Table of Contents

PART I

Why Have I Written This Book?

Introductory

The Characteristics of the Man

John's Ministry Did Not Belong to the Law, or Jewish Dispensation

Exegesis of Acts XIX, 1-7

John's Ministry Not an Intermediate Dispensation

Proposition: The Baptism of John Belonged to the Christian, or Gospel, Dispensation

Proposition: John's Baptism Belonged to the Christian Dispensation

The Roman Catholic Church on Trial by John's Baptism

The Episcopal Church Tried by John's Baptism

The Campbellite Society Tried by John's Baptism

The Baptist Church Tried by John's Baptism

PART II

Meaning of Baptizo

Sacred Use

Physical Objections to Immersion Considered

The River Jordan – Does It Afford Water Enough for Immersion? – Are Its Waters Accessible? They Were in the Days of Moses and of David

Ænon – Was There Water Enough to Immerse a Person?

Ænon, Near to Salem

PART III

Infant Baptism UnScriptural

The Old Testament Given Up as Affording any Ground for Infant Baptism

Pedobaptists Answer Themselves a Most Singular Argument

The Testimony of the Churches in the Order of Their Origin, Touching the Meaning of Baptizo, and the Practice of that Church:

The Greek Church, A.D. Third Century

The Roman Catholic Church, Seventh Century

Lutheran Church, Sixteenth Century

Presbyterian Church, Sixteenth Century

The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, Seventeenth Century

Independents or Congregationalists of England and America

Unsectarian Works, English Encyclopedias and Dictionaries

What the Commentators Say

Reasons Why I Should Prefer Immersion, Were Sprinkling and Pouring Admissible?

The Children of Christians not Baptized in the Early Centuries – Acts of Councils

Why I am a Baptist

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Books Written by J. R. Graves

This volume has been carefully reviewed and formatted for ease of reading with an electronic reader. Document scanning/conversion errors have been corrected and footnote linking has been added.

This volume may contain editorial revisions to the grammar or punctuation of the original work.

Every effort has been made to ensure the accurate re-publication of the original.

Formatted for electronic reading

June, 2012

Ontario, Canada

Dedication

To All the Young Ministers now composing or who have composed The J. R. Graves Society of Religious Inquiry of the Southwestern Baptist University, Jackson, Tennessee.

This little Book is affectionately dedicated as a slight token of his appreciation of the distinguished honor that Society has conferred upon the Author.

MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY

CHARTER MEMBERS:
B. J. DAVIS,   W. M. FARMER,
E. B. MILLER,   W. B. CLIFTON,
H. C. ROSEMAN,   H. A. BURNS,
W. D. BENE,   J. W. HARRISS.
J. W. ALFORD,   F. D. COURCEY,
A. L. DAVIS,   J. W. MOUNT,
J. L. FULLBRIGHT,   FRANCIS BOZEMAN.

Preface

The Baptism of John, whence was it?    – Christ

And they answered, we can not tell.     – The Jews

Why could they not tell?

For three centuries the Religious world has been divided between three Theories touching the place of John's Ministry in the Development of the Redemptive Economy.

I. It belonged to the Jewish Dispensation.
II. It was an Intermediate Dispensation.
III. It belonged to the Christian Dispensation.

It must of necessity have belonged to one of these, for we can not conceive of a fourth Theory.

Introductory

PART I - CHAPTER I

WHY HAVE I WRITTEN THIS BOOK?

FROM the rise of the Papacy[1] in the seventh century, of Protestantism[2] in the sixteenth, and that of Campbellism[3] in the nineteenth century, “John's baptism” which includes his ministry, what he taught and practiced, has suffered violence, and these sects have unitedly and separately sought to destroy its Christian character in the faith of all men; and to-day, after a lapse of a thousand years, there is no cessation in their assaults. It is noticeable that all Pedobaptists and Campbellites unite in teaching that it belonged exclusively to the Jewish Dispensation, or that it was an Intermediate and Independent Dispensation, which will be shown further on. The Campbellites rashly assert that not a Gospel or Christian utterance ever fell from the lips of John the Baptist or any man before the days of Pentecost: thus, with one fell blow, striking four of the books from the New Testament, and sealing the lips of Jesus Christ and the four Evangelists as Gospel teachers – having taught the way a sinner may be saved! Thus teaching, if the four Gospels, as they are called, were eliminated from the New Testament, that no vital truth would be lost to a dying world!

Baptists alone,[4] in all these centuries, as Christ's faithful and true witnesses against all these sects, have unanimously maintained the Christian character of John's ministry, that it was the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ (Mark i, 1), and that from it both the act of Christian baptism and the material of His churches and Kingdom are undoubtedly determined. They do believe that the act Christ himself received for baptism is the act He commanded His churches to observe, and the self-same subjects He commanded John to baptize are those, and none other, He commanded His churches to baptize for evermore. Baptists believe that His pine example comes to them with the force of a command.

The reader will not think it so strange a thing that Pedobaptists and Campbellites so bitterly oppose John's ministry when he sees that his teachings radically destroy the very ground on which these sects rest their faith and practice.

There are eight significant facts worthy of consideration here:

1. That Pedobaptists never refer to John's baptism in support of their baptisms – i. e., sprinklings and pourings.

2. Baptists always do, for the act they administer for baptism.

3. Pedobaptists never refer to the example of Christ to sustain either of their modes of baptism.

4. Baptists always do, in support of the one act they observe.

5. Pedobaptists never refer to John's preaching and baptism in support of the baptisms of non-believers or infants.

6. Baptists always do, in support of the immersion of believers.

7. Campbellites never refer to John's baptism in support of their practice of baptizing the unregenerate to regenerate the subject.

8. Baptists always do, in support of their invariable practice of requiring a profession of faith and a satisfactory evidence — “fruits meet for repentance” and regeneration before baptism.

The reason for these facts must be apparent to all. Pedobaptists and Campbellites do not believe that the ministry of John is favorable to their faith and practice; and Baptists are confident that John's ministry and baptism fully sustain their faith and practice. It is natural, then, that the former parties would oppose and the latter indorse John's baptism as authority — it being the beginning of the Gospels.

But to return to the reasons for the appearance of this book. While the most vigorous and persistent assaults upon the Christian character of John's ministry and teachings have been going on for two centuries past, and are still being waged, notwithstanding the wealth of the learning and polemical talent possessed by our denomination, as is evinced by the multitude of books, pamphlets and tracts issued and issuing upon the act and subjects of Christian baptism, not a pen has volunteered to defend the evangelical character of John's ministry in the last half century. My personal memory covers this period. I have written to the American Baptist Publication Society, in Philadelphia, and to the National Publishing Society, in St. Louis, and no intelligence of such a publication could I hear of.[5]

Another and influential reason: It was in the hope that it might assist those of our ministry and lay brethren who have not the time for study, the more effectually to vindicate the Christian character of John's ministry, and the more readily answer the plausible objections so constantly and confidently urged against it.

What the form and design of the ordinances were when Christ first instituted them we must believe He intended them to remain until He comes again, for His last words were, “Teaching them to observe all things as I have delivered them unto you.”

When I remember how greatly needed was just such a vindication forty and even thirty years ago, when I was defiantly faced almost weekly with many of these arguments and objections; and when I remember what disastrous overthrows I administered, by them, to some of the most learned opponents of that age, my enemies themselves, being judges, can but feel confident that the young ministers of to-day and “their successors in office” to whom this book is dedicated, and its fortune committed, will find in these pages needed help for which they will thank me when I am in my grave.

It may be pronounced a weak and imperfect vindication, but still I can truthfully say it is the very ablest and best that has appeared in this century. But when the reader is informed that these pages have been written by the author when pillowed-up in an arm-chair, and in the intervals between the spasms of sciatic pains, it is believed that the Christian reader, since he is expected to read for profit, will make all due allowance.

Why write the book in these so unpropitious circumstances? Because the author feared that, after waiting half a century for some abler pen to do the work so much needed by the denomination, it might not be done in another half century, if at all.

Chapter Footnotes:

1- No Catholic will claim that Papacy existed before the Roman Catholic Church, and thus independent of a Pope. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Emperor Phocus ordained Boniface, the first Pope, " Bishop of bishops," and invested him with supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction, A. D. 610.

2- Protestantism had its origin at the Diet of the Spires, A. D. 1529.

3- Campbellism was originated by Alexander Campbell in the years 1835-40.

4- Baptists are not Protestants, for they never once belonged to, or came out of the Roman Catholic Church, since they existed seven hundred years before the Papacy and one hundred and sixty-two before the Protestants, and as clearly designates and sanctifies John xiv, 15, the only Christian act of baptism to the end of the age (John xiv, 15). Baptists feel the force of his words: "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you;" "If ye love me ye will keep my commandments." And of these also: "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments [traditions] of men" (Matt, xv, 9).

5- In 1843, Rev. Robert Fleming, of Georgia, read an essay on the subject, which was requested for publication, and was published.

Introductory

PART I - CHAPTER II

BEFORE entering upon my subject — John's Ministry and its Proper Place in Christ's Redemptive Work — it seems quite proper to form a just idea of him as he is presented to us in the Scriptures.

John the Baptist — In Prophecy — In His Nativity — In His Preparation for His Work — His Characteristics — His Message — His Audience.

Seven hundred years before the advent of the Messiah, the person who was to herald Him is foretold in these words: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 'prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God'” (Isaiah xl, 3.)

A silence of more than three hundred years was broken by another prophet speaking for the Coming One in these words:

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord [the Messiah] whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold. He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." . . . “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, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” (Mal. iv, 5.)

Again thus clearly stating the mission of His herald or fore-runner: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” (Mai. iv, 5).

Let the reader notice that it was not Christ who was to be purified by His messenger, John, but the sons of Levi by Christ himself.

Another silence of over three centuries followed, unbroken by a single communication to Israel, when the people of Judea and the inhabitants of the wilderness[1] were startled by the voice of this messenger of the coming Lord of Hosts, in the wilderness, proclaiming the fulfillment of these prophecies, and saying: "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The inspiring spirit leaves us in no doubt as to the fact that John was “the voice,” this “messenger of Christ,” foretold by Isaiah and Malachi so many centuries before his birth. His birth and his name were pre-announced as was Christ's, His Lord, who was to come after him.

This is the history of his nativity and parentage as given by Luke:[2]

“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.

“And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him, but the angel said unto him, 'Fear not, Zacharia: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.'

“And Zacharias said unto the angel, 'Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.' And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.' And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he tarried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, 'Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein He looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.' And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.” . . . . “And now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. And her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, 'Not so; but he shall be called John.' And they said unto her, 'There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.' And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying. His name is John. And they marveled all. And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judea. And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, 'What manner of child shall this be!' And the hand of the Lord was with him.

“And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people. And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David: As he spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant; the oath that he sware to our father Abraham, that He would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto His people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.' And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.”

John was not Elijah the Tishbite, here promised, for, asked if he was that prophet, he answered expressly he was not; and yet Christ said if he was, if they had so received him, his appearance, character and mission was an inceptive fulfillment of that prophet and his work — it was like unto Elijah's mission, as the scenes of Pentecost were not that, but like unto that prophesied by Joel.

But that he was called and qualified to be a type of of Elijah, who is to herald the second advent of Christ the Lord, and to prepare His people to receive Him, for he came in the spirit and the power, and to fulfill a like mission of Elijah the prophet. Christ is authority for this.

“And His disciples asked Him saying. Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias shall first truly come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matt. xvii, 10-14.)

Chapter Footnotes

1 - The wilderness of Judea was comparatively an uninhabited waste — a grazing country — more sparsely peopled than the cities and towns, as we speak of the country in contrast with the towns.

[2 - Luke 1:5-26, 57-80]

The Characteristics of the Man

PART I - CHAPTER III

§THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAN.[1]

“IT may fairly be presumed, I think, that he had the natural advantages of a good personal presence and pleasing manner of address; that, at least, there was nothing ungainly in his personal appearance, unattractive in his vocal utterance, nor repellant in his manner when he addressed the people. It may be conjectured that he had even some of the graces of the orator; but his success may be accounted for without taking these into account.

“And, to my mind, the prime characteristic of the man was, that from an early period in his life he was impressed with a consciousness that he was called to a high mission from a source higher than and beyond himself. Hidden away from the world in the wilderness, and delighted with the solitude and companionship of nature, his meditations over the duty of his life must have been long and deep; and here, in the quiet places of bodily rest, the empty soul, upturned to the sky, must have been filled with an overflowing sense of the pine presence.

“Desert sands are not always unfruitful, and lonely places are often the ones where the mind's eye sees farthest into life's mystery. And it was here the summons came to him, and in language we may not discover 'the Word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias.'

“How it came, or just when it came, is not important. He felt and recognized its message, and yielded to its authority. If he ever thought of questioning its credentials, we have no hint of it, and any suggestion of evading or disobeying its command was promptly put down.

“And when he was summoned, we may be sure, from results, even if we do not consider who it was that summoned him, that he was permitted to make proper preparation for his work. How he was girded about in spirit, or instructed in mind, or disciplined in heart, we are not told. It is all silence about this. But it was adequate — the furnishing of the man for the service. It satisfied the Chief, and the subordinate was not restless over any fancied lack. And it is never otherwise. When God anoints a champion he does not go down into battle unharnessed or untried. It may be Saul's armor will not fit him; but there are stones in the brook, staves growing on the mountain side, and, if need be, the earth would reach out a hundred weapons from as many hands. It may have been in the halls of Pharaoh, in the camps of the Egyptian soldiery, or in the desert of Midian, or in all of these, that due preparation was made of a leader to conduct a chosen people out of bondage; it may have been at the feet of Gamaliel, or upon the field of war, or both, that the character of the great apostle of the Gentiles was consolidated and indurated into that firmness which is now, as then, the greatest human illustration of Christian heroism. But clearly in all these, and in all others who have been appointed to great leaderships, or set for great defenses, in the Kingdom of the Lord, the most ample provision was made against failure. Men make mistakes in judging men, God never does. Men imagine oftentimes that they are strong supports of God's government, but when from weakness, or infirmity of any kind, they drop from under it, there is not the slightest deflection. It never rested upon their shoulders. It may have touched them, but that was all.

“At length the seclusion must be broken; the exile was at an end; the man who avoided, now sought men. From the desert, barren of plant and man, he came into the Jordan valleys, fruitful and overflowing with both. He felt himself clothed upon with a high mission to his fellow-men, and with the power to execute it. They needed him because of what he could bring to them, and not for himself. And he knew this, and acted upon it. It was no matter of personal ambition to succeed in gaining the ear and heart of the multitude, but a desire to render them a priceless service that urged him on. In his mission he lost sight of himself. He was not a prophet — not even a leader; he was only a 'voice.'

“A herald, only to proclaim that the long-promised Messiah and King had approached. The greater than he, the One, the latchet of whose shoes he (John), great as he was in the estimation of the people, was 'not worthy to stoop down and unloose.' John understood his mission as a servant to a bridegroom, to manifest Him to his covenant people, Israel, as a nation, and to the waiting ones — the Annas and Simeons, the Zacharias and Elisabeths. He was not that promised prophet, 'Elijah, who is yet to come, but he was the type of that coming prophet.' He came to do the work that prophet will do before the second advent of Christ and the restoration of Israel.

“For the Kingdom of God was at hand and the King was on the way to establish the kingdom — one mightier than himself, of whom he was only the herald and servant, and who would increase in power and dominion, while the speaker himself should decrease, as a star's light goes out when the sun rises in the morning sky.

§THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUDIENCE.

“The advent of a man of power, with a message that was striking in its freshness and power, had its natural effects. The whole country round about, and even the regions beyond was awakened from its dreams. Not only many of all classes of citizens of 'Jerusalem,' but 'all Judea' — not only 'all Judea,' but 'all the region round about' and on both sides the river Jordan. His mighty voice echoed among the rocks and hills of Judea, among the mountains of Samaria, in the deserts and lonely places of Perea, was carried into the cities and towns of Decapolis, and reverberated among the palaces and towers of the city of David. The Pharisees, the ritualists and religious bigots of the time, heard it and sent deputations of priests and Levites from their number to swell the audience that thronged about the wonderful preacher; nay, went themselves in person. The Sadducees, the skeptics and rationalists of that age, could not absent themselves from his ministrations. Herodians, Essenes, scribes, lawyers, people of all ranks in life, publicans, soldiers, sinners of all grades — in brief, a mixed multitude, that represented 'all sorts and conditions of men,' came to his preaching, came to be his disciples, came and accepted his baptism and his doctrine. All these, in the sight of the forerunner, the herald of the Gospel, all these belonged to a common race of men — all were the children of God. All were suffering under the common disease of sin; all needed the same thing — forgiveness, and all had a common duty, that of repentance.

“To him the factitious distinctions of rank, fortune, education and wealth were vain — they were nothing in God's sight, nothing in his own. He had not been taught in the desert solitudes that these, or any of them, were of any moment; he came with no graded doctrine, but to lay the axe at the root of the tree if it brought forth no good fruit. The zeal of his message burns in every sentence of his speech as recorded in the Evangelists.

“Things counted holy, things venerable with antiquity, things sacred from association, things of price, and things of pleasure, all were alike swept away in the torrent of his denunciation if he thought they stood between the multitudes and repentance.

“He carried the thousands, who heard him for the time, with him; and from him they went forth, many of them, to be in turn the centers of new thought and new life in all the cities and towns who had heard his forerunner in the desert, and accepted the new doctrine with repentant hearts. And it was Jesus himself who summed up the position of the man who is the subject of this discussion, in the words, that 'Among the children of men a greater hath not arisen than John the Baptist, save He who is later[2] in the kingdom of heaven,' and of whom John testified, ' He that cometh after me is greater than I, the lachet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.'”

Chapter Footnotes

1 - These are set forth in a few forcible paragraphs by C. P. Jacobs, and as I can give no better, I therefore copy them here.

2 - John said, ''He who cometh after me is greater than I, and He that cometh after me is preferred before me." It was He who came after John that was greater than John.

John's Ministry Did Not Belong to the Law, or Jewish Dispensation

PART I - CHAPTER IV

The Law was given through Moses — The people who know not the Law is cursed — Cursed is he who continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do Them — The Law is a Servant to lead us to Christ — The first Theory Examined and Denied by Paul.

JOHN'S MINISTRY DID NOT BELONG TO THE LAW, OR JEWISH DISPENSATION.

THE LAW — A RULE OF ACTION.

Definition. — But the term is used in the Scriptures with considerable latitude of meaning.

1. Sometimes, the whole revealed will of God. Generally, in psalms.

2. Sometimes, of the Mosaic institution, as distinguished from the Gospel (John i, 17). The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

3. Of the whole religion of the Jews is called law. “The Law and the Prophets” were until John (Matt, ii, 13). In this sense it is called the “Law of Moses.”

4. Sometimes, for the ritual or ceremonial observances — the Ceremonial Law, to which Paul alludes when he speaks of the Law being a schoolmaster — which should read foot-servant — to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, and of the Law of Commandments contained in the ordinances, “and being only the shadows [types] of good things to come of which Christ is the substance,” and to which Christ refers when He says, “think not I am come to destroy the Law [ceremonial], but to fulfill, and not one jot or tittle of the Law shall pass away until all be fulfilled.”

Argument. — I think I am warranted in saying that the Jews, as a race or nation, were more generally and thoroughly acquainted with and observant of their Law than any other race or nation on earth, for the following reasons:

1. Every duty — civil, moral, or religious — that God required of the Jews, He communicated to them through Moses, and he required Moses to write them very plainly in a book: the ten moral precepts, on two tables of stone, to be preserved before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant.

2. He commanded all further ceremonial, all the statutes, when they sat in the house and when they walked by the way, when they laid down and when they rose up, to write them upon the door-posts and upon the gates. Did there ever live, or does there now live, a race that ever taught the duties of their religion so diligently and thoroughly as God commanded this people?

3. God enjoined the knowledge and observance of all things written in the book of the law by a curse, severally and collectively: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. iii, 10.) “But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.” (John vii, 49.)

4. God set apart one-twelfth of the males, one whole tribe, for the instruction of the people — to teach them law and administer the ordinances thereof. The tribe of Levi was appointed to this business — the priests and Levites who taught them. “And the Levites taught in Judah and had the book of the law with them, and they went through all the cities and taught the people.” (Deut. iv, 9.) All the things pertaining to the law were then written in the book, and could be found in it for the instruction of the people.

But, in addition to these instructive agencies, I could mention several others:

5. There was a body of learned men whose profession was to make copies of the book of the law, by transcription, as printers do by the press; these were called Scribes — Writers. They were doubtless the most familiar with the letter and words of the law. Many of the old men of this class could tell how many times a certain word could be found in any book of the law, and how many letters in any given book or division of the law. This was their pride. Then there was another class or learned profession — the lawyers. They devoted themselves to the study and interpretation of the law, and the interpretation of its difficult passages. This class corresponded to the theological professors and doctors of divinity among us; add to these their rabbis, and none will doubt that they were abundantly supplied with religious teachers. Considering all these most efficient agencies for the instruction of the Jewish people in their law and religion, am I not justifiable in saying that no people or nation that has existed, or that is now existing, was more thoroughly instructed in all things pertaining to to their religion, or more zealous in observing them, than the Jews?

