharitable I was not conscious of it, and if my statements were incorrect I am certainly innocent of wilfully bearing " false witness against my neighbour." Does my Reviewer seriously mean to tell us that my charges were groundless ? — that Baptists never ri- dicule the conscientious convictions of their Pajdo-baptist brethren? — that our arguments . are always dealt with fairly ? I appeal to the christian public all over the Pro- vince for an answer. But if the charges be well-founded, where is the railing ? I am aware that my statements were denied by whole- sale ; to have disproved them would have been much better, though far more difficult ; but if correct, to have confessed and bewailed the fact, would have been best of all. I may be permitted to hope, however that the things referred to will be forsaken, even though unconfessed. Two other points only, in this lecture, require any atten- tion. Whether the tradition that Paul was tricubitarus, or only three cubits — about four feet six inches — in height, was men- tioned in jest, as I think it must have been, or in earnest, it was certainly no reply to the remark which it was intended to meet — that Baptists attach much more importance to mere baptism than Paul did. If in jest, it was trifling with a serious subject: if in earnest, it has suggested an addi- tional reason for regarding immersion as impracticable in some circumstances. In reply to the statement that baptism received altoge- ther too great prominence among the themes of the Baptist Pulpit, we were told that during the last ten months only five sermons had been preached, — only Jive — in the Baptist chapel, in defence of immersion, while ten sermons had been preached by Peedo-baptist ministers in defence of their own views, during the same period of time. Now there are six Protestant Pasdo-baptist churches in the town, so that had each of their ministers preached on the subject as frequently as their Baptist brother, the number would have been thirty, instead of ten. But besides this, the numbers given, even supposing them to be correct for the period re- ferred to, do not by any means exhibit the usual state of the case on either side. They bear no proportion what- ever to the fact in the long run. The reason why so many discourses have been recently preached on the subject by Psedo-baptist ministers is to be sought in the exuberant zeal of our Baptist brethren themselves, and the nothing 102 less than outrageous things they have lately said about other bodies and their views. On the other hand, in con- sequence of my request that all controversy should be avoided during the progress of the revival, no sermons at all were preached on the subject in the Baptist chapel, during several months of the time ; who knows how many would have been preached had I not requested silence? The comparison therefore, should have been made to cover a period of several years, and then a very different result would have been obtained. The commencement of the II. Lecture, in review of mine, was largely occupied with a laboured attempt to overthrow my argument for baptism by affusion, derived from the mode of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, exception being taken to it for two reasons particularly. First, I was charged with assuming that the pouring out of the Spirit, and the baptism of the Spirit were different phrases for the same thing, and was asked for proof. I plead guilty, for indeed I had not supposed proof of a point so clearly established could be needed ; but since it is called for, you will find it in Acts xi. 15, 16. "And as I began to speak," says Peter, " the Holy Ghost/eZZ on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The de- scent of the fiery emblem of the Spirit's influence, else- where spoken of as "poured out" upon the disciples, re- minded the Apostle of the promise of the Saviour, and was regarded by him as the fulfilment of it. If that be not the obvious meaning of the passage, surely language cannot be depended upon. But if baptizo be applied to the pouring out of the Spirit, or his influence, why may it not to the pouring out of water ? My reviewer next directed his heaviest artillery against the supposition that the baptism of fire, promised Matt. iii. 11, was fulfilled by the descent of " cloven tongues, like as of fire," which sat upon each of the disciples at Pentecost. He might have spared his strength, however, for much more serious work, for while I did, and still do think that to be the most natural interpretation of the promise of any that I have met with, my argument does not depend for a moment upon the correctness of that view. Whatever may have been the nature of the baptism — whether of the Spirit, of his influences, or of fire — it was performed by affusion; 103 tlicd was the ground upon which my argument was based, and that ground, as it seems to me, remains unshaken. The room was not first filled with the influence, as a bap- tistery is filled with water for an immersion, as we were told ; nor were the disciples dipped into the influence. They were all in the room token it descended, and it fell upon them — circumstances, to neither of which is there any parallel in immersion. If, therefore, our Baptist brethren would copy this mode, they must put their candidates into an empty baptistery, and then pour water upon them in any quantity they deem sufficient. No ingenuity can ever make anything else of it. My remarks concerning the new version of the Bible were next assailed, an attempt being made to show that the American Bible Union is not in any sense a Baptist organi- zation. We are aware that it is often spoken of as unsec- tarian by those who support it, but it is not a little singular that they fail to so large an extent to induce the world to believe them. The fact that one of the translators is a Congregational minister by no means proves it to be so. Had that gentleman been chosen by the Congregational body, as their representative at the board of revision, it would have been proof that they countenanced the move- ment ; but he was not. He was selected by the executive committee ; is paid by them for his services ; and is, per- haps, set to work upon some portion of the inspired Volume, in the translation of which his Pasdo-baptist sentiments can scarcely leak out; so that all his appointment can prove is, the fact that they stood in need of a Congregational trans- lator ! Several facts, however, will set before you my grounds for believing the Society to be chiefly, if not solely, a Baptist organization. 1. Every member of the executive board is connected with some one or other of the denominations practising immersion. 2. The translation of two-thirds of the Bible is committed into the hands of one man, and he a Baptist. 