And, furthermore, are we not forced to the conclusion that, if John's baptism was an institution or ordinance of the law, it would have been written in the Book of the Law? And are we not forced to the conclusion that, if written in the book of the law, it would not have remained undiscovered and unobserved for two thousand years, with so many thousand eager eyes searching constantly, lest some "jot or tittle" might pass unobeyed? Can such an idea be even reasonably supposed? But if it can be reasonably supposed that, among so many things enjoined to be written in the book of the law, some small and insignificant thing might have been unrecorded — can it be reasonably supposed that one of the most important and vital things connected with the law, or the Jewish religion, could have been unwritten in the book, or, if written, remain undiscovered and unobserved for more than two thousand years, with so many hundreds of eager eyes searching, day and night, lest some “jot or tittle” of the law should remain unfulfilled? Is not such a supposition absurdly irrational?

Yet, the overwhelming majority of the Pedobaptists believe that John's baptism belonged to the Jewish Dispensation, and that the act John administered to Christ was a washing of consecration, appointed for the formal and legal induction of Christ into His office of High Priest. All will admit that there could be nothing connected with the Jewish religion as important as the consecration of Christ to His priestly office — supposing this belonged to the law of Moses. But, stranger to say, we find in the book of the law not the slightest intimation that, by any one of its ordinances or requirements, Christ was to be made a priest. And what, if possible, is more strange — not one thing that John did in connection with the baptism of Jesus does the law require for the consecration of a Jewish High Priest. And not one thing required by the law for the legal induction of a High Priest into his office did John do in the baptism of Christ, let us take time, and settle this question right here and now.

Did John baptize Christ to consecrate or induct Christ into His priestly office?

This is not one of the dead issues of the dead past. It is an intensely live and practical one. Our salvation is most intimately connected with it. It can be settled beyond a reasonable doubt, and within the limits of this chapter, and by the Word of God.

A LIVING QUESTION.

Only three years since, Dr. T. O. Summers wrote a book on “Baptism,” in which book (p. 103), with all the force of his specious reasoning and dogmatic assertion, he maintains that John baptized Christ to consecrate him a Jewish priest. These are his words:

“But who does not see that Christ was baptized on His entrance upon His ministry, according to the custom of religious functionaries under the Jewish Dispensation? The priests were washed with water upon their assumption of the sacerdotal office; and, accordingly, as the Great High Priest of our profession, He submitted to this ceremonial initiation into His office. The Jewish priests were consecrated at the age of thirty — the very age at which our Lord received baptism. By this public designation to His office He was made manifest to Israel as the Great High Priest over the House of God.”

He asks, “Who can not see it?”

The Rev. Richard Watson, an approved Methodist scholar and commentator, could not see it that way. Commenting on Matthew iii, 15, he says: “The notion that Christ was baptized with reference to the entrance of the Levitical priests into their office, by anointing and baptism, does not seem to be well founded, since their baptism was a mere oblation which was continually repeated during their ministry.”

After this book had passed through several editions it was placed in the “course of study” of candidates for the ministry in the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The theory and teachings I here oppose will be preached all over the South by Methodist ministers for generations to come, and our young ministers will be compelled to meet them.

Let us now turn and examine

THE LAW FOR THE CONSECRATION OF A PRIEST.

“And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest's office. Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish, and unleavened bread, and cakes unleavened tempered with oil, and wafers unleavened anointed with oil: of wheaten flour shalt thou make them. And thou shalt put them into one basket, and bring them in the basket, with the bullock and the two rams.

“And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water. And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breast-plate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod: and thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre. Then thou shalt take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.

“And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them. And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

“And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. And thou shalt kill the bullock before the Lord, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar. And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar. But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

“Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar. And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head. And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar; it is a burnt offering unto the Lord: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

“And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him. Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration: and one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer cut of the basket of the unleavened bread that is before the Lord: and thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the Lord. And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the Lord: it is an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the Lord: and it shall be thy part. And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons: and it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering; and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the Lord.

“And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them. And that son that is priest in his stead shall put them on seven days, when he cometh into the tabernacle of the congregation to minister in the holy place.

“And thou shalt take the ram of the consecration, and seethe his flesh in the holy place. And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy. And if ought of the flesh of the consecrations, or of the bread, remain unto the morning, then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire: it shall not be eaten, because it is holy. And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all things which I have commanded thee: seven days shalt thou consecrate them. And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy; whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.

“Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: and with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office.

“And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.”[1]

Now turn and see what John did to Jesus when he baptized him:

“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad Him, saying I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered Him. And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[2]

The reader would doubtless think me very rash indeed should I affirm that had John been authorized to have consecrated Christ a Jewish priest, and had done no more than he did do, he would have involved himself in a direful curse, and that had Christ assumed the priestly office under the law, He should have been put to death by that law. But I will prove both statements.

Take John's case in consecrating Jesus: unless he observed all things enjoined by the law of consecration, he not only would not have made Christ a priest, but would have brought upon himself the curse of the law, which says:

“Cursed is every one: how much more a priest who continueth not in all things written in the law to do them?''

Now examine his baptism of Jesus. Did he do all things that God commanded to be done in consecrating a priest? Did he so much as do one thing required by the law?

1. Did John take Jesus and a priestly robe, garment, anointing oil, a bullock, two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread?

2. Did he gather all the congregation to the door of the tabernacle?

3. Did he take Jesus to the temple and wash him with water?

4. Did John then put a coat upon Christ, and girdle Him with a girdle and clothe Him with a priestly robe? etc.

5. Did he put a mitre or golden plate and a holy crown upon Christ?

6. Did John anoint the temple, or any part thereof, with the anointing oil?

7. Did he sprinkle thereof upon the altar seven times?

8. Did he anoint the altar and all the vessels thereof?

9. Did John pour the anointing oil upon Christ's head?

10. Did John then bring a bullock, and did Christ lay his hands upon the head of the bullock, and did John slay the bullock?

11. Did John bring another ram, etc., and slay it?

12. Did he put blood upon the right ear of Christ, and on his right thumb and right toe?

13. Did John, then, take the blood that was upon the altar and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Christ and His garments, and thus consecrate or hallow Him unto the Lord?

14. Did John take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covers the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder, for it is the ram of consecration?[3]

15. Did John also take one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of the unleavened bread, put them all into the hand of Christ, and wave them or shake them before the Lord?

16. And, then, did John receive them from the hands of Christ and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering?

17. No priest ever was or could be consecrated without this ram of consecration. Everything that must be done is placed before you, reader — everything John did do — and will you now decide if John consecrated Jesus a high priest?

Bear it continually in mind that no one save a Levite could be made a priest; and Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and according to the express statute of the law had He assumed the priestly office, being a stranger, it would have been the duty of the Sanhedrin to have put Him to death.

Again, Christ was a priest of another covenant — of grace — and He, therefore, was made a priest by another law.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchesidec' For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.”[4]

Christ's priesthood was not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec; he was not made a priest by the law that Aaron and his sons were, but by oath of God. How, then, can an intelligent Christian say that John made Christ a priest, and inducted Him into His priestly office by baptism? What most dire and unthought of result has happened the human race from the days of Adam until the day and hour John baptized Christ? It is axiomatic that no man elected to office can enter upon the duties or discharge the least function of the office until he has been formally and legally inducted into the office. Mr. Harrison's veto before his inauguration, would have been lighter than the thin air. No officer of our Government is clothed with the least authority or can exercise the least function of the office to which he has been elected before he has taken the prescribed oath of office. This, then, has been the dire result of Mr. Summer's theory to the race.

Not a soul of the race who has died before the hour that John baptized Jesus has been saved, and for the best reason in the world: The race was without a Savior — a priest to intercede for them, for Christ had not been inducted into His priestly office!

Again, and still more terrible to contemplate: If John consecrated Christ a priest by Jewish rites and ceremonies, he only made Him a Jewish priest — authorized to exercise only the functions of a Jewish priest, and, like them, only a type [shadow] pointing forward to a Christly real priest who was to come. If only a Jewish priest He could do no more for us than those priests could do for the Jews; but, with all the blood they ever shed, or all the sacrifices they ever offered, no sinner has been saved or ever will be saved!

Who will accept this monstrous result in order to build an argument tor the affusion of unconscious infants?

But this is by no means the direst result of Dr. Summers' theory, maintained by the M. E. Church.

The world still is without a Savior, or the slightest hope of one!!

For if John consecrated Christ a priest he consecrated Him only a Jewish Priest and nothing more; and that is the only consecration or induction into office Christ will ever have!

Therefore the world has never had and never will have a Savior! The whole race is forever lost! And this for the best reason in the world — the Jewish priests never saved any one. They were not real priests — only shadows of the real that was to come. Not all of them, with all their bloody sacrifices, from Aaron until the last one that ever officiated, has ever saved a soul.

“Not all the blood of beasts
On Jewish altars slain,
E'er made a guilty conscience clean
Or washed away one stain.

But Christ, the Heavenly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away —
A sacrifice of nobler name,
And richer blood than they.”

Thus does this abominable theory annihilate the world's Redeemer and eternal Great High Priest from the earth and consign the race to hopeless ruin!

LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

1. If John's baptism belonged to the Legal Dispensation, its duty and form would have been commanded by God and written in the book of the law, as circumcision and all the other ordinances were.

2. But it was not written in the book of the law.

3. Therefore, it did not belong to the Jewish Dispensation.

If John's Baptism belonged to the Jewish Dispensation, and was written in the book of the law, as were all things pertaining to the law, that the Jews were commanded to “observe and do” the precept could have been found in the book, and, presumptively, examples numerous.

But after the most diligent searching by people and priest, by scribes and lawyers, for more than two thousand years, no shadow of precept for or example of John's baptism can be found.

CONCLUDING AND CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS.

If John's Baptism belonged to the Law of Moses, or Jewish Dispensation, it certainly could be found written in the book of the law, as circumcision and all other legal ordinances.

But it can not be found written in the book of the law,[5] as can circumcision and all other legal observances.

Therefore, John's Baptism did not belong to the law or Jewish Dispensation.[6]

The only semblance of an argument known to me urged in support of the first theory — i. e., that John's ministry belonged to the Jewish Dispensation, and that his baptismal act was a Jewish washing, and no more a Christian ordinance than circumcision — is that Paul did not recognize the validity of those baptized by John when he met such cases, and knew that they were the disciples of John, and had been baptized by John.

The transaction at Ephesus, and the rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John is confidently referred to as conclusive proof in support of their theory. I grant, if we admit the correctness of their interpretation of Luke's record of the transaction there, it would afford the shadow of ground for their statement; but their construction of the passage is in violation of the well known rules of syntax, and obviously and absurdly false, which I propose to demonstrate in this Exegesis.

Chapter Footnotes

[1 - Exodus 29:1-46]

[2 - Matthew 3:1-15]

3 - Decide if John slew one and used his blood when he baptized Christ.

[4 - Hebrews 7:12-18]

5 - In proof presumptive to prove this negative, the most diligent search has been made by people and priests, scribes and lawyers, for nearly five thousand years, and neither a shadow of precept for, or example, of any thing like John's baptism, can be found in the Law or Old Testament.

6 - This argument can be urged with equal force against infant baptism being a scriptural ordinance or Christian duty. Pedobaptists say infant baptism is taught in the Word of God, and for nearly two thousand years they can find neither precept for nor example of it.

Exegesis of Acts XIX, 1-7

PART I - CHAPTER V

“AND it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.”

The Questions:

Were these twelve men reimmersed?

If so, why?

Discussions on these questions have come down to us from the sixteenth century, and, strange to say, both Baptists and Pedobaptists have advocated both sides of the questions in the last three hundred years. When Protestants, in the sixteenth century, demanded of Baptists a scriptural warrant for rebaptizing, they confidently referred to this passage, claiming, at the same time, that they (Baptists) did not rebaptize, but simply baptized.

Calvin, the father and founder of Presbyterianism gave himself no rest until he had formulated an exegesis of the passage that would rob Baptists of its authority in the support of their practice. He did this by a specious misconstruction of the pronouns they, in the fourth and fifth verses, claiming they referred to the people to whom John is said to have preached in the fourth verse.

Because this record has been in dispute for over three hundred years by the best scholars in those centuries, are we justified in saying that it can not be undoubtedly understood if the rules of interpretation governing the construction of the Greek language be observed? or to say that the Holy Spirit did not intend it to be undoubtedly understood!

What is this but blaspheming the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit claims this part of the New Testament to be an infallible revelation of the acts of the apostles; and yet He formulates a record, designedly selecting words so hopelessly ambiguous, and formulating them in sentences so contrary to the rules governing the interpretation of the language used, that the best scholars of the age, to say nothing of the commonly intelligent, can undoubtedly ascertain what is meant. Who will say that this is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Indeed, it is of the most gross and impious sort.

Although Baptists in Calvin's day unhesitatingly rejected his exegesis of this passage as incorrect, yet, in the century following, when the discussions on the act and subjects of baptism raged “fierce and hot,” and the Baptists urged the authority of John's baptism and ministry with irresistible force against the affusion of infants, Pedobaptists hedged them with the argument (?) that John's baptism was not a Christian ordinance, but a Jewish rite, used by John to induct Christ into His priestly office, and, therefore, no example for us, etc. Baptists met them with the authority of Calvin, one of their own poets, to prove the Christian character of John's baptism with his misconstruction of Acts xix, to save it from being discredited by Paul's refusing to repeat it in the case of the twelve disciples.

And this is the case to-day. All Pedobaptists and some Baptists who, strange to say, lay claim to scholarship, (!!) maintain, on grammatical grounds, that these twelve were not reimmersed!

And, yet, how many professed Pedobaptists, and others taught by them, confidently say that the Holy Spirit designedly selected a word of generic signification when It described what John did to Christ when he baptized Him; so that His disciples in after ages could not certainly ascertain the specific act Christ observed and commanded His disciples to observe for baptism when he commanded them to baptize, or to be baptized; for, very few are so reckless as to say that Christ observed one act when He was baptized, and commanded His disciples to observe quite a different thing when He said “follow me.”

The interpretation of this passage turns upon the pronouns and their proper antecedents. Now there is no one principle in any language, touching pronouns, more axiomatic than this.

Pronouns should not be used instead of their antecedents, when their use would in the least obscure the sense of the passage in which they occur, much less when they make the passage doubtful or ambiguous.

Construing the passage by this rule, every English scholar is bound to decide that the pronoun “them” of the sixth verse, and “they”' of the fifth, manifestly refer to disciples of the first for their antecedents. The narrative plainly declares that Paul laid his hands upon those who were baptized; but since he did not lay his hands upon those John baptized, he must have laid his hands upon these twelve disciples.

To say that the pronoun “them” of the sixth verse, and the pronoun “they” of the fifth, do not refer to the same antecedent, is to charge the inspired writer with using the pronoun so as not only to obscure, but to contradict the sense! The reason is obvious, for it is a simple continuous narrative, and there is nothing introduced to show that they refer to different antecedents, and therefore we are forced by the laws of language to refer them to one and the same antecedent.

The Greek docs not only warrant this rendering, and the construction we have given, but it unquestionably demands it. Every Greek scholar knows that the conjunctive but has an adversative force, and is therefore used to call attention to the fact that the word or clause with which it stands, is to be distinguished from something preceding, while and is often used to resume the discourse after a long parenthesis; while the office of and is to continue the narration. Now, turning to the original, we may expect that the transition from the relation of Paul to that of Luke would be indicated by this adversative, de, that marks the change from Luke's narrative to Paul's, but instead of this, we find the kai introducing the fifth verse, and only the simple connective and, introducing the sixth verse. Therefore, according to the use of these connectives in the Greek, we must conclude that Paul's narrative closes with the fifth verse, or the sixth would have been introduced with but, and the fifth with and.

Prof. Charles Anthon, (Pedobaptist), one of the most accomplished of American Greek scholars, says: “The word 'they' in verse five of xix Acts, refers clearly to the 'disciples' mentioned in the first of the chapter, and not to those who are spoken of in verse four as having been baptized by John. The particle de, at the commencement of verse five, is employed to mark transition, and is not meant to be the correspondent particle to the men of verse four. * * * Paul's narrative, therefore, closes with verse four. Any other view of the question is open to serious difficulties.[1]

Not only do the particles above determine the question, but the regimen of the pronouns and particle, employed by the inspired historian.

It is not a verb in the Aorist tense, in the original, but a participle, and the conjunction, but, that is rendered in our version, “And when they heard this.” The literal rendering is, “but hearing this,” etc. The participle akousantes in the nominative plural, can not refer to laoo which is in the dative singular, as its antecedent, but to autous, the representative of mathetas, disciples, in verse one. We think no Greek scholar will question this.

Then, again, the sixth verse being connected to the fifth, by the copulative conjunction and, instead of a disjunctive, requires that autois, them, akousantes, hearing, should have the same antecedent — disciples. Thus does the original clearly demonstrate that these twelve disciples were rebaptized.

Albert Barnes (Presbyterian), of this says: “This is the obvious interpretation of the passage, which would strike all persons as correct, unless there were some previous theory to support. The opposite is a most forced construction.'' (See his notes on Acts xix.)

Alexander Carson (Baptist), acknowledged by scholars to be the “Prince of Philologists,” says: “I can not see how it can be denied without doing violence to God's Word” — i. e., that those disciples were baptized.

If these twelve disciples were reimmersed, as I claim to have demonstrated they were, then it must have been because there was an irregularity in their first baptism which rendered it void. There are four things essential to scriptural baptism —

1. A scriptural act.

2. A scriptural subject — i. e.,. regenerated.

3. A qualified administrator.

4. Design — i. e., for a scriptural purpose.

We are authorized to suppose that something connected with them awakened Paul's suspicion that all was not right with them; that, if they were what they professed to be, he desired to know if they received the Holy Ghost when they believed. He therefore asks: " Did ye in believing receive the Holy Ghost?" For this is the form of the question in the original. They replied, “We did not so much as hear if there be a Holy Ghost.” This frank disavowal of so much as any knowledge of such a person in the Trinity as the Holy Ghost, was well calculated to awaken Paul's surprise, and he very appropriately asks, “Into what then were ye baptized?” Into what faith could ye have been baptized? — what Christian evangelist could have taught and baptized you and you not so much as have heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit?[2] And they answered: “Into John's baptism.” They did not say, “We were baptized by John” as they unquestionably would have done had they received the act at his hands, in which case they certainly would have heard from him that there was a Holy Spirit. They understood that they had received and been baptized into the faith or doctrine that John preached, by some one of John's disciples doubtless, and, if so, he was not qualified to administer the act, and, never having heard of the Holy Spirit, or experienced its renewing influences, they themselves were not proper subjects for Christian baptism.

Here we have a conspicuous want of three of the essential elements of Christian baptism:

1. Qualified subjects: These were manifestly unregenerate; not having heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit, therefore, not having been the subjects of His regenerating influence.

2. They lacked a qualified administrator. They had not been baptized by John the Baptist himself since John closed his ministry, some twenty or twenty-five years before this.

3. If, by one of John's disciples, he was not authorized to administer John's baptism John was not authorized to commission any one to administer his baptism. His baptism commenced and ended with his ministry. He was to decrease, and therefore no one was to continue his ministry, nor was John authorized to commission any one of his disciples to baptize.

We learn (1) that though the subject profess his faith, and that most sincerely and concientiously, and is satisfied with his baptism as those twelve men were, yet if his faith is not a scriptural faith, his baptism is a nullity.

We learn (2) that persons who, through misinstruction or misapprehension, have been immersed before they receive the renewing of the Holy Ghost, are most certainly entitled to receive Christian baptism, when such have experienced satisfactory evidence of a change of heart. Receiving correct instruction they believed and were baptized, and, thus doing, they set an example for all who have received irregular baptisms to follow.

All can see that the immersion of these men does not reflect in the least upon John's baptism. They evidently were not baptized by John, but by some of John's disciples some twenty years after John's baptism ceased, and had long been superseded by the ministry of Christ.

We think the context clearly indicated by whom they were immersed.

Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, a disciple of John, a zealous and eloquent man, knowing nothing but the baptism of John — labored about here mightily, convincing the Jews from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, but not with a perfect knowledge of what he should preach, for Aquila and Priscilla took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly, but a silence right here carries a convincing argument with it. It does not say they required him to be rebaptized, which they would have done if John's baptism had not been Christian and valid baptism. He doubtless, received his baptism from John himself, but he could have received no authority to baptize others, for John had no right to give such authority. He is authority on this: “I must decrease.” In this age all such authority is vested in Churches of Christ. Their official ministers — ordained ministers — are their official servants.

This example was given for our instruction. Immersions, lacking any one of these four essential elements, should be repeated.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - In a letter to the writer, 1851.

2 - In the Peshito Syriac this is the reading: “We have not so much as heard if a Holy Ghost exists.”

John's Ministry not an Intermediate Dispensation

PART I - CHAPTER VI

DR. Summer's treatment of John's baptism amazes me!

In his book on Baptism, that has been published and adopted as a text-book on Baptism by the Methodist Church South, and placed in the course of study of all the candidates of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, he vehemently denies that John's baptism was Christian any more than was circumcision — that it belonged to the Legal or Jewish Dispensation, and that John baptized, or washed Christ to induct him into His priestly office, as the reader will see in the last chapter; but ere the ink had time to dry on his page, as though disgusted or alarmed at the results of this position, as well he might be, he tells us frankly that it did not belong to the Jewish or the Christian Dispensation, but to a Johnic — an independent Intermediate Dispensation; that it sustained no more relation to Christian baptism than a preliminary relation. As Justin Martyr says, “It was a prelude to the grace of the Gospel Evangelical graratiæpræludium,” or, in the language of Augustine, it was “a forrunning baptism” — precursorium ministerium.