3. The disputed word baplizo is, in the new version, in every instance rendered immerse. And, 4. The Society derives its support almost exclusively from Baptist churches. Its agents look first to them in all cases, and although here and there one is found to discoun- tenance the movement, the majority of them espouse it. Any of you who may wish to see these statements sub- stantiated, will find them given in the New York Observer, of July 17, and August 14, 185G. 104 The fact therefore remains, that our Baptist brethren are specially anxious to secure the completion of this new ver- sion ; the explanation of it I leave to yourselves. I was next represented to have quoted Mai. iii. 2, 3, — "he is like a refiner's fire," &c, — and several other pas- sages, as referring to baptism, which, I need not say, was not the case. They were adduced simply to show that as fire is a purifying element, as well as water, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of fire, were expressive, not of purification, and of judgment, respectively, but of the same truth; and hence, that both clauses of the promise were fulfilled in the descent of the divinely-chosen emblem. How any other construction could have been put upon my language, I am at a loss to understand. Either my reviewer, or his staff of reporters, must have been very dull of hearing at the time. The only other point in this lecture that I have time to notice is the adroit manner in which my remarks upon Rom vi. 4, were avoided. It will be remembered that I went somewhat at length into the discussion of its meaning, and that, for a number of reasons which I need not reiterate, I did not regard it as containing any allusion whatever to the mode of baptism. Such is still my conviction. Now, I had a right to expect that in a review of my lectures, some notice would have been taken of my objec- tions to the Baptist view of this passage, especially as my remarks upon it occupied one-third of my lecture. But a shorter, and much more convenient method of disposing of them was adopted. Half-a-dozen Psedo-baptist com- mentators are named, who think there may be some allusion to immersion in the figure. Wonderful ! What authori- ties Barnes and Doddridge become when they suit my Re- viewer's purpose. On Romans vi. 4, Barnes is almost an infallible, but on the meaning of bapiizo in Matt. iii. 11, or 1 Cor. x. 2, he has lost his inspiration, and falls again to the level of ordinary, erring, Psedo-baptist mortals ! Now it may look like a death-blow to my explanation of the passage to announce that six Psedo-baptist commenta- tors have taken a different view of it, and ask whether the opinion ot the Congregational minister of Brantford, or that of the aforesaid six be the more reliable? But is that argument, or evasion ? My Reviewer did not tell his audi- ence how many Psedo-baptist commentators might be named who think the passage does not contain any allusion to im- mersion, or that several of those named, even, speak of it as only probable. Barnes, for instance, upon whose opinion 105 so much stress was laid, says the existence of such an al- lusion " cannot indeed be proved, so as to be liable to no objection." Were I disposed to retaliate, therefore, I might ask whether the opinion of the Baptist minister of Brant- ford, or that of a host of Panlo-baptist commentators, be the more reliable ? The truth is, this constant parading of strange and un- pronouncable names by the advocates of immersion — Crip- tolius and Olearius, Guerike and Bretschneider, Rheinwald and Koppe, Schleiermacher and Hagenbach, Stourdza and Scholz, Hahn and Kaiser, &e.,* — ill accords witn their oft- repeated assertion that they make their appeal to the Bible alone, eschewing the traditions of the elders, and calling no man master. "Would that it were so ! One might then hope for argument, instead of a continual re-hash of musty quotations, usque ad nauseam, on the subject. I claim, therefore, in the absence of any other reply, that my argument in relation to Rom. vi. 4, remains un- answered. In the review of my III. Lecture, there were several palpable misrepresenta- tions of my meaning. After a vain attempt to explain away Dr. Carson's admission that he stood alone, or nearly so, in assigning only one meaning to baptizo ; and an amusing allusion to my temerity in " gouging out a dead lion's eye, and playing with his paw," my Reviewer rep- resented me as having assigned jorty-two meanings to the word in question, which I need not say was incorrect. I did not presume to offer any opinion of my own upon it at all, but simply adverted to the fact that the ablest Greek Lexicographers had given it from five to eight meanings, and that one author had shown it to have been rendered iuto English by no less than forty-two different words, of which I mentioned twenty. These words do not necessari- ly represent so many different significations, since many of them are nearly synonimous ; as for instance, to overwhelm, overflow, rush upon, all of which express substantially the same mode of baptism. As well, therefore, might we argue that Baptists admit it to have jive different significations, because they affirm that it means to immerse, dip, plunge, submerge and droivn, although we know them to insist upon its having but one. But now, mark the use to which my Reviewer put his * " Baptist sentiments confirmed by the testimony of the most learned Predo-baptists." Rev. R. A. Fyfe, Toronto. e2 106 mistake. Selecting some of the most unusual of the terms by which baptizo has been rendered, he proceeded to apply them to a number of passages in the New Testament in which the word occurs, as follows — the audience being meanwhile convulsed with laughter at the joke — " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, daubing them in the name of the Father," &c. ; ''John did soak in the wilderness, and preach the soaking of repentance," &c. ; " Ye shall be painted with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; " " I smeared the household of Stephanas ; besides, I know not whether I oiled any other," &c, &c. I grieve to have to repeat the profanity. It may, however, have been regarded by some of his audience as a fair reply to my application of dip to some other passages of the New Testament, on the Monday evening previous. If it was, a very few words will suffice to point out the difference in the two cases. Dr. Carson says that the only meaning of baptizo is, to dip. Very well ; if it be, it was certainly fair to render it, in any instance of its occurrence in the New Testament, by that word. That was all I did. But have I ever said that daub, or smear, or soak, is the only meaning of baptizo, or that it ever possesses either of these significations in the New Testa- ment? Had I said so. the reply we are considering would have been logical enough, though even then, sadly deficient in the respect that is due to the Word of God. But was it fair, because the word in question has been translated by over forty different English terms — a fact my reviewer did not pretend to dispute — to select just such of them as he chose, and apply them to just such passages as he chose? Surely not, and a moment's reflection upon it must convince him that it was both illogical and irreverent to do so. My quotations in illustration of the meaning of baptizo and bapto were next despatched in a very summary manner, the lecturer reserving to himself apparently the right of deciding that this one was literal, and that one figurative, just as he saw proper ; but as most of the objections usually urged against them were anticipated, and met at the time they were adduced, I need say but little more concerning them. You are all of you quite as capable of deciding whether the expressions they contain are literal or figurative, as either my reviewer or myself, and to your judgment, therefore, I commend them. The baptism — ritual purifi- cation — of tables or couches, spoken of in Mark vii. 4, was boldly claimed to have been performed by a total immersion, notwithstanding their cumbrous form and size, and the frequency with which they were liable to defilement. 