“It was,” says Chrysostom, “as it were a bridge which made away from the baptism of the Jews to that of our Savior. It was superior to the former, but inferior to the latter.”

"Christian baptism was not instituted until after the resurrection of Christ. Its subjects are baptized in or to the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which was not the case with the subjects of John's baptism.”

Dr. Summers wrote some strange things in his book, but what could he write more strange than this? “John's ministry belonged to the Jewish Dispensation;” and on another, before the ink was dried, “it belonged to neither the Jewish nor the Christian, but to one distinct from either — therefore, a Johnic order.”

The strange mystery of this is, how it could have belonged to the Jewish Dispensation, to a separate intermediate dispensation, or be a separate and independent dispensation belonging to neither the Jewish nor the Christian, and at the same time being an independent, an intermediate Dispensation!

Will the rising ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church accept this as logical?

He clearly enough confesses his reason for annihilating the force of John's baptism: “Those who contend for immersion as the exclusive mode of baptism lay great stress upon the fact that John the Baptist administered the ordinance in the Jordan and at Ænon, where there is much water. Why did he repair to such places if it was not to immerse his proselytes.” To this we reply: If it could be proved that John baptized by immersion, and that Jesus Himself was immersed, this would not prove that the Christian ordinance must be administered by immersion.

[We shall attend to this later on.]

Since our young ministers will have to meet those of the Methodist Episcopal Church, thoroughly indoctrinated with Dr. Summer's Johnic and Bridge Dispensations, I will examine it briefly here.

JOHN THE BAPTIST'S MINISTRY DID NOT BELONG TO A JOHNIC OR INTERMEDIATE DISPENSATION.

Christ said that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.

To establish every word of my negation above I shall introduce only three witnesses:

1. The Holy Spirit declares that the ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark i, 1).

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”

If it was the beginning of the Gospel Dispensation, it certainly could not be of a Johnic or of an intermediate one, not connected with the gospel of the Son of God.

My second witness is Christ who testified.

“The Law and the Prophets were until John: since which time the kingdom of heaven is preached.”

With John's first sermon, or message, the kingdom of heaven — the gospel of Christ — was preached, and commenced — the Christian and not The Johnic Dispensation, began.

My third witness is:

John the Baptist himself.

“I must decrease.”

John fully understood his mission — not to foretell the coming of their Messiah and King, or of His kingdom soon to come, but to announce the presence of both King and kingdom. “Repent ye, for the kingdom foretold by prophets long centuries (Dan. ii, 42) ago was present, and their long expected King was present. Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven has approached. The verb translated “is at hand” is in the perfect tense. John knew his work was done, and from that hour he must decrease in followers and disciples, and that ere long he would disappear from the sight of men and be forgotten. My reader, if but commonly intelligent, must know if John's ministry had been a permanent one, although intermediate, every day would have increased the number of his disciples.

John's ministry possessed all the essential elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He preached all the vital doctrines preached by Christ and his apostles.

The Gospel as Preached by John.

“Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
To the sinners around him: “Bring forth the fruits meet for repentance.” Paul testified to the fact that John preached the two vital doctrines of the gospel.
John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him who was to come after him — that is, on Christ Jesus.
“Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.”
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.
“But he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

The Gospel Preached by Christ before the Resurrection.

“Repent ye, for the kingdom is at hand.”
“He that heareth my word, and believeth in Him that sent me, hath everlasting life.”
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John iii, 14, 15.)

It is admitted that the apostles and Christ, after His resurrection, preached the gospel; therefore John preached the gospel. Things equal to the same things are equal to each other.

If one is gospel, so is the other.

The gospel is salvation through faith in Christ.

It is held by some that the gospel was not proclaimed or taught before the resurrection of Christ. Here is what the Holy Spirit, through Paul, declared to be the gospel that was preached by Him and the apostles concerning the vital doctrines of salvation and justification by faith after the resurrection of Christ.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” — Christ.

Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have access into this grace whereon we stand. “By grace are ye saved through faith and that [i. e., salvation] is not of yourselves; it [the salvation] is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” — Paul.

Therefore, it [salvation] is of faith, that it might be by grace to the end, the promise might be sure to all the seed. By the deeds of law no flesh shall be justified in His sight.

“Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts ii.)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.” — Paul.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God. “By grace are ye saved, and that [salvation] is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” — Paul.

By faith we have access into this grace.

The vital doctrine taught equally by Paul and Christ and John was salvation by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus. Let the reader decide if John did not preach the gospel Paul preached after the resurrection of Christ. If he did not, it is morally certain that no one else has.

Proposition: The Baptism of John Belonged to the Christian, or Gospel, Dispensation

PART I - CHAPTER VII

IT is eminently proper in entering upon the discussion of a proposition to clearly define the principal terms used in the discussion, in order to clear it of all ambiguity.

The principal terms that will be used in this are Gospel, Christian, Dispensation.

DEFINITIONS.

Dispensation — A period of time, more or less distinct in the development of the redemptive economy, marked by some peculiar phase in the revelation of God's will and worship to the race.

THE DISPENSATIONS.

Theologians variously designate the Dispensations as:

The Adamic: from the Creation to Noah.
The Noachic: from Noah to Abraham.
The Patriarchal: from Abraham to
The Legal or Mosaic: from the Exodus to John the Baptist.
The Christian or Gentile: from the First to the Second Advent.
The Millennial or Messianic: from the Second Advent to the Judgment.
The Sabbatic: from the Judgment to the new Earth.

Christian:
Pertaining to Christ.
Appointed by Christ.
Taught by Christ,
Exampled by Christ.
As Christian Baptism.
A Christian Grace.

Gospel good news of salvation:
The plan of Salvation.
Any doctrine essential to it.
As Repentance and Faith, are gospel doctrines.
Justification by faith, a vital doctrine.

It is granted that it must have belonged to one of three Dispensations — the Jewish, the Johnic, or the Christian.

FIRST PROOF.

I have demonstrated that it did not belong to the Jewish, Johnic, or an Intermediate Dispensation.

Therefore it must have belonged to the Christian or Gentile Dispensation.

I would not be understood, when I characterize the present as the Gospel or Christian Dispensation, that the Gospel of the Son of God, the self-same gospel Christ and His apostles preached for man's salvation, was not preached and clearly made known in the Adamic and every subsequent Dispensation. It was preached to our first parents, all the race, in the garden.

Abel was saved by it. It was preached by faithful Noah, for one hundred and twenty years, to the antediluvians before the flood, and to his three sons, and by them to all future nations of which they were the progenitors. It was preached to Abraham, to the saving of his soul,[1] and through his descendants to the whole Jewish nation unto the coming of Christ and the introduction of the Christian — or, I think it more properly should be called the Gentile — Dispensation. Because the gospel was more exclusively preached to the Jewish nation, and it was made the conservator of God's laws and covenants. From the exodus to the advent of Christ and the bringing in of the Gospel Dispensation to the Gentiles, the period was called the Jewish Dispensation. And because, since the advent of Christ, the Jews have been passed by, and the gospel is being preached almost exclusively to the Gentiles, and will be until the last nation has heard it, it is called the Gentile Dispensation.

Still, in all these dispensations, whatever special blessings God may have bestowed upon, or withheld from, this or that nation, He has been no respecter of persons.[2]

This is Peter's testimony:

“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (He is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached.”

Notice this passage particularly: The same gospel that was preached by John, and before the death of Christ and His apostles, was preached to the children of Israel.

Because — and I regret to say it — not a few of our own people have of late joined voice with the Campbellites, and in the West quite a number of our prominent ministers, in teaching the people that the gospel was not preached: that not an accent of it ever fell from the lips of God's prophets, or of John, or of Jesus Christ, or was preached or penned by the evangelists before the days of Pentecost — not until after the resurrection of Christ, I say, because of this new heresy, I will be excused for giving some space in thoroughly disposing of it here.

Not only are such sentiments obtaining lodgement among some of our people, but, not long since, Mr. Moody, before one of his congregations, remarked that he had been relieved of a severe fit of the “blues” brought on by the very meager fruits of a long meeting.

He said it was from the fact that old Noah preached and toiled, wept and prayed, for one hundred and twenty years, and never made one convert!! Was Mr. Moody comforted by a fact or a fiction?

There are three important questions that should be settled here:

DID NOT NOAH PREACH THE GOSPEL?

DID HE NOT MAKE A CONVERT?

DOES PRISON MEAN HELL — OR A PLACE OF PUNISHMENT?

The denomination mentioned above says no to the first two; for there was no gospel to preach in Noah's day; nor a sentence of the gospel ever uttered until after Christ arose from the dead.

Let us test the truth of this saying by the explicit teachings of the Holy Spirit.

“And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham.” There is but one gospel, and this was made known by Christ to Abraham, and he believed it to the saving of his soul.

The gospel was preached or made known to Abel, and he was saved by believing it, and justified, which he could not have been had he not heard and believed it.

It is universally believed that Noah preached to the antediluvians while the ark was preparing — one hundred and twenty years. And in this same passage we learn that some, and doubtless very many, were saved, and if so, it was by the gospel. He preached the gospel.

All of God's true prophets and priests preached the same gospel for the salvation of the Jews that Christ and His apostles preached after Christ arose from the dead; and the essential features of it were that remission of sins, justification and salvation come alone through faith in Christ Jesus. This is the testimony of Peter, at the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert:

“To Him [Christ] gave all the prophets witness that in His name whosoever believeth on Him shall receive the remission of sins.”

Every true minister of God in past ages preached this for the gospel, and every true minister in this age preaches this for the gospel, and every true minister of Christ, in all the ages to come, will preach this for the gospel; for there never has been but one gospel, there is but one, and there never will be but one true gospel; and if, as Paul says, “we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

This is the gospel Paul preached.

“To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without deeds of law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

“What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”

No one will assert that baptism is not a deed of law. Ritualists are free to call it the law of pardon. To say, then, that no one can receive the remission of sins and justification without baptism, affirms, contrary to Paul's teachings, that man says without a deed of law no one can be justified, which would be another gospel that would not be the gospel. Let all such be condemned.

But the questions: Did not Noah preach the gospel, and were there not persons, possibly multitudes, saved by the gospel he preached? and did not Christ, before His resurrection, preach to the spirits of those saved by Noah's preaching before He rose from the dead.

Did not Noah preach the gospel to the antediluvians? Were there not many saved? Did not Christ preach to them before His resurrection?

[I Peter iii: 18-20.]

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

I know of no worse translated or interpreted passage in the New Testament. It has suffered in both these respects, in order to take it out of the hands of the Papists, who press it into the service of purgatory. We present the following as the literal translation:

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but alive in the Spirit; in which He went and preached to the souls of men in safe keeping [or Paradise], who sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was building.”

Touching the translation, we quote, with approbation the remarks of Bishop Horsely:

“The Spirit, in these English words, seems to be put, not for the soul of Christ, but for the Divine Spirit; and the sense seems to be that Christ, after He was put to death, was raised to life again by the Holy Spirit. But this, though it be the sense of the English translation, and a true proposition, is certainly not in the sense of the apostle's words. It is of great importance to remark, though it may seem a grammatical nicety, that the prepositions, in either branch of this clause, have been supplied by the translators, and are not in the original. The words 'flesh' and 'spirit,' in the original, stand without any preposition, in that case which, in the Greek language, without any preposition, is the case either of the cause or instrument by which, of the time when, of the place where, of the part in which, of the manner how, or of the respect in which, according to the exigence of the context; and, to any one who will consider the original with critical accuracy, it will be obvious, from the perfect antithesis of these two clauses concerning flesh and spirit, that if the word 'spirit' denote the active cause by which Christ was restored to life, which must be supposed by them who understand the word of the Holy Ghost, the word 'flesh' must equally denote the active cause by which He was put to death, which therefore must have been the flesh of His own body — an interpretation too manifestly absurd to be admitted. But if the word 'flesh' denote, as it most evidently does, the part in which death took effect upon Him, 'spirit' must denote the part in which life was preserved in Him — that is, His own soul; and the word 'quickened' is often applied to signify, not the resuscitation of life extinguished, but the preservation and continuance of life subsisting. The exact rendering, therefore, of the apostle's words would be, 'being put to death in the flesh, but quick in the spirit' — that is, surviving in His soul the stroke of death which His body had sustained — 'by which,' or rather 'in which' — that is, in which surviving soul — 'He went and preached to the souls of men in prison, or in safe-keeping.'”

“The spirits preached to” are expressly affirmed to be those “which sometime were disobedient” in the days of Noah, when “the long suffering of God waited” for them.

This word “sometimes” is the same word that Paul uses when he said to the Ephesians (ii, 13), “ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ;” and again to Titus (iii, 3): “We ourselves were sometime foolish, disobedient,” etc., but now are “made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

It being thus declared that they were sometime disobedient, would imply, then, that they were disobedient only for a time — that being during the period “when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.”

The “long suffering” which then waited, is the same Greek word that Peter uses when he accounts[3] “that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation;” and which Paul used when he wrote,[4] “Despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth them to repentance.” Peter also says[5] that “the Lord is long suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” The long suffering of God, therefore, in the days of Noah, was to give opportunity for repentance to the disobedient.

The word rendered “waited” occurs in the New Testament only in seven other places, as follows: John v, 3: “Waiting for the moving of the water;” Acts xvii, 16: “While Paul waited for them;” I Cor. xi, 33: “Tarry one for another;” xvi, 11: “I look for him;” Heb. x, 13: “Expecting till his enemies;” xi, 10: He looked for a city;” James v, 7: “The husbandmen waiteth,” etc.

The Greek word is defined by Robinson as meaning “to receive from any quarter;” or in the New Testament, inchoately, to be about to receive from any quarter — i. e., to wait for, to look for, to expect.

The import of the passage, then, would be that those in prison that Christ preached to were those for whom the long suffering of God, in the time of Noah, waited in expectation that they would become heirs of salvation, which God would not have done unless they were to become such; and that they did so become is intimated by the remark that they were “sometime disobedient” — i. e., that they did not thus continue, but were recovered from their disobedient condition.

Is there not reason, then, to hope that a portion of those who sat under Noah's preaching repented and became subjects of grace? For one hundred and twenty years did the long suffering of God thus wait; and would it have thus expected if there were to be no results conformable to the expectation? It is not necessary to suppose that all who heard Noah died in hardened impenitence.

What, then, became of those subjects of God's waiting salvation? God's purpose to remove the race, and to repeople the earth, did not demand that more than Noah and his family should survive the flood, any more than it did that more than a pair of each kind of bird and animal should survive. The one hundred and twenty years, then, gave time for the removal of all who believed before the waters came upon them. Even Methuselah died only a year before the flood; and so many have died, all who were only “disobedient” during that “waiting of God's long suffering.” Thus, merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous are taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.

As the ark was designed to save only the family of Noah, with animals of each kind, God would remove those who did not continue disobedient, before the evil of the coming flood should come on them.

The word rendered “prison” in the text, is the same that is rendered “watch” in Matt. xxiv, 43: “In what watch the thief would come;” and it is defined by Robertson as a “watch on guard.” A person thus under watch or guard may be said to be guarded, or in prison. The word is also used to denote a watch-post, station; and is thus used by the Seventy in Hab. ii, 1: “I will stand upon my watch,” etc. By the spirits being in prison, therefore, it is not necessary to understand that they were culprits, but that they were in safe-keeping [Paradise], until the day of their final resurrection.[6]

The term “Paradise” implies the idea of being guarded — safely kept — as well as that of a high degree of enjoyment arising from the associations and beauties of the place. It was introduced into the Greek by Xenophon, who derived it from the Persians. The Persian Paradise was a large plot of ground (park), surrounded by a high wall, to protect its occupants from molestation from enemies, or wild beasts from without. This park was adorned with everything to contribute to delight the senses, and used as a place of rest and relaxation from anxiety, and toil, and of positive enjoyment.

Here the king, with his family and invited friends, would resort at stated times, throwing off all cares of state, to give themselves up to rest and pleasure. The Paradise was so securely guarded that they had no fears from the assaults of enemies or attacks of wild beasts. The intermediate state is beautifully represented as a Paradise, where the saints rest, safely guarded from the assaults of Satan and his angels who infest this world, and tempted and annoyed them here. There, “where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest,” they enjoy the frequent visitations of the Savior — so frequent that it could be said of them, they were with Christ — and the associations of all the holy and the good — patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs — who, with them, wait for the redemption of their bodies at the second coming of Christ.

While the spirits to which Christ preached are thus designated as those who were sometime disobedient, when God's long suffering waited for their conversion during the building of the ark, and which, because they did not continue disobedient, are now in safe keeping, as they were at the time when Peter wrote, it remains to be considered: When did Christ in spirit go and preach to them, and what was the purpose of his preaching?

In answer to this, it will be noticed that Peter does not say that Christ preached to them when, but that he preached to those who were thus sometime disobedient; but when he went and preached to them they were “spirits in prison.” The place of the departed is sometimes referred to as a prison, from which the righteous are to be delivered. While it is gain for them to die — far better than to continue here — yet their condition in hades (Paradise) must be one of unfinished happiness, and consisting principally in rest, security and hope, and not in full participation of the portion which is to be given only at the resurrection. Had not sin entered the world their full fruition of hope would have been participated in without the entrance into and rest in hades (Paradise). And the death and resurrection of Christ will result in the removal from thence of those who are in safe-keeping, and their resurrection to that exalted condition which would have been attained without death had there been no sin. Thus we read in Hosea xiii, 14: “I will ransom them from the power of sheol, I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plagues; O sheol, I will be thy destruction!” And Paul, quoting this (I Cor. xv, 55), exclaims, “O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?” In Rev. xxx, 14: “Death,” the last enemy of the redeemed, with “hades,” their intermediate abode, is to be cast into the lake of fire. Job speaks of “the bars of sheol” (xvii, 16); and Hezekiah said: “I shall go to the gates of sheol,”[7] but God “hath broken the gates of brass and cut the bands of iron in sunder.”[8] He will say “to the prisoners, go forth; and to them that are in darkness” [in the invisible or unseen] “show yourselves,” and then “they shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. They shall not hunger, nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun smite them; for He that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them.”[9]

The only “prison” in which those sometime disobedient but repentant spirits are, must be sheol or hades, which Christ will destroy, and from which He will ransom them; and to have gone and preached to the spirits in prison. He must have entered the place of the departed, and preached to them there — when He went with the thief to Paradise on the day of their crucifixion. And this is not only in harmony with Peter's words, but is the precise sense expressed by them; for he makes the preaching to have been while He was in the condition resulting from His “being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, by which,” or rather as Bishop Horsely remarks, in which “He went and preached unto the spirits in prison,” who were formerly circumstanced as is afterward described — that is, while dead in the flesh, but alive in spirit. He went in spirit and preached to the spirits, who were “prisoners of hope,” and were looking for a future enlargement and deliverance.

By a perversion of this passage the Papists make this text subserve their views of purgatory; and hence others, to avoid that error, have gone to the opposite extreme and denied that the departed were thus favored, as Peter affirms. This involves a consideration of the kind of preaching appropriate to those to whom the Savior preached.

As they were only “sometime” disobedient, they must have been brought to repentance and faith in a coming deliverer before they died; therefore the Savior could not, when He went into hades, have preached faith and repentance to them — the preaching of which, also, would have been of no avail to the impenitent, the eternal condition of all being determined by the present life. And this overturns the Papal dogma of purgatory. These spirits had repented during life, or they would not have been in that part of the unseen where the Savior was; and the end of His preaching could not have been to any immediate deliverance from hades; for “they without us will not be made perfect.” The preaching of Christ to them, then, was the proclamation, announcement or publication to them (for such is the meaning of the word “preach”) of the great fact that He had died for their sins, and should rise again for their justification. As the souls of the martyrs are represented, under the fifth seal,[10] as anxiously inquiring, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth,” so we may know that the pious departed are not uninterested expectants of future deliverance; and nothing could have given greater joy to the spirits in Paradise than the entrance of Christ, when His flesh was consigned to the tomb, and the announcement to them of the “glad tidings” that He had actually offered the sacrifice of their redemption, and was about to appear in the Father's presence for repentant disobedients. This was an announcement fit to be made to the spirits of the just; and it could not fail to give new joy and animation to them to learn that what, not improbably, Moses and Elias had already proclaimed to them as about to be done, was already accomplished, and the consummation of their future happiness fully provided for.

There is a single difficulty which should be noticed in this connection, viz: Why are the souls of the repentant antediluvians singled out as the subjects of the Savior's preaching? Were not those of later ages equally interested in the message? These considerations are pertinent, and yet by no means do they affect the time or subjects of Christ's preaching. That He preached to them is affirmed, but that He thus preached to all the departed just is also probable. Peter intimates as much in verse six of the next chapter, when he says: “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” The same is thus rendered in Dr. Murdock's version of the Syriac: “For on this account the announcement is made also to the dead, and they may be judged as persons in the fleshy and may live according to God in the spirit.” And when was this announcement made to them, except as the Syriac has it, when “He died in body, but lived in spirit; and He preached to those souls, which were guarded in Paradise, which were formerly disobedient in the days of Noah,” etc. Those who are especially named, then, do not constitute all to whom the announcement was made; but they seem to be named as those who were the most unlikely to receive such announcement — it being generally supposed that none were saved under Noah's preaching — and if it was made to them, it was also made to others who were to be equally the subjects of the future resurrection of the just.

That this is no new interpretation, may be seen by the following. Thus Dr. Horsely says:

“The expression 'sometime were' or 'one while, had been disobedient,' implies that they were recovered from that disobedience, and, before their death, had been brought to repentance and faith in the Redeemer to come, to such souls He went and preached. But what did He preach to departed souls, and what could be the end of His preaching? Certainly He preached neither repentance nor faith; for the preaching of either comes too late to he departed soul. These souls had believed and repented, or they had not been in that part of the nether regions which the soul of the Redeemer visited. But if He went to proclaim to them (and to proclaim or publish is the true sense of the words 'to preach') the glad tidings that He had actually offered the sacrifice of redemption, and was about to appear before the Father as an intercessor in the merit of His own blood, this was a preaching fit to be addressed to departed souls.” (Sermons, page 262.)

And Bishop Hobart adds:

“'Christ went,' says the apostle, 'and preached to the spirits in prison,' to spirits in safe keeping, 'to the sometime disobedient,' but finally penitent antediluvians, 'in the days of Noah,' who, though they were swept off in the deluge of waters, found, through the merits of the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, a refuge. While His body was reposing in the grave, He went in his spirit and 'preached' — or, as the word signifies, proclaimed — the glad tidings to the souls of the departed saints of that victory over death which the Messiah, in whom they trusted, was to achieve; and of that final redemption of the body and resurrection to glory, the hope of which constituted their enjoyment in the place of the departed.” (State of the Dead, pp. 7, 8.)

If we would successfully meet the Papists, we must take this position; for to deny the plain teaching of the original is to play into their hands.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - Was it not all preached to him? Would a part of the gospel have saved him?

2 - Through the Jews the nations learned much of their God and their religion.

3 - II [Pet]. iii, 15.

4 - Rom. ii, 4.

5 - II Pet. [iii, 9].

6 - The English word “prison,” as Lord Coke observes, “was only a place of safe custody; but now, by a change of use, we use it only in its bad sense — as a place of degrading confinement — which has obscured the sense of the passage.”

7 - Isa. xxxviii, 10.

8 - Psalms vii, 16.

9 - Isa. xlix, 9, 10.

10 - Rev. vi, 10.

Proposition: John's Baptism Belonged to the Christian Dispensation

PART I - CHAPTER VIII

FIRST PROOF.

IT is admitted that it belonged to the Jewish Dispensation, or

To the Johnic or an Intermediate Dispensation.

I have demonstrated that it did not belong to either the first or the intermediate. Therefore it must have belonged to the Christian Dispensation.

SECOND PROOF.

The New Testament commences with the gospel and ministry of John, and each evangelist commences his history of the Christian Dispensation with the ministry and Baptism of John, and inweaves the baptism and ministry of Christ and his apostles with it — showing us that they were contemporaneous and identical. This of itself should be sufficient to settle the question.

Pedobaptist Testimony in Favor of John's Baptism.

Dr. Whitby says:

“The history of John the Baptist is styled the beginning of the gospel, because he began his office by preaching repentance, as the preparation to receive it, and faith in the Messiah, as the object of it.”

Lightfoot says:

“Mark calls the ministry and baptism of John the beginning of the gospel.”

Dr. Scott says:

“This was, in fact, the beginning of the gospel — the introduction of the New Testament dispensation.”

Mr. Henry says:

“In John's preaching and baptizing there was the beginning of the gospel doctrines and ordinances.”

In the success of John's preaching, and the disciple he admitted by baptism, there was the beginning of a gospel church.

Dr. Adam Clark says:

“It is with the utmost propriety that Mark begins the gospel dispensation by the preaching of John the Baptist.”

Mr. Wesley says:

“The evangelist [Mark] speaks with strict propriety, for the beginning of the gospel is in the account of John the Baptist.”

Bloomfield says:

“I would adopt the mode of taking the passage proposed by Erasmus, Zeger, Markland, and Fritz. The sense thus arising is excellent; for that from the preaching of John arose the commencement of the gospel, is certain from Luke xvi, 16.”

Again: “The Jews must have understood the ceremony as significant of a change of religion, and of introduction into a dispensation different from that of Moses.” — Remarks on John's Baptism, Matt, iii, 6.

Dr. Knapp, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle, in his Christian Theology, which is, I believe, a standard work in all our Theological Schools, though a Pedobaptist, says (p. 485):

“Was the baptism of John different from Christian baptism? Many theologians of the Romish Church formerly maintained that there is a difference, but Protestants usually take the opposite side, although some, especially the more modern ones, have again adopted the former opinion. [This means Dr. Summers.]

“1. The object of John's baptism was the same with that of Christian.

“2. The practice of the first Christian Church confirms the point that the baptism of John was considered essentially the same with Christian baptism.”

Those who wish to take this ground with Catholics can do so — but Baptists, never!

THIRD PROOF.

A man or men sent by Christ personally to preach and baptize, as were the seventy disciples and twelve apostles, were unquestionably Christian ministers, and their ministry a Christian ministry.

John the Baptist was sent directly and by Christ himself, as well as by God, and therefore he was a Christian minister and his ministry a Christian ministry.

FOURTH PROOF.

John was sent by Christ both to preach and baptize?

Therefore he was a Christian minister; not one of the apostles was more so. He was commissioned by the selfsame authority to bear witness of the same persons. To the apostles Christ said: “And ye shall be witnesses unto me. Go teach all nations, baptizing them.”

Of John the Baptist it was said:

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. The same came for a witness to bear witness of the Light that all men might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. His testimony: “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. He that believeth the Son hath eternal life. He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him.”

FIFTH PROOF.

While John baptized all the first disciples, all the members of the first Church — the seventy missionaries and the twelve apostles — there is not the slightest intimation that his baptism was ever repeated, which, if it had been unchristian or invalid, it doubtless would have been in every instance. An unchristian baptism is no baptism, and Christ himself was not baptized if John's baptism was invalid.

But the Holy Spirit declares that He was baptized. Who will deny it, and charge Him with falsehood?

SIXTH PROOF.

The apostles recognized the baptism of John and his ministry as belonging to the gospel economy, when they consulted for candidates to the apostolic office. Read Acts i, 21, 22: “Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John,” etc. They considered, unless they began with John's ministry, they would not cover all the period of Christ's ministry — His prophetic week.

What stronger proof than this can be adduced? The entire membership of the first Church, embracing as it did, at this time, all the apostles themselves, considered that John's ministry was a part of the gospel dispensation. They proceeded upon the fact, the one chosen could not witness to all that ministry of Christ unless he could begin with the ministry of John the Baptist.

SEVENTH PROOF.

There is no intimation of any one of John's disciples, one whom John baptized, either being ineligible to office because of such baptism, or having been re-immersed because of this fact. There is one such instance of re-baptism claimed, and there is one case where re-baptism would have been demanded had the apostles, indeed the entire Church at Jerusalem, decided that John's was not Christian.

EIGHTH PROOF.

That no one was eligible to be elected to the apostleship unless baptized by John.

The history of the election of Mathias is proof:

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen. That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lots fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

From this election we learn that no one was eligible to the apostolic office except a disciple of John the Baptist, and therefore baptized by John, for he received none as his disciples unless baptized by him, and that upon a personal profession of repentance — upon a confession of sin and faith on the coming Christ.

NINTH PROOF.

That John's baptism was Christian.

Not an instance can be found in the New Testament where a disciple of John — one undoubtedly baptized by him — was re-baptized. Therefore it was indorsed by Christ, by His apostles, and by His churches for one hundred years as valid, because, like their own, it was Christian.

Would Christ have chosen His apostles and the seventy missionaries of His gospel to the Jews from those who were the rejectors of the counsel of God against themselves, and were therefore His enemies — would Christ have chosen ministers to go out and exhort men to repent, believe and be baptized, who had not themselves believed and been baptized — men living in open disobedience of the very gospel they preached?

Between the two lids of the New Testament we find no shade of doubt cast upon the Christian character of John's baptism.

TENTH PROOF.

John's ministry of three and a-half years is included in that of Christ's — making the prophetic week of Daniel.

Dr. Prideaux' Prophetical and Mathematical Argument.

I now produce a positive and conclusive argument from prophecy, which settles the question forever — a mathematical calculation which must stop the mouth of the infidel himself. It is Dr. Prideaux' Argument:

The three and a-half years of John's ministry are included in the prophetic week of Christ's ministry, in which he confirmed his covenant. (See Daniel ix, 25-27.) For a mathematical demonstration of this argument see Prideaux' Connexions, pp. 392-394.

Thus we see that Daniel's vision concerning the Messiah can be explained in no other way than by maintaining that John's ministry was — as Mark declares — the beginning of the gospel, and, of course, a part of the Christian Dispensation.

Here, then, the position that Baptists alone, of all denominations, hold and teach, is susceptible of mathematical demonstration. “And he [Christ] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week” — i. e., for seven years. Now, I call upon the man who denies the Christian character of John's baptism to show how this prophecy can be fulfilled or explained without adding John's ministry to that of Messiah's? Christ confirmed the covenant through John, as his servant, for three and a-half years, and then personally three and a-half years, which, together, make the prophetic week — i. e., seven years.

ELEVENTH PROOF.

Paul sets the matter forever at rest (I Cor. xii, 13, 14). The eleven apostles and hundreds of the brethren had been baptized by John before Christ's resurrection, and Paul by Ananias after, and yet he declares that there is no difference between them.

“For by [in] one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, and whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one spirit.”

As modern Pedobaptists contend that this passage alludes to spiritual baptism, I add a critical note from Bloomfield's Greek Testament: “Kai gar en heni Pneumatic etc. [for in one spirit]. Most recent foreign commentators [like modern Pedobaptists, to avoid the Baptist argument] understand this of the communication of Charismata — the baptism of the Holy Ghost — and to this the epistheemen is not unsuitable, while the sense arising is specious! But this method requires en Pneuma to be read in the place of eis en Pn., etc., and then yields a sense not so natural as that arising from the interpretation adopted by almost all commentators, ancient and modern, who here suppose an allusion to the two sacraments. By being baptized [say they] we are all made members of the body of Christ, and united one to another under Him, our head; and thus, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, we are all one in Christ, who by baptism have been admitted into His Church, etc. Agreeable to this I have given the other Greek reading — i. e., spirit; implying the same disposition of mind, in which, as little children, we received the kingdom, and were baptized into it instead of Spirit — implying the Holy Spirit.”

The discussions in several of our denominational papers and magazines, a few years since, awakened considerable interest in the proper interpretation of this passage. Several of our newspaper exegetes took sides with Pedobaptists in maintaining that the phrase, “the Body of Christ,” referred to the “Church Universal,” or “the Spiritual Church,” or “the Invisible Church,” including all the saved in heaven or on the earth.

Not in the spirit of controversy do I bring forward this passage and the testimony of Paul to prove my proposition that the baptism that Christ received at the hands of John, and that which all the apostles and all the early Christians received, were equally valid, because Christian.

I will be allowed to recapitulate a few of the arguments I used in opposing the Invisible-Spiritual-Church theory of interpreting this passage. My reasons were several:

1. There are nor ever were any such bodies in the universe. They are only conceptional existences, not real. To speak of all the churches in a state or nation as the Church, is to speak figuratively.

“Body” here, then does not refer to the Church Universal or the Church Spiritual and Invisible, or the Church including all the saved in the past, or in all time to come, whether on earth or in heaven; because there is no such Church. These are conceptions, nonentities — figures of speech only. To speak of all the Baptist churches in Tennessee as the Baptist Church of Tennessee, is to use figurative language, for there is no such Church — never was and never can be. “Church,” as used here, is a figure called synecdoche — where a part is put for the whole — the singular for the plural. To write the Church of Christ, or of God, so to say, we use this figure. To say the churches of Christ, or of God, we speak literally. “Body” implies an organism; the Invisible Church is not an organism.

The advocates of the Invisible Church are consistent in saying that the baptism is figurative and invisible, and of course the subjects must be invisible also!! There is but one real Church as an institution. It is a single, visible body, that can assemble all its members in one place, and transact five or six distinct items of business, and among these items baptize and celebrate the Lord's Supper, receive and exclude members, elect its pastor and officers, etc.

The essential element of a Church is its absolute sovereignty under Christ. Its two central ideas are to believe and to do. No other Church can do this.

The Church Universal, or “the Church Spiritual” and Invisible, never did assemble in one place, and has no baptism or supper, or ordinances, or constitution, or covenant.

2. NO ONE EVER WAS, OR CAN BE, BAPTIZED INTO IT; AND IF THE BAPTISM HERE IS THAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, PAUL DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAID “WE ALL,” ALLUDING TO HIMSELF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH; FOR NEITHER PAUL NOR THOSE BRETHREN HAD BEEN BAPTIZED WITH OR IN THE HOLY GHOST, AND IN FIRE!! Only twice was this baptism ever administered, and but very a few persons ever received it. There is but one real and literal baptism. “There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,” says this same Paul; and if this is Holy Ghost baptism, as some teach, then water baptism is abolished. If this “one baptism,” in Ephesians, refers to water baptism, then the “one body” here is Christ's real, literal, local Church, and this closes discussion since.

3. There is but one body in heaven or on earth that we can be baptized into, and that is this local, visible organization of baptized believers in Christ Jesus our Lord.[1]

4. A local Church meets all the requirements of the passage, and all its connections evidently refer to a local Church, while a Church Universal and Invisible, composed of all the finally saved, does not meet any of its requirements; and let it be borne in mind that such a Church is not a body, an assembly, an organism, but a conception — a figure of speech — where a part of it is put for the whole.

TWELFTH PROOF.

This baptism must refer to the real “one baptism” in water, not to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It can not refer to the Holy Spirit, for neither the Apostle Paul nor the members of the Church at Corinth — only the twelve apostles and Cornelius, and those he had gathered to hear Peter, ever received what is called baptism in the Holy Ghost; and, therefore, the passage was not applicable to Paul and the Corinthians. It must refer to the one baptism — water. It must refer to a figurative or literal, real Church. It can not be an Invisible Church, for no one believes that any one was ever baptized into that — for that is entered only by regeneration. It must refer to a literal and earthly church. The passage, then, supports my position.

Understand the “body of Christ” here to refer to a local church, and it meets all the requirements of the passage and its connections — Paul's beautiful comparison of the human body and its members, and the local church and its members; but to understand it of a Church Invisible, it meets none of the requirements of the passage or comparison.

The Holy Ghost never baptized any one into either the visible or an invisible church. Water baptism does add to a real visible church, and nothing else does. But an invisible administrator invisibly baptizing invisible subjects into an invisible church, sounds to me like visible nonsense. Can my reader for one moment think that the Holy Spirit ever taught that Paul and all the Christians of his age were immersed into a Conception! A huge FIGURE OF SPEECH?!? Let Pedobaptists teach thus, if they will, to avoid the teachings of the Holy Spirit; but Baptists never.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” John iii, 5. “And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.” Acts ii, 47. We were all baptized into the same body — a local Church — wherever we may have been baptized.

The Roman Catholic Church on Trial by John's Baptism

PART I - CHAPTER IX

THE day had been well-nigh worn out in vindicating the Christian character of John's baptism, and refuting the many objections Pedobaptists and Campbellites urge against it, when these words came into my mind as forcibly as though spoken into my ear: “I will return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between those who keep my words and ordinances, and those who make them of non-effect by their traditions.”

These words recalled the promises of His return to this sin-cursed earth, and to His long-waiting and persecuted people, which brighten almost every page of His precious word. Then the question arose: “How can John's Baptism serve as a criterion of discernment between His true and faithful churches and the multitude of human organizations claiming to be churches, that men have set up?” It at once occurred to me that when He did organize a Church He instituted in it a memorial supper and celebrated it with it, and commanded His disciples, as they made disciples, to organize other churches in all respects like unto it. He strictly enjoined upon them to perpetuate this memorial in remembrance of Himself until He should come again. And was not this equivalent to an express promise that He would return again in person? And was it not equivalent to an assurance that he would find a Church, or churches, in all essential characteristics like this which He himself set up as the pine pattern of all future ones, that would be organized by His faithful ministers whom He commanded to observe and do all things whatsoever He had commanded them? Must we not undoubtingly believe this when, with the solemn injunction to do this [observe the supper] in remembrance we take along two other promises, viz: “Lo, I am with you [as a Church] always.” And this: “The gates of hell [all the powers of evil] shall not prevail against you.”

For His churches, or any one of them, to keep this supper as a Church — and in no other way can it be kept until He comes again — His churches, or at least one of them, must have a continuous existence; however opposed, must not have been prevailed against, and however grievously or long cast down, not destroyed.

These seemed to my mind irresistible conclusions. The scene of my reverie changed. I found myself walking up Adams Street until my attention was arrested by the presence of a man upon the opposite sidewalk intently gazing upon the St. Peter's Cathedral. His countenance was remarkably comely, prepossessing and striking, and there was something in his form approaching the majestic being — “perfect in stature,” as the sculptor would say.

One of the sextons, observing his movements, approached and thus addressed him: “You seem to be a stranger in our city. Is there anything in which I can serve you — it will be a pleasure to me.” The stranger replied: “I came to your city yesterday, and, expecting to remain some time, I am looking for a Christian Church, that I may unite with it as a member.” “You have fortunately come to the right place. The Church you are looking upon is that Church of our Lord Jesus Christ that our Lord said He would build on St. Peter, and that He promised St. Peter the gates of hell should not prevail against. Its very name is proof of this. If you notice, carved in the stone, over the door, 'THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,' which of itself means there exists no other true and Holy Catholic or general Church, save this, on the earth. The bishop himself is in his room within, and I will be pleased to take you in and introduce you to his reverence.”

“Certainly,” said the stranger, and followed the urbane sexton in, and was introduced to a solemn-faced man, in white robes and bands, as a man who wished to be united to a true Christian Church. The bishop bowed a gracious assent, smiles irradiating every feature of his face.

“You will pause here for a moment,” said he, “and I will soon prepare a bowl of fresh holy water for your baptism.”

“I will save you all that trouble,” said the stranger; “I have been truly baptized by John the Baptist, and I am perfectly satisfied with it. Can you not receive me into your Church upon it?”

The bishop drew back with a significant shrug of his shoulders.

“Ah, that is not good baptism with the Church at all. She does not esteem the ministry of John the Baptist as belonging to the Christian Dispensation. He preached and baptized before the Holy Church of St. Peter was established, and before that time there was no true Church or proper Christian ordinances at all. You see our reason.”

The stranger quietly addressed the bishop:

“May I ask you a few questions about this matter, for your consideration?”

“Most certainly, for your very much needed information. I will be pleased to answer.”

“Do you believe there can be a Church of Christ without baptism?”

“No; most certainly not, or salvation either.”

“Do you believe there can be true priests of Christ without true baptism and true consecration?”

“No, sir. The Holy Mother Church most zealously and truly holds there can be no true priests outside of her pale, and no true or saving baptism, unless administered by her priests; and, therefore, my friend, allow me to baptize you; and to make your salvation certain, allow me to baptize you now. We only ask your assent to two facts — i. e., that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and the Roman Catholic Church His only true Church, to whose traditions you will assent.”

“Answer me another question, that I may know whether you are authorized to baptize me — whether you can, according to the teachings of your own Church, administer true saving baptism or not.”

“I assure you, sir, I can show you my ordination papers and priestly credentials, if it be those you want, sealed with the very seal of St. Peter, which has been transmitted to us directly from him.”

“No, sir, I do not wish to see them, but to learn from you if they are not fraudulent impositions upon the people, according to your answers to me just now. You have said that, according to the infallible teachings of your Church, there can be no true Church or true priests without a true baptism. Will you please tell me who was the first bishop or pope of your Church?”

“Certainly; it is not denied by us that St. Peter was its head and founder.”

“And was he ever baptized?”

“Most undoubtedly he was.”

“By whom?”

“By — by” — (hesitatingly) — “the Church unanimously holds — by John — the — Baptist, sir.”

“You have a little since told me, for my much-needed information, that John's baptism was not Christian, and you would not receive me into your Church upon it, and, to be consistent, you would not receive the Savior upon it. Your Church, as you call it, is therefore no Church, for Peter was neither baptized nor ordained. You have just taught me that he was no real and true priest, and Catholic priests are therefore not true priests, and therefore can not administer true and saving baptism; therefore, by your own admission, you are all unbaptized and lost! and you are trying to impose a spurious and fraudulent Church upon me.” (Rising to go.) “Good evening, sir. You should give this information to all men, and so should all the true and faithful ministers and witnesses of Christ.”

The stranger quietly withdrew from the room, leaving the bishop in a daze of thought, forgetful of his usual courtesy of accompanying his visitors to the door and bowing them adieu with one of his blandest smiles that seldom failed to captivate his visitors.

The Episcopal Church Tried by John's Baptism

PART I - CHAPTER X

I followed the stranger as he passed up the street and entered the edifice that stands conspicuously upon the corner of Adams and Main Streets. He was in earnest conversation with the priest (I supposed, for he was in priestly uniform). I was in time to hear him say (for the priest met him near the entrance, and they had taken seats, and I was kindly invited to be seated):

“I came not to interrupt your studies, but I am sincerely in search of a Church of Christ, wishing to unite with such a body. This is a churchly edifice, and your dress indicates that you profess to be a priest, and, doubtless, minister to the religious body worshiping here, and claiming to be a Church of Christ. Am I right?”