107 An attempt was next made to subvert my argument from the meaning of the verb amad — always used in the Syriac version of the New Testament to express the sense of baptizo — by the statement that Buxtorf, in his Syriac Lexicon, assigns to that verb no such signification as the one I said originally belonged to it — to stand. Now the truth is, the word in question was not originally a Syriac, but a Hebrew word, with the sole signification that I claimed for it, as a reference to any Hebrew Lexicon will show. Yet the Syriac translators of the New Testament passed by several words already belonging to the language, having the undoubted meaning to immerse, or dip, and adopted in preference this Hebrew term, with the equally undoubted meaning to stand, to express the act of Christian baptism ! A strange selection, indeed, if the act was originally per- formed by immersion only ! That this word did not wholly lose its primary meaning on its adoption into the Syriac language, is evident from the fact that one of its derivatives — amuda — is twice used in the New Testament, (Gal. ii. 9 ; Rev. x. 1,) as the exact equivalent of the Hebrew ammudim, pillars, the inherent idea being that of standing. All this is perfectly consistent with the fact that Buxtorf renders the word to baptize, icasli, &c. That unquestion- ably became its meaning after its adoption by early Chris- tian writers ; but my argument is founded upon its original signification ; and I ask again, why. if baptism was then performed by immersion only, was it designated by a word of a totally opposite meaning? The argument from the meaning of deipnon, — the word employed to designate the Lord's Supper, — was similarly evaded. I claimed that as deipnon properly signifies a full meal, and yet is applied by the inspired writers to eating a morsel of bread, and drinking a sip of wine, baptizo, even could it be shown to mean nothing less than immer- sion in the Classics, might, in like manner, have a narrower signification when applied by the same writers to the as- sociated ordinance of baptism. The reply to this was, that deipnon is found but once in the New Testament, and then not in the command to observe the Supper. I cannot say whether my Reviewer meant that the word occurred in only one instance in the New Testament, or "whether it is employed only once to designate the ordinance of the Lord's supper. If the former, he was incorrect, for a reference to Bagster's Greek Concordance will show that it occurs six- teen times in the New Testament ; if the latter, the objec- 108 tlon is utterly valueless, for one such application of it by an inspired Apostle, whether in the form of simple allusion to the ordinance, or in that of a command to observe it, establishes its use in that sense as well as a hundred could do. It were a strange principle of interpretation truiv, to deny the authority of every statement in the word of God, however plainly made, that stands alone I Is there not, therefore, just as much reason to think eating a full meal at the Lord's table essential to a true participation in the ordinance of the Supper, as there is to regard immersion essential to a true baptism ? But, we are told, the Greek Church immerses, and ought not Greeks to know the meaning of baptizo — a Greek verb ? Let us see: — the Greek Church is the apostate rival of Rome, deplorably ignorant and corrupt, and in some re- spects worse than the Papal church itself. It is the estab- lished church of Russia, with large numbers of adherents in the Turkish Empire. Then we are to go to ignorant Russians and Turks for the meaning of bapiizo, or the proper mode of baptism ! Upon what other point in Chris- tian doctrine or practice, let me ask, would our Baptist brethren be willing to make such an appeal ? Is there one ? No, not one ; not even upon the kindred question of infant baptism, for the Greek church, admirable authority as it is with them upon the mode of baptism, immerses infants! Upon that point, in common with all others except that of the mode of baptism, they would regard it as having so utterly forsaken " the foundation of the apostles and pro- phets " as to be totally unworthy of credence or respect. The objection assumes, however, that the adherents of the Greek church speak the Greek language, than which nothing can be a greater mistake. To the immense major- ity of them that language would be as foreign as it is to us. And even were the modern Greek their vernacular, they would still be a very incompetent authority upon the question before us ; for the modern Greek is as different from the ancient as Italian is from Latin. As well, there- fore, might we enquire of Italians the meaning of some passage in Cicero or Sallust, because their forefathers, two thousand years ago, spoke Latin, as appeal to the Greek church to tell us the meaning of baptizo ! My remarks upon the baptisms of Cornelius and the Jailor were dwelt upon very briefly, and met, or rather evaded by the usual conjectures ; but the examination of such conjectures would be a task as endless, as it would be fruitless, and I shall therefore pass them by as unworthy of any notice further than they have already received. 109 Next come a shower of objections to my argument from the number of John's baptisms, several of which I must refer to. The first related to my statistics. And certainly if I have displayed a fondness for " arithmetical hypo- thetical calculations," in the course of this discussion, my Reviewer has had quite a horror of them. He evidently is quite averse tojigures, and would rather have his audience satisfied with general statements, than descend to par- ticulars, which are often an experimentum cruets to the finest theory. But truth demands attention to figures, and we will therefore look at them again. Proof was wanted that "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," contained a population of three millions of souls. Now, I had given as my data for this estimate two historical facts — first, that three mil- lions of persons, most of whom must have been males, over twelve years of age, were present at the Passover in Jerusalem, thirty-five years after the period referred to ; and, secondly, that eleven hundred thousands of Jews perished at the taking