“Altogether right. You have found it, notwithstanding it is surrounded by so many false claimants. Why, sir, from the very steps of this edifice you can see three church buildings, and the steeples of as many more; but they are not churches save in name — they are sects — dissenters — counterfeits of the one true Church. This church bears the name of the very Mount on which our blessed Lord was crucified; and as that mount bore the cross and the bleeding sacrifice of our redemption, so does this Church bear up before the eyes of a perishing world the pine sacrifice for its salvation. Most cheerfully would this Church welcome you to its sacred bosom.” (As the priest said this he seemed earnestly surveying the manly form and expressive countenance which bespoke him no ordinary person, and he seemed to catch inspiration from the survey, when saying “most cheerfully” would that Church welcome him to her sacred bosom, and administer to him the holy sacraments of salvation.) The priest continuing: “Not only is Calvary the scriptural or pine name of this Church; 'Calvary' is its scriptural or pine name, but 'Protestant Episcopal' is her historic or human name, and she is the eldest and best beloved daughter of the Holy Mother Roman Catholic Church, which was founded on St. Peter by the authority of Christ himself. I have said that we will most cheerfully receive your profession of our faith: would you prefer to profess at your baptism the Athanasian or Nicene Creed — there is but a trifling difference between them, and we accept the profession of either. If you wish, I can give you a copy of each to examine, and (it seems a pleasing providence) next Sabbath the bishop will conduct the services of the day, and baptize and confirm several, and you can receive both sacraments from his holy hands. Will not this arrangement be pleasing to you?”

“As for your creeds I am perfectly familiar with both, and as for baptism it can be dispensed with, as I have been truly baptized by John the Baptist.”

“I regret that one so intelligent, as I take you to be, should have been so deceived as to have received John's baptism for Christian. While our Church, the Protestant Episcopal, has never questioned, as some do, the act which Christ received at the hands of John; but as it was to induct him into his priesthood as a washing of consecration, it was not Christian baptism for our example any more than was his circumcision. Our Church declines to receive it as a gospel ordinance.

The stranger quietly remarked:

“I care not to discuss the design of John's baptism with you, but have you not overlooked the fact that by discrediting John's baptism you have virtually unbaptized yourself, and your bishop also, by whom you have tried to persuade me to be baptized? Do you believe that an unbaptized man, or priest, can administer valid baptism?”

“By no means; the act would be little less than blasphemy — sacrilegious, to say the least of it. But how have I unbaptized myself by my own reasoning?”

“Did you not say that your Church was the eldest and best-beloved daughter of the 'Holy Catholic Church, built by St. Peter.'”

“Yes, so His Holiness the Pope was wont to call her.”

“Was Peter ever baptized? And if so, by whom?”

“Most assuredly. Why should you ask such a question? It is evident enough that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and so 'the Church teaches.'”

“You have said that John did not administer Christian baptism, and therefore you decline to receive me as baptized. If I am unbaptized, Peter was also; and you furthermore truly declared that an unbaptized man could not administer Christian baptism; therefore the priests of the Catholic Church, including His Holiness the Pope, are all unbaptized and unsaved. And, more than this, all the baptisms and ordinations of your Church are invalid; for you do not believe that unbaptized priests can ordain — do you?”

“Certainly not: a priest must have been duly baptized and ordained to be qualified to ordain or administer sacraments.”

“The bishop you proposed should baptize and confirm me is neither baptized nor ordained, and has no more authority to baptize than the sexton that sweeps this house — is not this so?”

“Indeed your reasoning seems faultless. I see no fallacy in it. If Peter was not truly baptized, the popes, priests and people of that Church were never baptized, and those baptized by the priests of that Church are in the same condition, and they can not give true baptism to others, for it is evident we can not give what we have not ourselves — Christian baptism. This quite astounds me, I confess.”

“There is another sequence,” remarked the stranger. “Your Church borrowed its Ritual from its Mother Church, which teaches that baptism and the Lord's Sapper are means of saving grace — sacraments of salvation — without which no one can be saved; and, if this be true, all those the Catholic and your own Church have professed to baptize are lost! for they have believed and trusted for their salvation on what you have taught, and you have taught them falsehoods.”

“This is a new line of thought to me,” said the priest. “It must be these considerations that influenced the Rev. Mr. Noel, who was Chaplain to the Queen, to say that he had never thoroughly examined the subject of baptism — not the act merely, but all the bearings of it; and, when he did, he could officiate no longer as a priest of the Church of England, which planted ours — the Protestant Episcopal Church in America — and he never did officiate as an Episcopal priest again. I shall lay this matter before my bishop next Sabbath, and he must relieve my present doubts or” —

“Allow me to suggest,” said the stranger, “that you lay the matter before your God, and in much prayer for light and wisdom, and read the New Testament that He has given to enlighten and guide you, and ask Him for the grace of boldness and faithfulness, so that when you have learned your duty, to do it. You have not obeyed his command to believe and be baptized.”

“Excuse me; I was baptized by my Christian parents.”

“Do you know it?”

“Assuredly, I have their testimony and the Baptismal Register of the Church — these are undoubted evidences.”

“But did you obey? What did you believe? You had no consciousness? Did you obey when they baptized you? You had no will in the matter — to do or not to do — to consent or dissent; and where these are not, there can be neither obedience nor disobedience. Obedience is essential to — is the very essence of — baptism. Let the act be pouring, sprinkling, or moistening, as in your case, doubtless, or immersion, it is nothing without obedience on the part of the subject. It must hear the command — it must know who commands it, and will to do it, from a proper motive and for a proper purpose, or it is no baptism. Unless you obeyed, you are unbaptized.”

“You admit that the act that Christ received was immersion. Did not Christ command His ministers to administer the same act to those they baptized?”

“Yes, doubtless, since He expressed it by the same term — baptizo.”

“How, then, can you pour a few drops of water, or lay your moistened hand, upon the forehead of babe or adult, and say, 'I baptize thee in the name (i. e., by the authority) of the Blessed Trinity?' Would your act and that of John be the same? You say, in the name of the Trinity, that they are!”

So great had become the unrestfulness of the priest that the stranger arose and bade him good evening, saying, “I leave you to your reflections and the Word of God and prayer. These will lead you into all truth, but not those who are groping in the same darkness with yourself.”

The Campbellite Society Tried by John's Baptism

PART I - CHAPTER XI

I next saw the stranger standing before a double-towered edifice, on Linden street, intently considering a name graved deep in the transom rock over the front door,

“THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.”

I overheard him say, in soft surprise, “Here again is the name of what I am seeking; and if this is not the organization, it is the sinful naming of it to deceive the people.”

While in these meditations he was accosted by a man of a pleasant face: “You seem to be a stranger in search of some place. It will be a pleasure to me to serve you.”

“I have been informed,” said the stranger, “that Christ has a Church in this city, and I am in search of it, that I may unite with it.”

“I am delighted to inform you,” said the pleasant man, who proved to be the sexton, “that the Church you seek worships in this edifice, as you see by the name in the transom rock, and the pastor is now in his study for the purpose of receiving visitors, and I will be pleased to introduce you to him, and the friend who is with you.”

The stranger accepted his invitation, and I was glad to do so, for I had become wonderfully interested in the, to me, singularly strange man. He pleasantly introduced himself and his mission. The pastor, with earnestness of manner, assured him that he believed that not only fortunately but providentially — by pine direction — his wandering footsteps had been directed to the door of Christ's own and only Church.

“There are,” said the pastor, “three facts that seem to me should convince every intelligent Bible reader that this Church is justly entitled to the name you saw engraved over its door. One of these facts is this:

“Ours is a new and a God-given name. By the mouth of His prophets God foretold that He would give His Church a name that no other people ever had — that it should be a new name; and He told them what the name should be, so that there need be no mistake, and all His people could and should unite together on the one name. Christ promised to write upon His Church a new name, and that should be His own name — Christ-i-an.

“Another fact is, we do not invite you to subscribe to a creed, but to accept the Bible alone. We ask all Christians to unite with us on the Bible — not on some creed that a Calvin, a Luther, or a Wesley has made, but on 'The Word.'”

“And the third fact is, we baptize with the scriptural design of baptism — i. e., for the remission of sins; i.e., in order to obtain the remission of sins; while other denominations baptize for — they know not what. If you are a Christian man, you can not object to uniting with us upon the Bible?”

“Certainly not upon the New Testament, in His blood, correctly translated and construed according to the rules of the language in which it was given to the race; but not upon your construction of the Word.”

“Here is water,” pointing to the baptistery under the pulpit; “allow me to baptize you now, for life is short, and uncertain our lease of it; make your salvation sure, for I doubt not you accept as true what God has revealed of His Son by the pens of the evangelists, which is the faith our Church requires; and you promise to turn from your sins to God — which is repentance — and be baptized; for the remission of them are the three steps to remission and salvation —

Faith, Repentance, and Baptism.”

“I can save you this trouble, for I was baptized by John the Baptist, and am satisfied. It is valid with your Church, is it not?”

“By no means. We do not regard any doctrine or institution as Christian that was preached or instituted before the resurrection of Christ.”

“But you have just now announced a doctrine which is the cardinal doctrine of your Church — viz: baptism for (in the sense of 'in order to') the remission of sins; that, in its true and proper sense, was preached by John the Baptist, and it is, therefore, unchristian! Baptism is a rite instituted before the death of Christ, and is, therefore, not a Christian ordinance.

“What you have advanced is all strange to me, especially touching your 'God-given name.' Will you refer me to the prophecy and that promise?”

“Certainly; for that is another thing that is characteristic of us as a people. We go to the Word, we appeal to the Word. You will find the prophecy in Isaiah lxii, 1-6, and the promise in Rev. iii. I will read it to you.”

“You may open your Bible and see if I do not quote it correctly,” said the stranger, and commenced repeating:

“For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

“For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shalt thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shalt thy God rejoice over thee. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence.'”

“This prophecy has no conceivable reference to a Church, much less to Mr. Campbell's disciples, but to a city, and not to any city whatsoever, but to one particular city — the city of Jerusalem. It does not read, 'Thou, the Church' Mr. A. Campbell called out, shalt be called by a new name. Thou shalt no more be called Campbellite, but thou shalt be called 'The Christian Church.' It, the Word, does not read thus, but, 'Thou, Jerusalem, shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou, Jerusalem, shalt no more be called 'Forsaken,' neither thy land 'Desolate.' But, 'Thou, Jerusalem,' a city and not a Church, 'Shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah.' And this new name — He tells when this new name is to be given . Not in this age, but after Christ's second coming — not until after the Jews, both Judah and Israel, have been gathered and returned to Palestine, their now deserted land; and when the city of Jerusalem, the now forsaken city, shall have been rebuilt and repeopled, will it be called Hephzibah, and be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.”

“If your Church believes your claim of a God-given name, that makes you a glory among the denominations and a royal diadem in the hand of the Lord, why have you not taken upon you your God-given name — why did you not engrave on the rock, over the door of your edifice, The Hephzibah Church, instead of the Christian Church?”

“Let us examine the 'promise' of Christ himself that He would write His own new name upon you, which He makes it your duty to wear and to be called by. The passage you referred to reads, 'Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the house of my God, and He shall no more go out, and I will write upon him my new name ' — not upon Mr. Campbell, or upon a society he might gather, for there is not the slightest reference to a Church but to each faithful member, the disciple who overcomes; and He tells when He will confer this distinguishing honor. It is not until He comes again, and brings His rewards with Him in the next dispensation. I say, again, if Mr. Campbell believed what you have toldme, why did he not assume the name? But he declared that his society had no claim to be distinguished by the name The Christian Church.” (See Appendix A.)

“I can not restrain myself from believing that you have been designedly or ignorantly attempting to deceive me by presuming upon my ignorance and credulity in quoting to me scriptures you certainly knew, or must have known if you ever read them, had no conceivable reference to a Church, to persuade me that Christ had specially marked out your Society as His own Church, and that He himself had written upon it His own new name — C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n — and had made it the duty of every Christian to join it, unless he would incur the sin of rejecting Him by refusing to join your Society and being called by your name — the Christian Church — and thus opposing the union He so earnestly prayed for in His last prayer? I must be plain with you. It looks to me like a flagrant imposition upon the unreading and unthinking people to beguile them into your Society under the impression that they are uniting with a Scriptural Church. Let us turn to that passage in Acts where you say Christ called them Christians at Antioch. We find that the Holy Spirit called the brethren disciples, but the heathen idolaters called them Christians — a term of reproach — a nickname!”[1]

BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.

“You requested me to allow you to baptize me, 'in order to the remission of my sins,' — virtually, that is, to obtain salvation, since none can be saved until their sins are remitted; but I do not find this in the 'Word ' — i. e., 'in order to.' Can you point me to the passage?”

“Not to the words, but substantially to the same idea.”

“I do not think you can, to either the words or the idea.”

“Mark tells us that John the Baptist did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

“But you have stricken that doctrine from the category of Christian doctrines, since it was preached and practiced before the death of Christ, and you have thus demolished the vital doctrine of your Church. Let me call your attention to the fact that it was the baptism of, belonging to repentance, that John preached; and therefore repentance must have preceded baptism.”

“'For,' used either as a conjunction or a preposition here, the sentence will be grammatically correct, but not doctrinally true — i. e., not in accord with the general teachings of the 'Word,' or of Peter elsewhere.

“The particle 'for,' as you should know, is doubly ambiguous, and can be used either as a causal conjunction in the sense of 'because of,' 'in consideration of,' 'in testimony of' (Mark i, 44), in 'proof of;' or as a preposition, with thirty-one different shades of meaning, as 'in order to,' 'in order to obtain.'

“We must therefore decide the doctrinal sense in which Peter used it here. Did he mean for his hearers, who were Jews,[2]to understand him to mean that they must be baptized in order to be saved, to obtain the remission of their sins? or in acknowledgment of the fact, as Jesus commanded the leper whom He had healed, 'Go shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift for thy cleansing that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them' (Matt, viii, 4). Here Christ used ' for,' not in order to obtain, for they had obtained, but 'in proof of,' 'in testimony of,' with which idea the Jews were familiar.

“A few days after this, Peter went down to the house of Cornelius, a Roman Captain and a Gentile, and preached to his family and friends whom he had collected for the occasion; and while he was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as it did at Jerusalem, and they spake with tongues and glorified God. They were converted, justified, saved, before Peter had said one word about water. But when he saw that it was with them as with the Jews at Jerusalem, he said, 'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?' In both these cases baptism followed the remission of sins and salvation, as the invariable immediate effects of faith. If Peter had intended for the Jews at Pentecost to understand that they must be baptized in order to obtain the remission of their sins, they would have been baptized at once, to procure that effect; but they were not baptized until after they had believed, to the joy of their hearts, and had been justified and saved. The Lord added to the Church daily those who were saved (Am. Ver). Baptism is the adding act. The three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost were saved persons, and their baptism was 'for,' because of, in testimony of, this fact.”

If any one is in the least doubt as to Peter's practice, consider his preaching and practice when preaching to the Gentiles. No one will be rash enough to say that he preached one way to the Jews and another to the Gentiles. Here we may formulate an invariable rule touching the relation of baptism to remission of sins and salvation.

As, naturally and rationally, the cause precedes the effect, so, if baptism is the procuring cause of remission of sins, justification and salvation, it will invariably precede these effects, not only in the fact but in the record.

Now, in all the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament we find that the evidences of faith, justification and regeneration preceding baptism, and we, therefore find, in no case, is baptism, by faith or practice, taught as the cause of remission or salvation.

Peter uttered one great, precious, vital truth in this sermon, and concerning the one only way to receive remission of sins, not in connection with baptism, but faith in Christ only:

“TO HIM [CHRIST] GAVE ALL THE PROPHETS WITNESS THAT IN HIS NAME WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHALL RECEIVE THE REMISSION OF SINS.”

This is the unchangeable doctrine touching the remission of sins. Every true minister of God who ever has preached, who is now preaching, or who ever will preach, will preach this self-same doctrine, and not baptism for the remission of sins. Since there is but one gospel — the same for the Gentiles as for the Jews — Paul says: “If we (the inspired apostles), or an angel from heaven; preach to you another gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

As this in the last time I shall ever talk with you, let me impress you with two undeniable facts touching the relation of baptism to the remission of sins. Invariably, if baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins, it is used as the procuring cause to that effect, and, as it is, naturally, rationally and logically, the cause must precede the effect; baptism must, in the record as in fact, precede the remission of sins, justification and regeneration; and wherever it follows as a sequence of these, for is used in the sense of “in proof of,” “in testimony of.” I will refer you to a few examples to substantiate the truth of these rules:

1. John required the infallible evidences of regeneration in all cases before he baptized — Judas being an exception.

2. The seventy disciples, under the eye of Christ, made disciples before they baptized them.

3. The three thousand, on the day of Pentecost and the days following, baptized only those who gave evidence of regeneration, for “they gladly received the word,” an evidence of justification by faith. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God and joy in the Holy Ghost. And the same day there were baptized about three thousand souls.

The Holy Spirit testifies, in the same connection, that these were saved before they were baptized. “And the Lord added to the Church daily those who were saved” — or “the saved.” Baptism is the only Lord's-appointed-way of adding to His Church; for[3] says Paul: “In one spirit (i. e., of joyful obedience and submissive faith) were we (the apostles and all whom he addressed, as well as every Christian that should in after time read the epistle) all baptized into one body (a local church), and were all made to drink of one spirit.” This can not refer to the “baptism in the Holy Ghost and in fire,” since neither Paul nor the Corinthian Christians had ever been baptized in the Holy Ghost, nor have we in this age.

4. The Samaritans received the gospel as preached by Phillip, and not until they gave Phillip satisfactory evidence of regeneration were they baptized — with one exception (the Sorcerer). Not an instance is recorded in the New Testament where baptism was administered before faith or evidence of justification. Christ in his last commission virtually commanded regeneration on the part of the subjects before baptism, for salvation is the immediate effect of faith. Those who baptize without the Bible evidence of regeneration or justification, openly and flagrantly violate the most solemn command of Christ, and teach others to believe and do so.

See what He says of such. Offend means, here, to deceive, mislead. (Matt, xviii, 6):

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Therefore baptism can not be a factor, means or condition of the remission of sins or salvation, but is appointed to be the profession of salvation.

No instance can be found in the acts of Christ or His apostles where it is intimated that baptism preceded pardon, justification, or regeneration, and therefore it can not be the law or means of the remission of sins.

Christ healed the leper[4] and commanded him to go show himself to the priests, and offer for his cleansing the gift Moses commanded 'for' (in testimony of) his cleansing. Jesus here gives us the true sense of “for” — i. e., in testimony of what had been done — what he had received.

THE CHANGE OF ORDER.

THE INVERSION OF THE ORDER OF GOSPEL DUTIES IS THE PERVERSION AND SUBVERSION OF THE GOSPEL, AND MAKES THE COMMANDMENTS OF CHRIST OF NON-EFFECT.

The inversion of gospel duties works the perversion of the gospel.

Pedobaptists invert the duties of the gospel by putting baptism, in the case of infants, before personal faith, and thereby destroy believers' baptisms, thus making this commandment of Christ of non-effect by their tradition.

You likewise invert the pine order by placing faith before repentance and baptism, and thus utterly pervert and make the gospel of non-effect by this tradition of your elders.

The pine order of gospel duties is: Repentance, faith, and baptism. The first word of gospel message that fell from the lips of John the Baptist was, “Repent ye.”

The first command that fell from the lips of Christ to sinners was, “Repent ye.”

To invert the pine order by placing faith before repentance, is to require a moral impossibility of the sinner.

Christ said to the priests and Pharisees who were thirsting for His blood: “John the Baptist came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the publicans and harlots believed him; and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not that ye might believe Him.

The murderers of Christ, alarmed at the enormity of their guilt, cried out, “What must we do?” The command was, “Repent.”

Paul, in recounting his labors at Ephesus, tells us the order in which he preached the gospel:

“How I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts xx, 20, 21.)

To change this pine order, and place baptism before faith and repentance, would not be preaching the gospel as Paul preached it, but would be perverting it and making it of non-effect, as Pedobaptists make the command of Christ to baptize believers of non-effect by placing baptism before faith.

You deceive the people by your false definitions of most important terms. Faith you define to be but the consent of the mind to the testimony of the evangelists concerning Christ— a mere intellectual act. Demons believe and tremble, but their faith does not bring them to Christ. While the faith that saves, is the trust of a penitent heart upon Christ as its only and all-sufficient Savior. Repentance you define to be a reformation of life, without a profound, godly sorrow for sin against God. These vicious definitions render void the whole gospel.

This condemnation he pronounces upon those who do not preach the gospel which he preached: “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach unto you another gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Notice again how particularly Paul observed, this order: But showed first at Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coast of Judea, then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and “do works meet for repentance.” Here we have repentance before turning to God, and repentance assured by works that spring from it, before either faith or baptism; and the reason is, no one could turn to God before he repented, any more than he can believe on Christ before he repented; therefore Christ preached: “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

IT IS A MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR AN IMPENITENT SINNER TO EXERCISE FAITH ON CHRIST.

Sinners must accept Christ as He offers Himself to them, to be saved by Him. He offers Himself to the race as the only and all-sufficient Savior of lost and sin-ruined men. “I came not to call the righteous” (in their own estimation), “but sinners, in their own self-consciousness, to repentance.” The first moral emotion He calls upon them to exercise is, to "Repent."

Mark His invitations: “Look unto Me and be ye saved, for I am God, and there is no Savior besides Me.”