of that city, after all the Christians had fled from it, forewarned by the prophecy of Christ. Was it, then, an over estimate to set the entire population down at three millions ? Great pains were then taken to show that all the inhabit- ants of this region were not baptized, — a point that was established most convincingly, though, as it seemed to me, quite needlessly, since I had myself conceded it, and based the " arithmetical hypothetical calculation " that followed it, upon one-sixth of the estimated population. The next objection related to the time which I supposed to have been occupied in baptizing this immense multitude. John might haye spent six years, we were told, instead of six months, in immersing them ; aye, and even then he would have had a hard task, for the difficulty only assumes a new aspect. But I have already anticipated and answered the objection, and shall therefore dismiss it without further remark. The conjecture that John might have been assisted by his disciples in baptizing the people, and that the seventy disciples of Christ might, in like manner, have assisted the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, needs no reply. The narrative gives us no hint of the kind, and I have, there- fore, much more reason to think that they did not, than my Reviewer has to think they did. Besides, if the seventy disciples assisted the Apostles, there are seventy more baptisteries to account for, which I am satisfied it must have been impossible to find. 110 Where, then, is the unreasonableness of my calculation, or of the conclusion I drew from it ? The largest member my Reviewer ever heard of us having been immersed in one day, by one individual, was one hundred and fourteen ; while, if my estimate at all approximates to the truth, John must have had to immerse between two and three thou- sand daily, for six months in succession, and without any sabbath rest ! To reduce my estimate to one half, or even one fourth of what it was, would hardly perceptibly lessen the difficulty ; for the immersion of seven hundred persons a day, by one administrator, would be as utterly impossible, as the immersion of several thousands. The Baptist hy- pothesis, therefore, so far at least as John's baptisms are concerned, may fairly be regarded as incapable of support. The only other point I can stay to notice in this lecture is the grave objection that was raised to my view of the reason that led John to locate himself at iEnon, — the abundance of water which the place afforded for the ani- mals which the people must hare brought with them. Where, it was asked, do we read of horses or asses ? Truly, the narrative says nothing about them, does it? The silence, which was thought to offer no difficulty whatever in relation to baptisteries, and assistant administrators, is now made an insuperable objection. But admitting that we do not read of camels or asses, (of horses I said nothing,) what then ? How else could the people travel ? Certainly not by any of our modern conveyances — railway, or steamer, or stage. Unless, therefore, they came on foot — which in the case of women and children is hardly cred- ible, as many of them must have come from considerable distances, — they must have travelled on camels or asses, my Reviewer to the contrary notwithstanding. The IV. Lecture was a review, nearly two hours in length, of my lecture on infant baptism, the first point of attack being the argument from the Abrahamic covenant, to which a number of objections were urged. These I shall endeavour to deal with, not by quoting great authorities, as mine have been dealt with, but by looking at them seriatim, and ascertaining their value. Most of them, indeed, have already been anticipated, but the reproduction of them by my Reviewer happily affords me the opportunity of estab- lishing some points connected with the controversy, more fully than I was able to do in my former lecture. It was objected, 1. That we cannot infer the practice of infant baptism from that of infant circumcision, since the latter was ex- Ill pressiy commanded, while the former is not. But if, as I have endeavoured to show, the covenant with Abraham still exists with his spiritual seed — a point which no attempt was made to disprove, however strenuously it was denied — with the simple change of the seal from circum- cision to baptism, where is the need of express command to include infants ? They were already included, and we do not exclude them from participation in the blessings of the covenant with the new seal, because Christ does not ; "of such is the kingdom of heaven." When our Baptist brethren shall produce some such instructions to the Apos- tles as these, " take heed that your Jewish notions do not lead you to baptize infants, just as you have hitherto been accustomed to circumcise them, for adults alone are to have the new seal applied to them ;" or when they present us with anything from which we may fairly infer that to have been the divine intention, we will abandon our practice of infant baptism. It was objected, 2. That circumcision was not administered to infants on the ground of their parent's faith, but because God com- manded it. But why did God command it ? Why were Ishmael and Isaac singled out as the first recipients of this distinction? What other intelligible reason can be given for it than this — they were children of Abraham ? And why was the cove- nant established with Abraham, but because of his faith? Hence after all they were circumcised on the ground of their parent's faith. The objection is a mere quibble in order to escape an unpleasant conclusion. 3. My Keviewer next denied that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. We were first told that I had made no attempt to prove that it had, though it was admitted afterwards that I had quoted Col. ii. 11, 12, in support of the point. It was urged, however, in reply, that "the cir- cumcision of Christ" was not baptism, but the renewal of the heart; and that it was this inward renewal that was hence- forth to take the place of the external rite. Are we then to understand that regeneration is the exclusive characteristic of the Christian dispensation, just as circumcision was of the Jewish t If inward renewal be the circumcision of the New Testament economy, and its peculiar glory, taking the place of that enjoined upon Abraham, it must follow that Abra- ham, and the ancient worthies of the Jewish Church, were strangers to an experience which we cannot but regard as essential to salvation. But if, on the other hand, "the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 112 letter," (Rom. ii. 29), was already known under the Old Testament, how can it be said, in any sense, to have taken the place of the external rite under the New ? The passage in question seems intended by the Apostle to meet the Jewish objection, that circumcision had no place in the Christian system. Now, it would be no reply to the objection to say, that we have a spiritual circumcision in its stead, for the objector might quote the Apostle's own