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous his thoughts” (here is repentance toward God): “and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.” (Isaiah Iv, 7.)

Here repentance precedes and prepares the way for faith. Christ says: “Look unto Me and be ye saved, for I am God, and besides Me there is no Savior.” He presents Himself as the pine, only, and all-sufficient Savior to the lost and penitent sinner. Again: “Come unto Me, all ye that are weary (of sin) and heavy laden (with a sense of guilt), and I will give you rest” (rest to your soul). It is a penitent sinner that is addressed in these passages — one conscious of, and pressed under his conscious guilt — that is invited to come to and look unto Christ for salvation.

Now, upon such a Savior the sinner is exhorted to believe — i. e., to trust with all his heart, for it is with the heart we believe unto righteousness. Abraham believed on God, confided in and trusted on Him for salvation, and his faith was accounted unto him for righteousness. An impenitent sinner coming to Christ for pardon, is a most absurd idea; or begging forgiveness for sins he is not sorry for committing — entreating for mercy and forgiveness for iniquities and wrongs done which he does not regret, but intends to repeat continually, is an insult to the Savior! Seeking earnestly for salvation, when he does not believe or realize that he is lost! and, consequently, can never know or realize that he is saved, and, therefore, can never be grateful to, or love Christ as his Savior.

Would a man who believes himself in most robust health, send in hot-haste for a physician? Or a man send for a surgeon to amputate his right arm or leg, so long as he believed it was perfectly sound? But let him be convinced that mortification has taken place, and that it will in a few hours or days involve a vital part, and how urgently will he beg for its immediate amputation! and how gratefully will he thank the surgeon who performed the operation so dexterously and tenderly, and that, too, without fee or reward, were he unable to pay him a dollar! No language could express the obligation he would feel, the gratitude and love to him that he could neither repress nor express! And this would be salvation by grace through faith, without a deed of law or works.

This long-vexed question can be settled by the mathematics of reasoning, that forever excludes baptism as a means or condition of the remission of sins. It is claimed as unanswerable until answered.

Premise first. — God has invariably appointed remission of sins, justification, and salvation to be the immediate sequences of faith without the intervention of a physical act or duty.

Proof. — “To Him gave all the prophets witnesses, that whosoever believeth on Him shall receive the remission of sins.” — Peter.

“Therefore we are justified by faith without deeds of law.” — Paul.

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.”

Premise second. — Baptism is a deed of law.

Conclusion. — Therefore baptism can not be added to faith as a necessary factor, means, or condition of remission of sins.

Corollary. — Therefore, to add baptism to faith as a necessary condition of remission of sins, is to add to the gospel, which is to preach or teach another gospel, and to incur the plagues written in the Book.

PAUL'S COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH AT TROAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY THE CAMPBELLITES HAVE FOR THEIR WEEKLY OBSERVANCE OF THE SUPPER.

“Your Church observes the Lord's Supper as a Church ordinance, does it not?”

“As a gospel ordinance, we do, and — it had well-nigh slipped my mind — this it another mark of our being the Christian Church, for we are the only Church that does observe this ordinance scripturally, as Christ delivered it to His Churches; and Churches that do not observe it scripturally do not observe it at all, and those that do not, are not regular Churches, to say the least.”

“In what respects do you alone so observe it?”

“We observe it every Lord's day.”

“Your claims are very high, and you should have the best of ground to stand upon.”

“Yes, we have the Word of God, which we consider the very best.”

“Certainly, if upon examination it should turn out to be the Word of God, and not your construction of the Word. Can you point me to one precept or one example for the weekly and Lord's day observance of the Lord's Supper?”

“Yes, of both. The disciples, after the Pentecost, continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking the loaf 'daily;' this unquestionably designates the sacred meal, while 'breaking bread' denoted, as it does with us, a common meal. In thus observing the Lord's Supper daily— which includes every Lord's day — they, of course, were continuing in the apostles' doctrine — i. e., as they had been taught by them.”

“But this does not relieve you — it only gets you into trouble — for, according to your reasoning, you should break the loaf daily!”

“This was not the passage I wanted; it was where Paul and his traveling companions remained at Troas seven days, so as to be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with the Church at Troas; which clearly proves that the Church at Troas did observe the Lord's Supper on the Lord's day.”

“On the Lord's day sometimes, as all Churches do.”

“I think on every Lord's day, or Paul and his friends would not have waited seven days when Paul was in so great haste to get to Jerusalem.

“The Church at Troas was planted by Paul, as were so many of the apostolic Churches, and the directions he gave to one he gave to all; and therefore I conclude that all the primitive Churches broke the loaf on every Lord's day. Can you not accept this reasoning?”

“Certainly not, for it does not rest upon a single fact to establish your practice, but upon suppositions only, and a thousand suppositions prove nothing.

“There is no proof in the 'Word' that there ever was a Church in Troas, much less in the first century — in Paul's day. It is denied and proof challenged in vain. Not the least intimation even that there was one, in the New Testament — but against the supposition. If one, why did not Luke state the fact? Why did he give no intimation how the brethren there received him, or how they parted with him, as he did when he reached and when he left the brethren at Ephesus and other places? There is no mention or hint of one there in the first century, in Ecclesiastical history, which there would have been had there existed one in the commercial capital of Asia.

“Paul sent letters to the seven Churches" of Asia, certainly implies there were but seven Churches in that part of Asia he referred to. He sent no letter to the Church at Troas, the most important city at that time in Asia.

“To prove your position, you suppose —

“1. There was a Church there;

“2. That they observed the Supper every Lord's day;

“3. That Paul and his traveling companions celebrated it with it — i. e., the Church;

“4. And that in the third loft of a public lodging-house; and,

“5. And between two or three o'clock Monday morning.

“Since you rest such lofty claims upon Paul and his seven brethren observing the Supper on every Lord's day, and rest them upon this single passage, let us examine the whole history of the case:

“Paul was on his journey from Asia to Jerusalem, hoping to get there before the Pentecost. The narrative of this journey is given by Luke after his stop at Ephesus. It begins with the twentieth chapter of Acts.

“A number of brethren, young ministers doubtless some were, learning of the voyage, and that he would make a stop at Troas, determined to accompany him a part of the way. Luke is particular to give their names.' And there went with him into Asia: Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus and Trophimus' — seven in all — Dr. Luke, his companion and writer of the Acts, with Paul, making nine. The seven brethren whose names are given above, going before us (Luke and Paul), waited for us (Luke and Paul) at Troas. And we (Paul and Luke) sailed out from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them — i. e., the seven brethren who were waiting for Paul at Troas — where we (Paul and all this company) continued seven days. (It is not said why they waited: the ship had probably to unload and reload; perhaps the wind was unfavorable; we have no right to add to the 'Word.') And on the first day of the week we (this can include only the last-mentioned we — this does not mean the Church at Troas, but Paul and his companions, nine in all), having assembled to break bread — evidently a common meal, the supper, the last meal they were to eat together at Troas, for Paul had heard the ship would sail in the morning (I say the meal was their evening meal, for the lamps were lighted), Paul discoursed or reasoned with them (which refers to the same persons, and no more, that the we above does), and he continued his discourse to, or conversation with, them (for the word dialegomai may mean either; it is not either krusso or eungillizo, used for preaching) until midnight.

If it was a gathering of the Church and citizens of Troas, would there not have been some mention or hint of it? Then, the place where Paul and his companions had gathered — in the third loft of the house in which they lodged — makes it improbable. The fall of Eutychus interrupted the talk or conversation. Paul went down and brought the boy back to life. Paul returned to the upper room. How much time passed between the going down of Paul to restore the boy and his return to to the upper chamber is not stated, but it was, probably, not less that one hour. “Paul ate a full meal,” says Dean Alford, “and the others doubtless did the same.” This meal was not eaten on the first day of the week, but between one and two o'clock Monday morning!

“You can see upon what slender grounds your much-vaunted practice and Church claims rest — not on the Word, but on your construction of the Word.”

Chapter Footnotes

1 - See Appendix A.

2 - Mr. Campbell and his followers claim that they were men of fourteen different heathen nations, while the “Word” tells us distinctly that they were Jews. “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (Acts ii, 5).

3 - This as I have elsewhere shown.

4 - It is held by all typologists that leprosy was a striking type of sin; and how striking the analogy between gift and baptism!

The Baptist Church Tried by John's Baptism

PART I - CHAPTER XII

THE stranger left the pastor of the “Christian Church,” whom he found to be a teacher of Judaism, but a short step removed from Catholicism in doctrine, placing, as the system does, its minister directly between the sinner and the cross, and blood of Christ — as virtually a priest through whose offices he must reach that blood or be lost. He bent his steps northward on Second street, until they were arrested by the strains of a sweet song that floated out through the open doors of an unpretentious house of worship on Second street. The words of that song were plainly distinguished and thrilling:

“I love thy kingdom, Lord,
The house of Thine abode:
The church our bless'd Redeemer saved
With His own precious blood.

For her my tears shall fall.
For her my prayers ascend;
To her my cares and toils be given,
Till toils and cares shall end.

Beyond my highest joys
I prize her heavenly ways:
Her sweet communion, solemn vows,
Her hymns of love and praise.”

As the last strains were dying away, he said, “This is the song of my people;” and I saw large tears drop from his eyes. “None but they can, with the spirit and understanding, sing that song. I shall be welcome here;” and without waiting for the services of sexton or usher he entered. The pastor had finished his sermon and given his usual invitation to any one wishing to unite with that Church to come forward and take the front seat, while a song was being sung. The stranger passed directly to the front, and when opportunity was given to make known to the Church his wishes he arose with such a wonderfully sweet dignity that he attracted every eye. “Brethren, for such I feel you are, I was attracted into your worship by the sweet song you have just sung. It contains the deepest sentiments of my soul. That Church and that kingdom have had the supreme sacrifice of my life — my cares and my toils, my tears and my blood. I am seeking a Church in the hearts of whose members Christ alone is enthroned as their King, and whose cause they love beyond their highest joy — a Church that will receive me upon my baptism, which was administered by John the Baptist to the greater than himself — his Lord and King; and on this baptism I offer myself to you.”

An aged brother instantly arose and said, “I move you, brethren, that we receive him into the fellowship of our Church as we already have into our hearts, and that, brethren, upon his baptism; it was the one our Lord and Savior received, and the baptism which He himself instituted and commanded His Church to observe until the end, and which He affirmed should exist upon the earth unmoved and unshaken, despite the powers of darkness and death.”

“Should all the wiles that men devise,
Assault my faith with treacherous art,
I 'd call them vanities and lies,
And bind this promise to my heart —”

There was one unanimous and hearty assent. As the Church arose to go forward to give him the hand of fellowship, and as we were looking upon him, his countenance beamed with a glory I can not describe. His garments were no longer travel-worn or of earth, but had changed to a dazzling white, glistening like the sun. All eyes were turned toward and fixed in wonder upon him. The silence was broken by the old brother, who, with hands and arms outstretched, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God! My Blessed Savior! I have waited long for Thy coming, and now mine eyes behold Thee;” and as he moved toward him the more elderly portion of the Church immediately started forward to reach his outstretched and open hands, in which were clearly seen the prints of the nails. I was surprised to see so many of the members turn, with the crowd of unregenerate, and with blanched faces, to the doors to go out. I recognized these as the dancers and theater-goers of the Church; albeit some were Sunday-school teachers. They could not look that Savior in the face or take the hand that was pierced for them, and whose wounds they had so often torn open and made to bleed afresh by their cruel denials of Him.

I had pressed forward and had clasped His feet and was kissing the scars made by the nails, and bathing them with my grateful tears. I felt His hand upon my head, and as He raised me up I heard those words my innermost soul had yearned for so many years to hear, above my chief joy: “Well done, My old and faithful servant! Thou hast not been ashamed of Me, nor of My words before men. Thou hast been faithful over a few things according to the ability I have given thee. Thou hast not been ashamed of Me.” I could hear no more; my innermost soul was ravished by His love; my senses swam in an ecstasy of delight. I seemed to have gathered them all in one expressive outburst of joy, to empty my heart of overburdened joy — Alleluia! The shout awoke me; and, behold! — it was a dream! But, yet, not all a dream; for the hallowed influence of that hour will forever remain, and those words in that tone of melody shall ever,

“Till life itself depart,
* * melt and move my heart.”

“My aged and faithful servant! Thou hast not been ashamed of Me nor of My word before men — the men of this world. I will not be ashamed of thee before My Father and the holy angels. Enter into the joy!”

Meaning of Baptizo

PART II – CHAPTER I

THIS is the term that Christ used when he commanded John to baptize Him.

Whatever act it denotes, it was the act the Holy Spirit says John administered to Christ in the river of Jordan. It was the only word Christ used when He commanded John to baptize the people. And the Holy Spirit testifies it denoted the act John administered to all the people, and that the seventy disciples administered. In a word, it was the term that Christ used when He gave the commission to His apostles: “Go ye into all the world,” “and teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. It is the only word used by Christ in enjoining the duty of baptism upon all believers.

What did it mean when He used it? That it means now. He did not say baptize. The Holy Spirit, who selected every word the evangelists and the apostles used, never used the word baptize. The word was not used in the English language, or any other language, before the translation of the Bible out of the Hebrew and Greek languages into the English.

The word baptize was made by King James' translators, by changing the o into e, and the word baptism, by dropping os from the Greek word baptismos.

Edward Beecher (Pedobaptist), in his work on the “Import of Baptism” (page 5), tells us why and how it was made:

“At the time of the translation of the Bible a controversy had arisen with regard to the import of the word, so that, although it was conceded to have an import in the original, yet it was impossible to assign it in English any meaning, without seeming to take sides in the controversy then pending. Accordingly, in order to take neither side, they did not attempt to give the sense of the term in a significant English word: so they merely transferred the word baptizo, with slight alteration, to our language. The consequence was, that it does not express its original significancy to the mind of the English reader, or indeed any significancy except what was derived from its application to designate an external visible rite.”[1]

The reader can see the ignorance manifested by those who refer to “Webster” for a correct definition of baptizo, by looking under the word baptize. “Webster's” is an English Dictionary, and he gives every word which the people call baptism.

While the term baptizo has a definite meaning in the original, yet the translators saw if they should translate it they would seem to be giving the advantage to one of the parties; so they changed the o into an e, and let it stand; hence, the word has no meaning, and all that can be learned from it is from the connection in which it stands.

Let us find its meaning from the connection in which it stands:

Jesus came “from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him.” The next step, Jesus went down into the water of the river, else He could not have come up out of the water. But what John did is not intimated.

We now turn and look forward to the baptism of the eunuch by Phillip. And the eunuch said unto Phillip, “See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?” We learn that the act to be administered required water. And they both went down into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

From this we learn that it required sufficient water for both the baptizer and the subject to go down into; but what Phillip did to the eunuch we can not gather, but it fairly looks to wetting the subject all over; or why both go down into the water?

We now turn to Romans vi. Paul says: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?” — i. e., to represent His death; for Peter has told us that baptism was a figure, and a figure represents something; and therefore, for this reason, we were buried with Him by baptism into death. Christ and the apostle Paul, and the brethren of the Church at Rome, were buried to represent death. John the Baptist, therefore, buried Christ in the waters of the Jordan to represent death. And Phillip took the eunuch into the water that he might the more easily bury or immerse him.

Paul tells the Church at Colosse that they were buried by baptism or immersion.

In this way we have found the correct definition of the untranslated word baptizo and the new-made word baptize.

THE RELIGIOUS WORLD DIVIDED BETWEEN FOUR WORDS — TO IMMERSE, TO SPRINKLE, TO POUR, TO PURIFY.

It can not mean to sprinkle or pour. I can make it plain to every child that baptizo can not mean either to sprinkle or to pour, for the object to be sprinkled or poured must be susceptible of being divisible — divided into small particles, as dust, ashes, etc. — for to sprinkle is to scatter abroad in fine particles, as sand, dust, etc.; and to pour, is to turn out in a continuous stream, as we pour out water or any liquid. We can not sprinkle persons, because we can not divide them into small particles or pieces, so as to scatter them. And for the same reason we can not pour persons in a continuous stream, as water. We can sprinkle or pour water upon persons, but we are not commanded to sprinkle, pour, baptize or purify water, but persons, which is impossible for us to do; but when we sprinkle or pour for this rite, we baptize, pour, sprinkle or purify the water. Remember, the act, whatever it was, which Christ commanded terminates upon the person; but the act which sprinklers and pourers and purifiers perform terminates upon the water. If it is baptism, as they claim, then it is not the act Christ commanded, for they baptize the water, and He commanded them to baptize persons. They manifestly do not obey Christ by baptizing the water. This may be dismissed with a smile or a sneer as a simple argument. Certainly it is a simple argument, that a child can understand, but it is not a senseless one. It never has been answered, and it never can be. When you allow the minister to sprinkle water upon you for baptism, you have not obeyed Christ, to be baptized; when you have allowed the water to be baptized upon you, to sprinkle or pour the water is not baptizing you, but the water. If not satisfied with this substitute — sprinkle and pour and purify — try another simple one for immerse.

Argument from Substitution.

It is agreed that baptizo signifies either to immerse, to pour, to purify, or to sprinkle. If so, the word that will make the best sense in every place where baptizo is found in the New Testament, is manifestly the word the Holy Spirit used.

Matt iii, 5: “Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were” sprinkled — i. e., scattered, poured out; purified — i. e., washed — immersed in the river of Jordan, etc.

Which word makes the best sense? — two are impossible. Try again. I indeed sprinkle (i. e., scatter) you, pour you, purify you in (for en never means with, but in as often as our in means in in our language) immerse you in water, but he shall pour you, sprinkle (i. e., scatter) you, purify you, immerse you, in the Holy Ghost and in fire.

Jesus, when he was sprinkled — i. e., scattered about, poured out in a continuous stream — purified, immersed— went up straightway out of the water.

Mark i, 5: “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all” sprinkled, poured, purified, immersed “of him in the river of Jordan.” It expressly says that whatever was done here was done to the people, not at or near or with, but in the river of Jordan. Were the people sprinkled into the river, or poured, or purified into, or were they immersed in the river?

Know ye not, brethren, that so many of us as were poured, or sprinkled, or purified, or immersed into Jesus Christ, were poured, or sprinkled, or purified, or immersed into His death. Therefore we were buried with Him by a sprinkling (i. e., a scattering) into His death; or we were buried with Him by a pouring, or we were buried with Him by a purifying, or we were buried with Him by an immersion. One of these terms, and one only — immersion — makes the shadow of any sense in all places.

Col. ii, 12: Buried with Him by an immersion, buried with Him by a sprinkling into death, buried with Him by a pouring into death, buried with Him by purifying into death; only one of these terms — only immersion — makes sense in all places; therefore immerse was the word the Holy Spirit selected and used.

Argument from Usus Loquendi.

The ultimate authority in ascertaining the real literal definition of a word, is its general use by the best writers and speakers of the language in which the word is found. This is the source from which the lexicons derive the meanings of words.

The great and masterly work of Dr. Conant, for many years Professor in Madison University, N. Y., and also of Rochester University, N. Y., is his book “Baptizein,” in which he has given every passage in the Greek classical writers and early Christian writers in which the word baptizo occurs. He says they include all the words that have been found by lexicographers and by those who have professedly written on this subject, and these exhaust the use of the word in Greek literature. This is the summary: In one hundred and seventy-five quotations from the Greek classics, he translates baptizo by immerse forty-four times; submerge, twenty-two times; immerge, fifteen times; dip, ten times; imbathe, two times; plunge, seventeen times; whelm, fifty-six times; overwhelm, nine times.

In his forty-seven translations from the Greek and Latin fathers, he gives buried in water, eleven times; immersion, thirty-six times.

In his fourteen quotations from the Latin fathers, he gives the meaning buried in water, three times; immerse, eleven times.

Here, then, is a thorough investigation of all the classics, and not a single example is found in which baptizo means to sprinkle or pour; but the evidence presented sets the matter beyond all reasonable doubt that it means to immerse.

LEXICAL AUTHORITIES.

I have given only the primary, which is the literal, definition.

1. Thayer (1888) is admitted to be the latest and best authority. — Baptizo. An immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire of salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom.