language, in another Epistle, in proof that the spiritual circumcision was already enjoyed by the Jew. It was the discontinuance of the external initiatory rite of the Jewish religion that was complained of — a complaint fairly met if we understand " the circumcision of Christ" to mean Christian baptism, the external initiatory rite of the Chris- tian religion ; but met by no other interpretation .of the Apostle's language. Add to this the fact of the exact correspondence in the meaning and objects of the two rites, enlarged upon in my former lecture, and you have an amount of evidence in support of the position that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, that, in my judgment, amounts almost to demonstration. This is the view that some of the earliest Christian writers took of the subject. Justin Martyr, wri- ting only about forty years after the death of the last Apostle, says distinctly, " we are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision ;" and again, speaking of spiri- tual circumcision, he says " we have received it by baptism." St. Basil and Chrysostom use singular language, but as they flourished a century or two later, I will not quote them. 4. The fourth objection urged was, that baptizing in- fants on the faith of their parents, is religion by proxy. But in what respect does the parent become the proxy of the child, in dedicating it to God in baptism ? Does he profess to believe in the stead of his child ? Or to confess sin for it ? Does he repent for it ? Or renounce the world for it? No, nothing of the kind ; and surely there cannot be much religion where repentance and faith are absent. What then does the parent do ? Simply this — he professes his solemn conviction that the little child, around which all his parental affections are entwined, has an evil nature, and must be renewed by the Holy Spirit ; that God, who has promised to be a God to his seed, as well as to himself, will, if he prayerfully and believingly lays hold of His covenant, renew the heart of his child : and to that covenant therefore, he solemnly attaches his seal in having it applied 113 to his child. Is this religion by prosy ? Would it not rather be the life of the church -were there more of this earnest solicitude? The mock-sympathy therefore that was expressed for the condition of unbaptized children, under the injustice we were supposed to do them by withholding the rite from them, without any fault on their part, was quite uncalled for. If "the blessing of Abraham" is to "come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ," i. e. through faith in Ilim, how can the mere application of the seal of the covenant procure it for the children of one who does not believe in Christ ? Or how can the unbelieving parent covenant with God for his child, before he has embraced the covenant for himself? Had sympathy been expressed at the thought of so many being unblessed with Christian parentage, it would have been much more in place ; but I am not surprised at nothing been said on that point, since my Eeviewer avowed it as his opinion that God regards the offspring of Christian parents precisely as He does the children of the ungodly. A dark and dreary doctrine that ! Is there nothing said in Scripture about being "beloved for the fathers' sokes?" However some may despise it, and others deprive themselves of its blessings by their unbelief, this is God's covenant with those who love Him, " My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, from henceforth and forever." It was objected, 5. That the Lord's Supper should be administered to infants if we baptize them. The reply to this is very sim- ple. Permit me to ask whether our Baptist brethren think it proper to admit infants to the Lord's table ? Of course not. Then, do Pcedo-baptists think it proper to do so ? No. Then we may at once dismiss that part of the objection, since both parties are agreed, however they may differ about infant baptism, that infant communion would be wrong. But the inference drawn from this is, that infant baptism, must be wrong also, though in what way tne inference is drawn would be difficult to say. The exercise of faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ — an act which adults alone are capable of performing — is regarded by both Baptists and ourselves as requisite to communion in His body and blood: when our brethren succeed in showing that the same act is the invariable pre-requisite of baptism, they will nave settled the controversy between us, for, of course, infants 114 are incapable of believing. But that they cannot do, both the household baptisms of the New Testament, and the household circumcisions of the Old, being opposed to their construction of the commission upon which they found their practice. The infant of eight days was surely as incapable of apprehending the meaning of the one, as our's are of apprehending the meaning of the other. If, therefore, there be any such absurdity as is sometimes supposed, in administering the initiatory rite of the Christian church to unconscious infants, there must have been at least equal absurdity in administering the more painful initiatory rite of the Jewish church, to infants of a still more tender age. Moreover, the circumcised infant was as incapable, physi- cally and morally, of partaking of the_ Passover, as the bap- tized infant is of participating in the Supper. The Jew be- came " a son of the covenant" at eight days of age, but he did not become " a son of the commandment" — i.e. one under obligation to attend the feasts of the Jews — until twelve years of age, the age at which Jesus first attended them along with his parents. The objection fails then, in every point, and we shall therefore dismiss it for the next, which is, 6. That if baptism has come in the place of circumcision, we ought to baptize our servants, and ought not to baptize females. This objection can have no weight, unless it be shown that servants and females stand in exactly the same posi- tion now as formerly. Now, without conceding one iota to the slaveholders of the South, it is evident that Abraham owned servants, — some who were " born in his house, or bought with his money." He therefore exercised authority and control over them which no one among us possesses over a domestic. His servants were a part of his house, and were doubtless in the habit of regarding him much as they would a parent ; our's are not under our control in matters of religion at all. Then as to the second point of objection, it is well known that the position of the female under the Christian economy, is widely different from what it was under the Jewish. The male was formerly considered above the female. The women worshipped by themselves as inferiors, and do so still in Jewish synagagues. The husband was the lord of the house, and hence, the submission of the male, the superior, to the rite of circumcision, involved the submission of the female, the inferior, to the terms of the covenant, without such a rite. There was no occasion for the appli- cation of the seal to females under the law, but there is 115 occasion for it under the Gospel ; for, alluding to this very change in their social condition, Paul says that in Christ Jesus " there is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female," Gal. iii. 28. Accordingly, the Apostle baptized " both men and ■women," so that not a shadow of doubt is left upon the subject, and therefore not a particle of force in the objection. 7. It was urged, that we require Baptists to prove a negative, (which is unfair), when we ask them for evidence that baptism is not to be administered to infants. This would be true had there been no previous mention of any arrangement such as that which is involved in infant baptism, or no intimation that such arrangement was in- tended as "an everlasting covenant" with believers and their offspring. But such an arrangement did exist under both the Patriarchal and Jewish economies, exhibiting internal evidence of perpetuity, and hence our Baptist brethren should be prepared with proof of its divine abro- gation, or of such change in its reqirements as would justify their exclusion of children from participation in its blessings and seal. This we demand of them ; fidelity to truth com- pels us to do so. They assert that the Abrahamic covenant has passed away ; we simply ask them to prove their own assertion, and this is asking proof, not of a negative, but of an affirmative proposition. Neither do we call on them to prove a negative when we ask for evidence that there were no children in either of the households whose baptisms are recorded in the New Testament ; they set themselves the task of doing so. Had oikos — the word translated household — generally signified a household witlwid children, it might have been regarded as factious to make such a demand ; but meaning, as it does almost invariably, a family consisting of parents and children, it ought to be so understood, unless our Baptist brethren can show cause why it should not, in these parti- cular instances ; and that they cannot do. We are con- tented to take the word in its usual acceptation, and think they should be also. But not liking the conclusion to which that points, they set themselves to prove a negative, — viz., that the word is not employed in its usual signification, in the instances referred to — and then throw the blame upon us ! 8. The eighth and last objection urged against infant baptism was, to my mind, the most astounding of all, and was to this effect, — That the absence of any thing in the New Testament expressly prohibiting or condemning infant 116 baptism, could not be taken as in any wise affording a war- rant for the practice of it, since the New Testament does not condemn many of the worst errors of Popery — the baptism of bells, the worship of the Virgin Mary, auricular confession, the sacrifice of the mass, &c, &c ! Truly, thought I, our Roman Catholic friends will " thank thee for that word!" My Reviewer will surely have to renounce this ground, if ever he should attempt to convince any one of the errors of the Papal Church. If the New Testament does not condemn the things specified, on what ground do we condemn those who practice them ? Is the Bible no longer " the religion of Protestants?" If my Reviewer meant, however, that these things are not forbidden by name, he should have said so, and then he might have greatly extended his list by adding to it baptis- teries, and apparatus for heating the water, mackintosh dresses, baptizing habits with leaden sinks, immersions in mid-winter, &c, and the argument in relation to one, is just as valid as it is in relation to the other. These are all of them inventions of a later age. It will be remembered, however, that I have never con- ceded that the New Testament is silent upon the subject of infant baptism, for I do not think it is. The frequent inci- dental mention of household baptism is, in my judgment, conclusive that children hold substantially the same rela- tionship to the church under the Christian dispensation that did under the Jewish ; and that conclusion has with me all the force of a positive injunction to baptize them. The following are some specimens of the singular style of argument with which this lecture abounded, which I cluster together for the sake of brevity : — " Give us positive precept for, or example of, infant baptism in the New Testament." — " If the Abrahamic covenant still exists, let them use the knife, and circumcise." — " The Lord's supper is not said to have come in place of the Passover." — " The Apostles never baptized any, save on profession of their faith." — " We do not see how Paedo- baptists can avoid the doctrine of baptismal regeneration."—" We demand proof that there were any children in these households." — " Whenever Mr. W refers to the Greek he blunders." — " He must prove that Lydia was a married woman ; that she had children ; that they were at home, &c." — " We deny in toto," &c, &c. The only reply I feel called upon to make to such state- ments as these, is to remind you of the remarks I offered in my first lecture, on the employment of assertion, instead 117 of argument ; as well as of some others in my fourth, on the kind of evidence our opponents are at liberty to claim from us. Questions of the grave importance of those which are involved in this discussion, are not to be settled by such a mode of dealing with them. If our case be so desperate that we have not a shadow of authority for our practice of infant baptism, my Reviewer's case must be so clear that it would be the simplest thing in the world to prove it. Why then resort to assertion, when argument would be so much more satisfactory? Why present us with such conclusions, and leave us to grope our way in the dark, through the logical processes by which they have been arrived at ? One remark, however, claims some attention ; not because it is any more convincing than the rest, but because it may mislead some of my less intelligent hearers. I am asked for proof that Lydia was married, &c. But why select Lydia particularly ? Why not ask it in relation to Cor- nelius, or the Jailor, or Narcissus, or Crispus, or Stephanas? Who knows whether any oftltem were married ? True, we read of their households, but we never read of their ivives. But neither of these suits my Reviewer's purpose so well, so nothing is said about any one but Lydia. Now there is precisely the same evidence that Lydia was married, and had children, that there is in relation to any of the rest ; or, indeed, in relation to any one else, whose house is mentioned in Scripture, but whose husband or wife is not. She had a family, — the obvious meaning of oilcos, — or they had not ; and she had a house to which she could invite the Apostles, or they had not. The same terms are employed in relation to all of them. And surely, when any one has informed us of his family, and his dwelling, we do not need to enquire of him whether he has ever been married ! Besides, apart from the signification of oikos, I had already shown that three out of four households, if