2. Robinson. — Baptizo. To immerse, to sink.

3. Donnegan. — Baptizo. To immerse, to submerge.

4. Stephanus. — Baptizo. To immerse.

5. Schleusner. — Baptizo. To immerse and dip in, to immerse into water.

6. Parkhurst. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse, or plunge in water.

7. Schrevelius. — Baptize. To baptize, immerse.

8. Wright. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse, plunge, baptize, overwhelm.

9. Leigh. — Baptizo. To dip into water, or to plunge under water.

10. Greenfield — Baptizo. To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink.

11. Ewing. — Baptizo. To cover with water, plunge into or sink completely under water.

12. Hederic. — Baptizo. To immerse, immerge, overwhelm in water.

13. Scapula. — Baptizo. To immerse or immerge.

14. Suidas. — Baptizo. To immerse, to immerge, to dip, to dip in.

15. Schoettgen. — Baptizo. To plunge, to immerse, or plunge in water.

16. Dunbar. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink.

17. Laing. — Baptizo. To baptize, to plunge in water.

18. Morel. — Baptizo. To immerse, to immerge, to overwhelm in water.

19. Bass. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse, plunge in water.

20. T. S. Green. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse.

21. Sincer. — Baptize. To dip, immerse.

22. Grove. — Baptizo. To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge.

23. Jones. — Baptizo. To plunge, plunge in water, dip, baptize.

24. Stokins. — Baptizo. To immerse, to dip into water.

25. Robertson. — Baptizo. To immerse.

26. Schwarzins. — Baptizo. To baptize, to immerse, to overwhelm, to dip into.

27. Mintert. — Baptizo. To baptize, to plunge, to immerse, to dip into water.

28. Pasor. — Baptizo. To immerse.

29. Alestedius. — Baptizo. To immerse.

30. Bretschneider. — Baptizo. To immerse.

31. Art. — Baptizo. To cover over, to overwhelm.

32. Liddle and Scott. — Baptizo. To dip in or under water.

33. Sophocles (Greek Lex. of the Roman and Byzantine periods B. C. 146, A. D. 1100-1870).— Baptizo. To dip, to immerse.

34. Rost and Palm. — Baptizo. To dip in or under.

35. Stephanus (1572. Thesaurus). — Baptize. To plunge or immerse.

36. Zanchius (1619. Opera 6, p. 217). — Baptism is a Greek word, and signifies, first and properly, immersion in water.

37. Alsted (1625. Lexicon Theol.). — Baptizo signifies only to immerse.

38. Leigh (1646. Critica Sacra on Baptismos). — Signifies immersion in water; from the very etymology, it would appear what had been originally the custom of administering baptism.

39. A. Symson (1658. Lexicon of N. T.).— To dip or plunge into the water.

40. “Thesaurus Disput.,” vol. I, p. 769: 1661.— Entirely immersed in water.

41. Schrevellins (1685). — To immerse, dip.

42. Hoffmann (1898. Universal Lexicon). — The Jews, apostles, and primitive churches used immersion.

43. “Stockü Calvis” (1725). — Baptisma originally designated immersion in water to make clean.

44. P. Mintert (1728. Lexicon of N. T.).— Baptisma, properly and from its origin, denotes a washing which is performed by immersion.

45. Calmet (1729. Biblical Die.) — The Jews dipped themselves entirely under the water, and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize.

46. J. Alberti (1735. Glossarium Greacum). — Baptize, immerse.

47. Schleusner's Lexicon (1808). — Those who were to be baptized were anciently immersed.

48. Stourdza (1816). — Baptizo has but one signification. It signifies, literally and invariably, to plunge.

49. Larcher-Hederich (1816. Greek Lexicon). — Baptizo, immerse.

50. G. G. Bretschneider (1829. N. T. Lexicon).— In the New Testament, used only for a sacred submersion.

51. Buttman (1829. Grammer, p. 88). — Baptizo. To immerse.

52. Rof. Rost (1829. German-Greek Lexicon). — The primary signification of baptizo is plunge, submerge or immerse.

53. “Conversation's Lexicon, Art Taufe.” — In the age of the apostles baptism was very simple. They and their successors dipped their candidates into a river or tank filled with water.

54. Kaltschundt (1839. Lexicon.) — Baptizo. To dip, immerse.

55. William Veitch on Greek Verbs (1848). —Baptizo. To dip.

56. W. F. Hook (1854. Church Dictionary). — In performing the ceremony of baptism the usual custom was to immerse and dip the whole body.

57. Bishop E. H. Browne (1861. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible) on Baptism. — The language of the New Testament and of the primitive fathers sufficiently points to immersion as the common mode of baptism.

58. John Henry Blunt (1870. Dictionary of Doctrinal Historical Theology). — The primitive mode of baptizing was by immersion, as we learn from the clear testimony of holy scriptures of the fathers.

59. E. A. Sophocles (1870. Greek Lexicon, on Baptizo. — Baptizo. To dip, to immerse, to sink.

60. Pape (1880. Greek-German Dictionary. — Baptizo. To dip in, dip under.

61. Cassell (Bible Dictionary). — Baptism in early times was generally administered by immersion.[2]

62. Charles Anthon, LL. D. (Episcopalian. Prof of Latin and Greek, in Columbia College, N. Y.) — The primary meaning is dip or immerse. Secondary, if it has any, refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question. (See “Stuart on Baptism,” p. 7.)

Here is a list of sixty-two standard Greek Lexicons giving only to dip, to immerse, as the literal primary meaning, which is the real meaning, of the word in the Greek, corroborating the declaration of Dr. Charles Anthon (Episcopalian), President of Columbia College, N.Y.: “Baptizo — The primary meaning of the word is to dip, to immerse; and its secondary meaning, if it ever had any, refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question.”

Chapter Footnotes

1 - Had those translators faithfully translated the Word of God, there would have been but one baptism — i. e., immersion — practiced to-day. The New Testament was purposely mistranslated so as not to give Baptists the testimony of God's Word.

2 - These Lexicons are those collated in the Carrollton Debate, and from Dr. Bailey's Manual and Dr. Everts.

Sacred Use

PART I - CHAPTER II

“BAPTIZO, to dip, to immerse, to sink. There is no evidence that Luke and John and Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament, put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” — Greek Lexicon on Baptizo; 1870; E. A. Sophocles.

Some few Pedobaptists polemics, unable to find sprinkling, pouring or purifying as a possible definition of Baptizo in classic Greek, have claimed that it has a sacred meaning.

Sophocles, a native Greek, says it has no different meaning in the New Testament than in any other book. We might as well claim a sacred use of English words.

Professor Stuart, the most learned man in his denomination (Congregationalist), and Professor for thirty years in their Theological Seminary at Andover, gave the best years of his life to the study of classic Greek, to vindicate the practice of the affusion of infants — a cardinal doctrine of his Church; and this is his final conclusion:

“We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to come to the following general conclusion respecting the practice of the Christian Church with regard to the mode of baptizing, viz: That from the earliest ages of which we have any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for several centuries, the Churches did generally practice baptism by immersion.

“In what manner, then, did the Churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the least, understand the word Baptizo in the New Testament? Plainly, they construed it as meaning immersion. They sometimes even went so far as to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy only excepted.

“Script. Thel., Wir-temb et Patriarch Constant., Jer., pp. 63, 238; Christ, Angeli Enchirid de Statu hodierno Grae cor., p. 24. Augusti Denkwürd, vii, p. 266, et seq. The members of the Church are accustomed to call the members of the Western Churches sprinkle Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. Walch's Einleit in die relig. Streitigkeiten, Th., v, pp. 476-481. They maintain that Baptizo can mean nothing but immerge; and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by aspersion; and they claim to themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the Church free from change and from corruption, which would destroy its significancy. See Alex. de Stourdza, Considerations sur la Doctrine et l'Esprit de l'Eglise Orthodoxe: Stuttg., 1816; pp. 83-89.

“Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the immersion of a man under water; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods of baptism were called in question, and even prohibited. But enough. It is,” says Augusti Denkw., vii, p. 216, “a thing made out, viz: The ancient practice of immersion.

So, INDEED, ALL THE WRITERS WHO HAVE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED THIS SUBJECT CONCLUDE. I KNOW OF NO ONE USAGE OF ANCIENT TIMES WHICH SEEMS TO BE MORE CLEARLY MADE OUT. I CAN NOT SEE HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ANY CANDID MAN WHO EXAMINES THE SUBJECT TO DENY THIS. THE MODE OF BAPTISM BY IMMERSION, the Oriental Church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time. See Allattii de Eccles. Orient et Occident. Lib. III, c. 12, §4; Acta et.

§ The use of the word in classic Greek.

It will be sufficient for this work to state a fact which determines beyond controversy the invariable meaning of the term in classic Greek. Prof. T. J. Conant, D.D., for many years a Professor in Madison University, Rochester, N. Y., in a recent work[1] has given every passage in the Greek classical writers and early Christian writers in which the word baptizo occurs. Dr. C. gives the Greek of the writers he quotes and a translation, that all may read for themselves. If his translations have been challenged in a single instance, I have not heard of it. If he has omitted to quote an author whose testimony would be unfavorable to his (Dr. C.'s) views, I have not heard of it.

Here is a summary of Dr. C.'s quotations:

In one hundred and seventy-five quotations from the Greek Classics he translates baptizo by immerse 44 times; immergere, 15 times; submerge, 22 times; dip, 10 times; imbathe, 2 times; plunge, 7 times; whelm, 56 times; overwhelm, 9 times.

In his forty-seven quotations from the Greek Christian Fathers, he gives the meaning, buried in water, 11 times; immersion, 36 times. In his fourteen quotations he gives from early Latin Christian writers, he gives the meaning buried in water, 3 times; immerse, 11 times.

The Ancient Versions of the New Testament.

These, next to the use of the term, are the most authoritative witnesses as to the sacred meaning of the word in the age in which those versions were made; i. e., if the Christian scholars of the second century understood baptizo to mean sprinkle or pour, they would have translated it by a word that means to pour or to sprinkle. But if they understood it to mean to immerse, they undoubtedly have translated it by a word that meant immerse. In the first eight hundred years, fourteen versions of the New Testament were made. Not one of them rendered it to sprinkle or to pour, while all the versions made in that time render it by a word that means to immerse, or transfer the term itself.

Prof. Stuart says the early Churches understood the word baptizo to mean to immerse. The oldest version ever made was from the Greek into the Syriac. This version is the oldest of all the translations of the New Testament that are extant, for in all probability it should be dated during the first half of the second century. Withal, it is admitted by those who are able to consult it, to be one of the most faithful and authentic of all the ancient versions. It translates baptizo by a word signifying to immerse.

The most authoritative version next to the Greek is the Syriac, and the oldest. It translates Baptizo invariably by a word that means to dip, to immerse — Amad.

Castell (1669. Lex. Heptaglott) defines amad ablutus est — to bathe, to immerse, as immerse it.

Michaelis (1778. Lex. Syr.), by the very same words, adding that it, amad, comes from the Arabic ghamat — to immerse, — and not from the Hebrew armad — to stand.

Schaaf (1708. Lex. Syr.) defines amad ablutus se, ablutus intinctus — to wash one's self, to dip, to immerse in water.

Guido Fabricius (1592. Lex. Syr.) defines it, baptizavit intingit lavit — to dip, to bathe.

Shindler (1612. Lex. Pentaglott) defines it baptizatus in aquam, immersus tinctus, lotus fuit — to baptize, to immerse into water, to dip, to bathe.

Buxtorf (1622. Lex. Chal. et Syr.) gives baptizari, intingit, albui — to baptize, dip in, to wash.

Grothier defines amad baptizavit, baptizatos est — to immerse, to be immersed.

Dr. Gortch (Episcopalian; a thorough Onenlalist) — It signifies to immerse; never to stand, much less to sprinkle.

Bar-Ali (885. Syrian). — Amad: an immersion, a bathing, a dipping.

Bernstein (Lex. Syr.). — He was dipped, immersed; he dipped or plunged himself into something.

It must be evident to the reader, from the above list, that the Syriac verb amad meant, in the estimation of the translator or translators of the Syriac New Testament (next in authority to the Greek New Testament, which is the reason I give so much space to it here), something different from sprinkling, pouring on, or standing up. Immersion was the universal practice of the Syrian Christians, and of the Nestorians, who speak the Syriac language. Dr. Wall (Episcopalian) says that all the Christians of Asia and Africa, and one-third of those of Europe, baptize by immersion.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - Baptizein.

Physical Objections to Immersion Considered

PART II - CHAPTER III

AFTER two hundred years of earnest and intense discussion of the act of baptism by the ablest scholars of all denominations, and notwithstanding all the light shed upon the topography of Palestine — its springs, rivers, and water-courses — by travelers and tourists who annually visit it, it is by some, even now, denied that there is such a river as the Jordan; that what some call the Jordan is in some seasons an insignificant, seeping stream that could be stopped with one's foot;[1] that it is the name of a section of the country — the Jourdane; by others as a swift, dangerous, and muddy stream, too filthy to immerse in; others, that it is too deep — i. e., that the water, all the way from head to mouth, is too deep and the current too swift for administrator and subject to stand in — that they would be swept into the Dead Sea unless held by ropes; others, ministers, these objectors one and all, assert that the banks of the river are so high and so precipitous that it is impossible to go down into its waters; while others assert that the waters are so icy cold they give the parties to baptism congestive chills. All these, and other equally as absurd objections, since Lieutenant Lynch, of the U. S. Navy, passed down the river in boats, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, surveying every mile of it, and giving in his report, which was published and has been for thirty years within the reach of every man who wished to know, all things pertaining to the river — a report which stamps with falsehood every one of these objections.

And Ænon is treated in like manner — the “much water” of the scripture reduced to many little springs, and no one, or all together, furnishing water enough to immerse one person. To answer this class of objectors we give the letter of Elder Whittle, who, with a plenty of time, did what we opine no Pedobaptist tourist ever did — found the true locality of the Salem of Matthew and the springs of Ænon, and has fully described it, thereby laying the Baptist denomination under a lasting debt of gratitude.

Think of it — all the members of a Baptist Church near by have been baptized in Ænon, because there is “much water there.” Will Pedobaptists still quibble and deny?

But, remove all the objections the opposers of immersion can raise touching the scarcity of water in the Jordan and at Ænon, and they will shortly find other and as silly objections. The last I have seen is that John would not have had time to immerse the millions of the people of Jerusalem, Judea, and all the regions round about the Jordan, and therefore he must have sprinkled them — standing them up in rows on the bank and sprinkling them with a hyssop bush! When some of all classes of the population of a city, town, or country go out to a meeting or special occasion, it is a common expression, and well understood, to say, the whole town, or city, or village, or the whole country went out or was there.

Now, the record distinctly tells us that the Pharisees and Sadducees — which classes composed the majority of the population — rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of John; and the priests, who composed another large class, rejected his baptism; and he baptized only those who repented and gave him satisfactory evidence of it — brought forth “fruits meet for repentance.” A few hundreds, or thousands at most, were baptized by John. These would satisfy all the requirements of the case.

And, then, the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost, and doubtless in but a part of one day, and therefore they must have been sprinkled! The record does not say they were all baptized, but that they were all added to the Church the same day. Many of these, and even the majority of them, were the disciples of John and of the seventy missionaries of Christ, and their disciples were all baptized by them. But suppose all the three thousand were baptized that day: it could have been easily done. There were eighty-two ordained baptizers — the twelve apostles and the seventy = 82; and our ministers can baptize and often have baptized two per minute. The eighty-two, then, could have immersed one hundred and sixty-four per minute, and it would not have taken eighty-two administrators twenty minutes to immerse the three thousand.

Now, what do these silly and absurd objections to immersion mean but to discredit with the unthinking people the positive statements of the Holy Ghost and of the Word of God — that John did immerse Christ and multitudes of the people in the River Jordan? If this is not speaking against the Holy Spirit, we know not what it is to speak against the Spirit. I do know that Matt. xviii, 6, applies to such.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - Dr. Slater's assertion.

The River Jordan — Does it Afford Water Enough for Immersion? — Are its Waters Accessible? They were in the Days of Moses and of David.

PART II - CHAPTER IV

ONE of the arguments used by some of the opponents of baptism by immersion is that the Jordan is not a river at all, or a river of mud, or something else — not furnishing water enough to immerse a person in. As they are ministers — men who are supposed to be familiar with the Bible — who teach the people this, we propose to refer you to the passages in the Bible that allude to this river.

Here is the direction of God to the Israelites about passing over this river:

“Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man. And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off, from the waters that comes down from above; and they shall stand upon a heap. And it came to pass when the people removed from their tents, to pass over Jordan, and the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people; and as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks at the time of harvest), that the water which came down from above, stood and rose up upon a heap very far, from the city of Adam, that is beside Zaretan; and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea failed, and were cut off; and the people passed over right against Jericho. And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan, and all the Israelites passed over on dry ground, until all the people were passed clean over Jericho.” — Josh. iii, 12-17.

There was sufficient water in this river in the days of Naaman, for he dipped himself seven times in it. He reached the water, and was not drowned or carried down into the Dead Sea.

“And his servants came near and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather, then, when he saith to thee, Wash and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” — 2 Kings v, 13, 14.

It seems, from Jeremiah, that the Jordan was a formidable river during its swelling or flood time.

“If thou hast run with the footmen, and they had wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?” — Jer. xii, 5.

When David returned to Jerusalem, after the battle in which Absalom fell, he was compelled to use ferry boats to pass his family and army over the Jordan.

“And there werea thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons, and his twenty servants with him, and they went over Jordan before the king. And there went over a ferry boat to carry over the king's household, and to do what he thought good; and Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king as he was come over Jordan.” — 2 Sam. xix, 17, 18.

There was some depth of water in parts of the Jordan, at least in the days of Elisha; for an axe head that chanced to fall into it was considered lost, and was only recovered by a miracle.

“So he went with them. And when they came to Jordan, they cut down wood. But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water: and he cried, and said, Alas, master! for it was borrowed. And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he shewed him the place. And he cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim. Therefore said he, Take it up to thee. And he put out his hand, and took it.” — 2 Kings vi, 4-8.

I have demonstrated that baptizo means to immerse, and I shall use that word. There was water in the Jordan in the days of John the Baptist, and if “Jesus, when he was immersed, went up straightway out of the water,” he must then have gone down into it (Matt, iii, 16). In those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was immersed of John in Jordan, he could not have been immersed with Jordan.

“And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all immersed of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” — Mark i, 5.

Certainly not with the river Jordan. Then as now Lieut. Lynch, with boats, navigated it from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. Dr. Talmage immersed two men in the Jordan — Dr. Holt and AV. D. Powell — in 1890, and saw the thousands of pilgrims immerse themselves and each other in the river Jordan, and none were drowned! No one had a congestive chill.

I prepare this chapter to prove, by living witnesses, that the Jordan is still a river, and that its waters are accessible, and are neither dangerous nor so muddy as to be undrinkable.

I am now, as never before, impressed with this thought: that God's plans and purposes never depend on any one man. When Moses was no more, Joshua took up, and carried on to completion, his unfinished work. We have here a beautiful example of how the labors of God's servants are interlinked with each other. Moses liberated Israel from Egyptian bondage, but it was left to Joshua to lead them into the promised land. Forty years they had wandered in the wilderness, warring with the different tribes through whose territory they had passed; forty years they had been miraculously fed with manna; forty years they were guided by a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night; but at last the gladsome day came when they were to exchange the stony wilderness for the land that flowed with milk and honey. There was joy in the camp. With happy hearts and strong hands three million Hebrews folded their tents and marched side by side, shoulder to shoulder, to the river's brink. And I am sure that while there they sang in spirit, if not in letter:

“On Jordan's stormy banks we stand,
And cast a wishful eye
To Canaan's fair and happy land,
Where our possessions lie."

It is well to walk in the footsteps of great men; so, having followed Moses out of Egypt, let us now follow Joshua into Canaan. Leaving Nebo's Summit, and coming down on the north side of the mountain, we find at its base a bold spring which bears the name of the great law-giver. Around this spring of Moses the hosts of Israel, it is supposed, pitched their tents. Still, following Joshua, we soon find ourselves standing on the banks of the Jordan. Ah, sacred river! how it thrills me to be here! “Thy banks, winding in a thousand graceful mazes, are fringed with perpetual verdure; thy pathway is cheered with the sight and songs of birds, and by thy own clear voice of gushing minstrelsy. There is a pleasure in the green-wooded banks, seen far along the sloping valley; a tracery of life, amid the death and dust that hem thee in, so like some trace of gentleness in a corrupt and wicked heart.”

I have crossed many important streams. I have been on the Rio Grande; I have sailed up and down the Missisippi and the Ohio; the Hudson and the St. Lawrence; I have sailed on the Thames through London; on the Seine through Paris; on the Tiber through Rome; on the Rhine through Germany; on the Danube through all western Europe; on the Nile through Egypt, and yet I freely acknowledge that I never was so moved by any stream as by the sight of this historic river. It was the Jordan that divided and let the children of Israel pass over on dry ground. It was the Jordan whose waters cleansed Naaman of his leprosy. It was the Jordan whose stream floated an ax at the prophet's command. It was the Jordan, also, on whose banks another prophet stood and preached repentance, and in whose waters he buried Christ in baptism. John the Baptist was a man after my own heart. He came on the stage of action filled and fired with a purpose — he was conscious of a commission from God. He believed, therefore he spoke; and, as he spoke, the people left their homes and hovels in Jerusalem, Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and flocked to hear him.

Reader, we are on historic ground. Stand here with me on the banks of the stream, and let us behold a sacred scene together. The river here makes a graceful curve toward the east, and is at this point about fifty yards, or one hundred and fifty feet wide. The western bank, on which we stand, is low and level, not more than eighteen inches, or two feet, above the surface of the river, and gently slopes down to the water. The opposite bank is a wall of rock, rising up perpendicularly for eighteen or twenty feet, then, retreating beautifully in a terrace, another terrace, and another one still. Terraces rise above and beyond each other like seats in an opera-house. These terraces gracefully stretch themselves along the rocky bluff of this river for two hundred yards or more, until at least a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand people could be so seated along the terraced bluff of the river as to look down upon its watery surface. Let us, in our imagination, re-people all these terraces with the Jews of old; with their quaint, Eastern costumes; with their hard faces and beaming eyes. There they sit, rising tier above tier.

Now, on this low bank, not far from us, stands the preacher in the midst of a great concourse of people. Every ear is all attention, every eye is fixed on the preacher. See! his bosom heaves, his face glows, his eyes sparkle, his words burn. His sentences strike, swift and glittering, like lightning flashes midst the roll of judgment-day thunders. Terrors of the day of wrath roll over his hearers as the foremost thought; sounds of hope break in, like soft music, to keep the contrite from despair. The moral world seems to shake. The people realize as never before their sin, their guilt, their need of a Savior. In their hearts they want, they yearn for, the promised Messiah.