not even live out of six, contain young children ; and hence that the probability, — and that is all there can be on either side, — is altogether in favour of the view we take of the narrative. The attempt made to show that the family of the Jailor must have consisted of adults alone, because the Apostles " spake the word of the Lord, to all that were in his house," struck me as exceedingly lame ; for on the same principle, the solemn prophetic warnings of Ezekiel, or Jeremiah, to ' : the whole house — oilcos — of Israel," equally disprove the 118 existence of any young children among all that nation ! How could the infant Jew " hear the word of the Lord," any more than the infant of the Jailor ? The reply to my remark that we nowhere read in the New Testament of the baptism of a child of Christian parents, on his making a profession of faith, was an entire evasion. Not being able to produce such a case in the New Testament, my Reviewer sallied forth in search of one in Ecclesiastical History ; and by the time he had reached the fourth or fifth century, he found several such instances, — that of Ambrose, and others. But the fact that no such case is recorded for three centuries after Christ, is itself strong presumptive evidence that the primitive churches practised infant baptism. My ignorance, or something worse, of Baptist missions was next commented on, for having said that household baptism is a thing next to unknown among the churches of that denomination. We were assured that household baptism is a very common occurrence among them ; that two cases of it had occurred in Brantford during the past year; and that it was particularly common among the Karens, though why among the Karens particularly, we were not informed. But let me define a household baptism, and we will see if it be common among them. In the several instances of its occurrence, recorded in the New Testament, every mem- ber of the family, so far as we have any means of knowing, was baptized, and all on the same occasion. Nothing, there- fore, can properly be called a household baptism, but the baptism of a whole household simultaneously. So it is ad- ministered by Pffido-baptists, and so we believe it to have been administered by the Apostles. Now apply this test to the cases spoken of by my Reviewer, and see how they will bear it. One of those said to have occurred in Brant- ford, during the past year, I know will not suffer investiga- tion ; all the family were not baptized. Of the other case I know nothing whatever, but from the unfair manner in which that already referred to has been used, one cannot help entertaining strong suspicions in relation to it also. The occurrence of fifty cases among the Karens is cer- tainly remarkable, especially when we consider that if they are at all in point, none of these families could have contained children so young as to be incapable of believ- ing: and that in each separate instance, all the adults must have believed, professed their faith, and been bapti- zed simultaneously ! A circumstance of such rare occur- no rence everywhere else, can be accounted for among the Karens, only by supposing the existence of some mental or moral idiosyncrasy among them. The assumption that "the brethren" whom Paul and Silas are said to have "seen, and comforted," before departing from Philippi, were the members of Lydia's household, we are not at all disposed to admit. We have just been challenged for proof that Lydia was married ; now, however, my Reviewer conceives of her either as the mother of a large family of adult believers, or, as some wealthy lady, with a retinue of servants, numerous enough to constitute a church among themselves ! But a very slight examination of the narrative will be sufficient to convince any one that it is quite as likely there were "brethren" out of her household, as that there were brethren within it, especially as she alone is said to have "attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." The Apostles had spent "many days" in Philippi, (v. 18,) and although no conversions are recorded but those of the two whose house- holds were baptized, it is surely unwarrantable to con- clude from hence that there were no others. Knowing therefore, of the imprisonment, and probably also of the release of the Apostles, and of their intended departure from the city, these Philippian brethren would repair to the house in which they had lodged, to take their leave of them. We are not told, indeed, that the interview took place in the house of Lydia at all. The Apostles may have "seen the brethren" in their own homes, though whatever the way in which they met them, our conclu- sion must be the same. To speak of Lydia's family as " the brethren," instead of using the term oikos, employed in the account of their baptism, is surely an indefiniteness of which the inspired narrator is seldom guilty. A few brief observations on the review of the historical evidence which I presented on the subject of infant baptism, must conclude my remarks on this lecture. My quotation from Justin Martyr, who says that "many persons were then living, (A. D. 160,) sixty, seventy, and eighty years of age, who were discipled (baptized,) to Christ in childhood," (ek paidm,) was rejected as too indefi- nite to merit attention. The words in question are, never- theless, quite as capable of bearing the meaning I have given them, as that given them by my Reviewer. Exception was taken to my next, from Irenams — "in- fants, little ones, children, youth &c, are regenerated, (re- nnseuniur) to God," — in two ways ; — first, that it was not 120 baptism but regeneration that is intended by the word em- ployed ; and secondly, that the passage was an interpola- tion, by some scholiast, or transcriber of the writings of Irenaeus. Now if the passage has no reference to baptism, and is utterly valueless to us, it was surely superfluous to attempt to prove that it was an interpolation ; or rather, not to prove it, for that was not attempted, but to make us believe it. And as to the meaning of the word renascunlur, Dr. Neander says, " now in the mind of Irenseus, regeneration and baptism are intimately connected, and it is difficult to conceive how the term, 'being born again,' can be employ- ed with respect to this age, to denote anything else but baptism.* Dr. Wall, author of the " History of Infant Baptism,' takes the same view of it, and so do other wri- ters of equal eminence. The passage should be translated therefore, "infants, little ones &c, are baptized unto God." This language is used, you will observe, only eighty years after the death of the last Apostle. The quotations from Origen, born A.D. 185, were ad- mitted to be authentic, but the Christianity of the age in which he lived was regarded by my Reviewer as so cor- rupt, that it was not surprising that infant baptism should have been practiced in his day. Baptists have always ad- mitted, we were told, that infant baptism existed in the days of Origen. But that is only a part of what these quotations prove. Origen, a very learned man, and a most extensive traveller, not only asserts its existence in Ms day, but distinctly assures us, "that the Church received an order from tlie Apostles, to give baptism even to infants/' It were strange indeed, if the practice had originated, and all trace of the date and manner of its origin had been lost, within a single century after the close of the Apostolic ago! My Reviewer then concluded with the following state- ments, so strangely self-contradictory, that we wonder how he couli have permitted himself to make them. We were told, 1. That there is no evidence of the existence of infant baptism during the first and second centuries, i. e., previous to A. D. 200. Yet he had just told us that Baptists had always admitted its existence in the days of Origen, born A. D. 185 ! * Neander's Church History, Vol. I. page 431, Eohn's Edition. 121 2. That there is no mention of infant baptism before the date of the Council of Carthage, (A.D. 252.) Yet Ter- tullian was quoted as opposing the practice, and he died A.D. 220! 3. That infant baptism took its rise in the dark regions of North Africa, at the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, — say A.D. 280 — 320. Now as this is the first time that I remember to have heard a Baptist brother attempt the solution of this (to them) exceedingly difficult problem, I may be permitted a single remark or two upon it. In the first place, I should have liked some proof of the correctness of this assertion, if it is to be had, and not the mere ipse dixit, however positive, of anybody upon the point. Secondly. The regions of North Africa, my Reviewer should have known, were not as dark at that time as they are now. On the contrary, there was no country, probably, in the world, in which the Gospel had been more generally received. Alexandria was called the cradle of Christian philosophers, from the number of eminent men it had pro- duced ; and Carthage was almost equally celebrated ; and both of these were in North Africa. Nine hundred bishops, — the name given originally to all Christian pastors, — are mentioned by one writer, as having occupied a comparatively small part of it. And Thirdly. The assertion that infant baptism arose in the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, so conflicts with the two previously made, that even if we knew not how to answer it, it would destroy our confidence in all of them. All that is necessary is to put them side by side, and they subvert each other. Infant baptism took its rise in North Africa, A.D. 280-320 : yet the Council of Carthage, A.D. 252, decided unanimously that it was not necessary to delay baptism till the child was eight days old; Tertullian opposed the practice A.D. 190-220; and it is admitted to have existed even in the days of Origen, born A.D. 185 ! I leave my Reviewer to reconcile his own statements. Truly, " the legs of the lame are not equal." A very few remarks on the V. Lecture, in review of mine on Immersion as a Term of Communion, must conclude the present discussion. The extent to which I had shown the practice of strict communion to be carried, was not only admitted but justi- fied, the defence set up being that the principle upon F 122 which it is founded — viz., the precedence of Baptism in point of time, to the Lord's Supper, — is acknowledged to be scriptural, and acted upon as such by Pcedo-baptists themselves. It was urged that we differ from each other, not upon the terms of communion, but upon the mode of baptism, and that if there be any closeness in their practice at all, it must originate in their views of the latter, rather than of the former. The reply would have been specious enough, had it not already been fully anticipated and answered, by showing, first, that there is no ground for regarding immersion alone as baptism ; and, secondly, that the New Testament does not, either positively or by implication, make it essential to communion, even if there were. A feeble attempt, indeed, was made to overthrow my position, that Christian baptism having been instituted after the ordinance of the Supper, those who first partook of it must have done so unbaptized, by asserting the identity of John's Baptism with that of the Apostles sub- sequent to the giving of the great commission ; but the difference between the two is so manifest that the assump- tion is totally untenable. The Apostles baptized " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Chost," — John did not. The Apostles required the ex- pression of a belief that Jesus was the Messiah, — John did not himself know Jesus until he saw the Spirit descending upon him at the moment of his baptism. The fact that the disciples of John came to Jesus to enquire if he were the long-expected one that was to come, is of itself proof that John did not baptize in the name of Christ. Moreover, the Apostles required evidence of the renewal of the heart iu the case of those whom they baptized, while John could have made no such requirement ; or if he did, must have been miserably deceived in his converts, since their good- ness was " like the morning cloud, and as the early dew it passed away," as is seen by their rejection of Jesus so soon afterwards. And lastly, John preached, saying, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven " — the Christian dispensation — " is at Jiand." How, then, could he have administered Christian baptism before the dispensation to which it belonged had been ushered in ? We arrive, therefore, at our previous con- clusions, viz., that Christian baptism not having been insti- tuted till after the death of Christ, those who first partook of the Supper from his hands, must have received it unbap- 123 tized, and hence, that baptism was never intended to be an essential pre-requisite to communion, — especially when the enforcement of such a rule excludes from fellowship those who are regarded, and treated in every other respect, as humble and conscientious believers. 2s T o amount of proof in favour of immersion, if it were to be had, could ever weaken this conclusion, since it stands upon ground entirely its own, — the oneness of all true Christians. However much our Baptist brethren may wish to unite them, the question of communion is totally distinct from that of baptism, and as such they are bound to meet it. I have thus endeavoured to present to view the more important objections which were urged in reply to these lectures. How far I have been successful in meeting them must be left to others to decide ; but one thing I must be permitted to say, and that is, that in no case have I allowed myself to employ an argument which has not all the weight with myself, which I have endeavored to give it with others. And if the discussion which now terminates, so far at least as I am concerned, shall be found to have contributed in any measure to the elucidation of the truth in relation to it, I shall feel myself to have been both highly honored, and amply repaid for any amount of labour it may have cost me. MAi'LCAR, THOMAS * CO., PRINTERS, KfXQ STREET, TORONTO.