Now, lifting his eyes above the motley multitude, John beholds a strange personage coming toward him. Rough and rugged, bold and heroic, John is not a man to shrink from his fellows. He is no reed to be shaken by the wind. But, see! he trembles as the stranger approaches. Spiritual greatness wears a kingly crown which compels instant reverence. John, a moment ago as bold as a lion, is now as meek as a lamb. Shrinking from the new-comer, he says, “I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest thou to me?” Jesus, answering, said unto him, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”

Then leading Jesus down into the river he baptizes Him; and immediately the heavens are opened, the Spirit of God, like a dove, descends and lights upon Him. There is the Son with the Spirit resting upon His head, and, lo! a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” The vast multitude who witness this strange sight are deeply moved — they are profoundly impressed. What means this strange baptism, this descent of the Spirit, this voice of God? What means it all? Who is this new-comer? John answers by pointing to Jesus and saying, “Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” As if to say, “This is He of whom Moses and the prophets did write — of whom I have told you, and before whom every earthly monarch shall bow.” This day have the people witnessed one of the most wonderful events in the history of the world — a direct manifestation of the Triune God. There has this day begun an agitation and stir among the people that shall end in a tragedy on Calvary.

These scenes have made the Jordan a sacred river. From the days of Constantine, to bathe or to be baptized in this river has been regarded a great privilege. We are told that “in the sixth century marble steps led, down into the water on both sides, at the spot where it is believed our Lord was baptized, while a wooden cross rose in the middle of the stream.” Nor has reverence for this river diminished — on the contrary it seems to have increased. Each year, during the week preceding Easter Sunday, thousands and thousands of people, from all parts of the world, assemble in Jerusalem, and pitch their tents on the surrounding hills. They continue to come until the hills round about Jerusalem look like one far-reaching city of many-colored tents.

Easter Sunday, with its strange ceremonies and joyous songs, is over. Monday morning, bright and early, there is great bustle and confusion in the camp. Every tent is folded. Camels, mules, and donkeys, are packed, ready for travel. The people mount — sometimes whole families of five or six on one camel. Some of the number stride the animal, while others are suspended in baskets, which are tied together, and hang on either side. Leaving Jerusalem, the pilgrims, in one great caravan, under the protection of the Turkish government, start out for the “Sacred River.” The Kedron Valley, and the side of the Mount of Olives, are filled with inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding villages, who have come out to see the annual procession pass. On they go, an escort of Turkish soldiers, with a white flag and sweet music, leading the way; then come camels and asses, laden with pilgrims of every age and condition, of every clime and country, clad in costumes of every variety of cut and color, while a second group of soldiers, with the green standard of the prophet, closes the long procession.

As the shadows of evening begin to fall, the pilgrims pitch their tents by Elisha's Fountain in the plain of Jericho. At night the whole plain is dotted with cheerful camp-fires. Gathering here, in groups of two or three hundred, the people engage with great enthusiasm in a weird kind of ceremony which is to prepare them for the next day. At a late hour they fall asleep.

The scene that follows their waking is vividly described by Lieut. Lynch, of the United States Navy.

He says: “At 3 A. M. we were aroused by the intelligence that the pilgrims were coming. Rising in haste, we beheld thousands of torchlights, with a dark mass beneath, moving rapidly over the hills. Striking our tents with precipitation, we hurriedly removed them, and all our effects, a short distance to the left. We had scarce finished when they were upon us — men, women, and children, mounted on camels, horses, mules and donkeys, rushed impetuously by toward the bank. They presented the appearance of fugitives from a routed army.

“Our Bedouin friends here stood us in good stead — sticking their tufted spears before our tents, they mounted their steeds and formed a military cordon around us. But for them we should have been run down, and most of our effects trampled upon, scattered and lost. In all the wild haste of a disorderly rout, Copts and Russians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks and Syrians, from all parts of Asia, from Europe, from Africa, and from far-distant America, on they came; men, women and children, of every age and hue, and in every variety of costume, talking, screaming, shouting, in almost every known language under the sun.

“Mounted as variously as those who had preceded them, many of the women and children were suspended in baskets or confined in cages; and, with their eyes strained toward the river, heedless of all intervening obstacles, they hurried eagerly forward, and dismounting in haste and disrobing with precipitation, rushed down the bank, and threw themselves into the stream. Each one plunged himself, or was dipped by another, three times, below the surface, in honor of the Trinity; and then filled a bottle, or some other utensil, from the river. The bathing-dress of many of the pilgrims was a white gown with a black cross upon it.

“In an hour they began to disappear; and in less time than three hours the trodden surface of the lately crowded bank reflected no human shadow. The pageant disappeared as rapidly as it had approached, and left to us once more the silence and the solitude of the wilderness. It was like a dream. An immense crowd of human beings, said to be eight thousand, but I thought not so many, had passed and repassed before our tents, and left not a vestige behind them.”

These pilgrims come in such haste and confusion that frequently some of their number are drowned; and yet so great is the fanatical enthusiasm of the crowd that little or no concern is awakened by the ill-timed death of the unfortunates. The usual bathing-dress is a long, loose-flowing, white gown. After bathing, the pilgrims carefully fold up these robes, thus consecrated, and carry them home with them to far-distant lands, in different parts of the world, and use them as burial shrouds.

I have never seen a better place for bathing and swimming. From the west side one wades down into the river, getting deeper and deeper the farther he goes from the bank. When about half way across, the water becomes too deep for wading, and close to the eastern bank, it is so deep that one can hardly dive to the bottom. One finds water of any depth from two to twelve feet. The bottom, being composed of sand and smooth rock, is all that could be desired. We are so delighted to be here that we hardly know how to leave. We remain, day after day, reading, fishing, and swimming. We catch several messes of sweet, fresh fish, and fry and eat them on the banks of the stream.

Having spoken somewhat at length about that place in the Jordan where it is supposed, with reasonable certainty, the Savior was baptized, and which is also the bathing place of the pilgrims, I proceed now to describe the river from one end to the other. But, before speaking of the river proper, I desire to say something concerning the Ghor, or valley of the Jordan.

Beginning at the upper end of the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley extends one hundred and ten miles directly northward. It varies from three to ten miles in width, and has an average width of six miles. Now this valley, one hundred and ten miles long and six miles wide, is shut in on the east and west by great walls of rock. The eastern bluff is bolder than the one on the west — that is, it is more nearly perpendicular. It is also more regular as to altitude, the height ranging probably from 1,800 to 2,000 feet. The western wall, though less regular than the other, is sometimes as precipitous, and has some peaks that are as high, if not higher.

The entire valley is very deep, its northern end being seven hundred feet lower than the Mediterranean, while its southern end is sis hundred feet lower still. The whole valley is therefore one vast inclined plane, sloping from north to south. Through this valley, somewhat nearer to the eastern than to the western side, the Jordan winds it serpentine path.

The river has its source in three bold springs near the upper end of the valley. One of these springs bursts forth from the side of Mount Hermon 2,200 feet above the Mediterranean; a second strong spring gushes out from under a bold rock-cliff at Cæsarea Philippi. These two springs are on the eastern side of the valley, while the third, which is of itself a small river, issues from the foot of the western hills, near the city of Dan. All of these fountains are large and beautiful. All of them send forth copious streams of fresh and sparkling water. Any one of them could run a half dozen mills or factories, or irrigate the whole valley. These crystal waters, after flowing gently, and sometimes rushing madly, along their separate courses, unite for the first time in the little Lake of Huleh, or the waters of Merom, as it is often called.

Huleh, about two by four miles, is in the southern end of an exceedingly rich and fertile plain. In this plain, and around these waters, Joshua had some of his hardest fought battles. Leaving this lake, the waters flow rapidly through a narrow, rocky gorge for eleven miles, and then empty into the sea of Galilee, which is in round numbers, 700 feet lower than the surface of the Mediterranean. Remember, one spring came out from Hermon's side 2,200 feet above the Mediterranean. In the short distance of thirty six miles, therefore, the waters have fallen 2,900 feet!

The Jordan proper is the stream connecting the sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. These seas are only sixty-five miles apart; but the river, as if reluctant to enter that bitter sea of Death, winds and twists so like a serpent that the water, in going from one sea to the other, flows two hundred miles, and empties at last into the Dead Sea, 1,300 feet below the Mediterranean.

The Jordan has three sets of banks, which are marked with more or less distinctness according as the hills approach near to, or recede from, the river. Ordinarily, of course, the stream is confined within the lower banks; but during the annual rise the water overflows these lower banks, and spreads out over the valley between the second terraces or banks. No important tributaries are received from the west; but the Hieromax and the Jabbox, each a small river, empty into the Jordan from the east. The river is crossed by four well-known fords: one just below the sea of Galilee, another just above the mouth of the Jabbox; the third and fourth are respectively above and below the pilgrims' bathing place, which is about two and a-half miles north of the Dead Sea. No bridge spans the river at present, but the remains of old Roman bridges may still be seen at some of the fords.

In some places the channel of the river is shut in by rock banks, steep and precipitous. At others, the banks are of sand or rich earth, and rise only a few feet above the surface of the water. Sometimes one bank is a bold rock cliff, rising abruptly, while the other slopes up gently from the river, and stretches out to join the fertile plain.

Since the Jordan has its source in a fountain bursting out of a mountain side 2,200 feet above the Mediterranean, and since it empties into the Dead Sea 1,300 feet below the Mediterranean, a great many people falsely conclude that the river must, of necessity, be very swift. I grant that this seems a strong argument. Think of a river 136 miles long having a fall of 3,500 feet. The natural supposition is that such a stream would be exceedingly swift. But not so. The facts will not bear out the supposition. To be swift, a stream must have not only a great fall, but it must also have a comparatively straight channel. The Jordan is probably the most crooked river on earth. In a space of sixty-five miles of latitude, and five or six miles of longitude, it traverses at least two hundred miles. In some places, to be sure, the current is swift, as there are thirty or more falls, or rapids, in the Jordan. Some of these are quite marked, while others are less so. While near these falls, the stream is swift. In other places the water is deep, and moves sluggishly.

In speaking of the velocity of the water, it might be well to mention that a few years ago Lieutenant Lynch, under appointment of the United States government, navigated the river from one end to the other. He met with many difficulties and some dangers. Shooting the rapids was perilous work. One of his boats was dashed against the rocks and went to pieces. Lieutenant Lynch's official report to the United States Navy Department is the fullest, most accurate, and reliable description of the Jordan that has ever been published in this country.

Again. Inasmuch as the Jordan rises in the mountains, and is constantly fed by the melting snows of Hermon, some philosophical students have argued that the water must necessarily be quite cold at all times. But a few facts are worth a cart-load of theories. And, as a matter of fact, the water of the Jordan is not cold, except during the winter season; and even then the temperature is by no means low. I bathed in the Jordan repeatedly; once as late as the 15th of December, and the water was even then of a delightful temperature for bathing.

The river valley is so deeply depressed that scarcely a breath of air is felt during the hot season. On this point, Dr. Geikie says: “The heat of the Jordan plains is very great in summer, and oppressive even in spring, while in autumn it becomes very unhealthy for strangers. In May, the thermometer ranges from about eighty-six degrees in the early forenoon to over one hundred degrees in the beginning of afternoon, standing, even in the shade, at over ninety degrees.” Having given the results of my own observation in winter, and of Dr. Geikie's in spring, I may add that the annual mean temperature of the lower Jordan valley is between seventy and seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit. From the above facts, the reader will readily see that it is quite impossible for a stream flowing through this valley ever to reach a very low temperature.

The stream is from seventy-five to three hundred feet wide, and probably has an average depth of six and a-half feet or more, even daring the dry season. At some places, however, the depth is much greater than this. Here and there, islands, robed in garments of living green, and decked with flowers of every hue, float, fairy-like, upon the bosom of the river.

The terraces along the river are frequently one mass of vegetation. The weeping-willow grows on the banks, and dips her flowing tresses in the sacred stream. As one follows the windings of the historic river, his way is continually cheered by the gushing sound of some crystal rivulet, by the beauty and fragrance of the flowers, by the eight and song of birds. The tangled vine, the matted cane, the thick-growing forest trees, of considerable size, and a great variety of undergrowth, form a general rendezvous for wild animals, and a perfect paradise for birds. Hyenas, tigers, wild boars and bears abound here, especially on the eastern side of the river. Here hawks, herons, pigeons, ducks, doves and swallows build their nests and raise their young. Here, also, the bulbul and the nightingale sing their songs of praise.

Ænon — Was There Water Enough to Immerse a Person?

PART II - CHAPTER V

[By Rev. W. A, WHITTLE, Louisville, Ky.]

ÆNON can be reached most conveniently from Shechem, but before starting out for that place of “much water,” let us spend a few moments together in this ancient city.

Shechem, now called Nablus, the New City, is situated in one of the best watered, and consequently one of the prettiest, valleys in Palestine. This green and fruitful valley lies between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, which run east and west, and rise some 2,700 feet above the sea. At present, Nablus has about 8,000 inhabitants. From an historical stand-point, it is scarcely less interesting than Jerusalem. It is with reluctance, therefore, that I refrain from giving a description of Shechem, and a brief sketch of its history; but to do so would be foreign to the aim and purpose of the present paper. I may be permitted, however, to remind the reader that when Abraham was called out of Ur, into the Land of Promise, he “passed through the land unto the place of Sichem (Shechem), and here builded an altar unto the Lord.” When Jacob had been twenty years in Mesopotamia, working for a pair of wives, his heart turned again toward his native land. On re-entering the country, he came at once to Shechem, and here “builded an altar unto the Lord.”

After their deliverance from four hundred years of Egyptian bondage, and after wandering forty years in the wilderness, the children of Israel crossed into Canaan, and began at once to fight their way to Shechem. Reaching here, they “builded an altar unto the Lord.”

Here it was that Joshua and his brave followers held a national consecration meeting. The people arranged themselves in this lovely valley while from the hill-sides above, the priests read the law of the blessings and curses. So, three times on entering and re-entering the promised land, the representative of God's chosen people came direct to Shechem and builded an altar unto the Lord.

I am a Baptist,[1] but I see no just reason why that should debar me of the privilege of saying, by way of parenthesis, that the only Baptist Church in Palestine and Syria is here in Shechem. A fourth “altar has been built unto the Lord.” The God of Abraham, of Jacob, and Joshua, is also the God of Rev. El. Kary and his faithful few. In this city of Shechem the fires of love still burn brightly upon the altars of devotion. In Mount Ebal, Joshua set up a memorial stone. In Mount Gerizim, the Samaritans built their national temple. The one is now in ruins, and the other is not to be found; but in the valley the altar still stands, and thankful hearts daily offer grateful praise to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The valley of Shechem is about a mile in length and half a mile wide. After running parallel to each other for a mile or more, Mounts Ebal and Gerizim turn abruptly to the north and south, leaving a broad, rich and open plain east of their round shoulders. Just here, where the narrow valley of Shechem opens out into the fertile plain of Moreh, are two objects of great interest to all Christian people — viz: Jacob's well and Joseph's tomb. It was on the curb of this well that Jesus sat and “told the woman all things that she ever did.” From this well He drew up those blushing goblets of truth which have come along down the ages, quenching spiritual thirst, and springing up into everlasting life. This well, dug by Jacob and visited by Jesus, still exists. None doubts, no one can doubt, its identity. The well is circular in shape, seven and a-half feet in diameter, and sinks through the limestone rock to a depth of seventy-five or eighty feet.

About two hundred yard's north of Jacob's well, at the edge of the plain at the base of Mount Ebal, is Joseph's tomb. "The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamar, the father of Shechem, for an hundred pieces of silver.”

I should not have lingered so long in this happy valley had I not fallen into the wells of thoughts and stumbled over the bones of past ages. With the warp of history and the woof of the Bible, fancy's loom has woven a golden web which entangles our feet and holds us captives. But we must snap the cords that bind us to the valley of Shechem, and turn our faces toward Ænon, near to Salem, where John once baptized.

The dim bridle-path that our donkey is to follow hugs the eastern shoulders of Mount Ebal. With our faces turned toward the north, we travel two miles, while the plain of Moreh stretches away, broad and level, on the right, and Mount Ebal rises up abruptly on the left hand. Our road skirts the edge of the plain and the base of the mountain. When we have come about a mile and a-half from Jacob's well, we look across the plain to our right, and see Salem, only a mile from us.

This Arab village has seen its best days. Its black tents and dingy rock houses have no especial charms for us. We are thirsty, so we press on toward Ænon, near to Salem, because there is much water there.

When we have followed our blind path for a mile farther, it crosses a deep ravine, known as Wady Bedan. As our donkeys stop to drink, we are attracted by the roar of water, and the rush of machinery. The noise is explained when we see four mills — two above and two just below the road. A short distance, probably two miles, below these mills, Wady Bedan unites with another whose supply of water is even greater than its own. The ravine now takes an eastern course, and is known as Wady Farah. The channel is narrow, the banks are high and in many places perpendicular. There are many places along this ravine where the water is of sufficient depth for bathing purposes; but not until we have gone about three miles below where the two ravines come together do we find all the conditions necessary to a baptismal scene. The deep banks disappear; the stream now comes back to the surface, and the gently rising banks stretch out into plains, and stretch away beautifully toward the north and south. The plains are dotted over with the ever-present olive, and the on-flowing stream is fringed with blooming oleanders. Here is everything necessary to John's baptism — much water and ample room to accommodate the vast multitude who flocked to hear him. If the bold prophet had searched the whole country, from Dan to Beersheba, he could have found no place more suitable to administer that sacred rite which so beautifully sets forth the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.

Thus far, I simply endeavored to show that the physical conditions of this place are in every way suitable to Bible baptism; in other words, I have endeavored to show that Nature has so arranged this place that John could have baptized here. I shall now proceed to show that history makes it probable, if not certain, that John did baptize here.

Moved by a spirit of fairness and candor in this matter, I shall introduce the testimony of those persons whose word ought to be authority on this subject.

Eusebius, who was born at Caesarea, in Palestine, about the year 265 A. D., and who enjoyed the enviable reputation of being the most “learned man of his time,” and who is known as the Father of Ecclesiastical History, speaks of the scene of John's baptism.

Jerome, who followed in the immediate wake of Eusebius, and who spent many years of his life in Bethlehem, and who knew Palestine like a book, from Dan to Beersheba, shares the opinion of his illustrious predecessor — that this was the place where the forerunner of Christ baptized the multitude.

It should be remembered that these men lived and wrote before there was any dispute as to the mode of baptism. They loved the truth for the truth's sake. They wrote, not as controversialists, or as sectarians, but as historians.

Modern research has failed to make any discoveries which would in any wise tend to shake our faith in these early statements. On the other hand, the discoveries of modern research share in, agree with, and confirm the opinion of these early Church fathers. I might name Professor McGarvey, of Lexington, Ky.; but he is an immersionist, and some might think, and-so-forth.

Chapter Footnotes

1 - Had he not been a Baptist, would he have been at the trouble of searching out these springs, and settling forever the question of “much water” at Ænon? Why has no Pedobaptist explorer discovered this sacred water? Why not Dr. Robinson?

I will freely acknowledge the debt of gratitude Elder Whittle has laid upon the Baptists, which they can in part discharge by securing, each one for himself, his charming and valuable book on Palestine and Travels in the East. His two sketches in this book are fair samples of his style. To no tourist of Palestine are Baptists more indebted than to Elder Whittle.

Ænon, Near to Salem

PART II - CHAPTER VI

Little Rock, Ark., Dec. 3, 1890.

J. R. Graves, Memphis, Tenn.:

BELOVED Brother — I am glad to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of yesterday. I am rejoiced that you have so far recovered as to be able to be at work again. I trust that the remaining days of your pilgrimage here will be spent in wielding the pen, for your hand hath not forgot its cunning. I trust that you will be spared to tell us who are younger of many things that you alone can tell. You are better able now to write than you ever were before. You have a greater fund of information from which to draw, you have a larger experience, a deeper insight into human nature, and a closer acquaintance with God than you have ever had before. Why may not your most far-reaching work lie yet before you? I would not be unappreciative of what you have done; no other man, living or dead, has wrought so effectually for the Baptists of the West and the world as yourself. I will comply, so far as I may be able right now, with your reasonable request to give you an account of any notable event of my travels (i. e., any interesting incident of his travels in the East). This is mailing day. The mustang mailer is keeping up an incessant racket just across the thin partition from me. My three children — Broadus, Judson, and Mittase (my Indian girl, born among the wild Indians, and bearing an Indian name), are rapping and chattering like magpies, and I have not the heart to bid them be quiet. If I get things mixed, just attribute it to this confusion.

I had the pleasure of visiting the baptistery wherein Constantine the Great is said to have been baptized. It is in a building adjacent to St. John Lateran, Rome. The whole building was for the baptistery; it is circular in form, and very ancient. The baptistery proper is sixty feet in circumference, and of a uniform depth of three feet and three or four inches. It is built of marble, and has steps leading down to it from the floor of the building. It is railed off, and might now serve for an aquarium, or a swimming pool. But when the “Church”(?) changed the ordinance, the baptistery had to be changed also, and so a beautiful font of pure porphyry has been erected in the center of the old baptistery, out of which the perversion of baptism is practiced. The font is very distinguishably of much later date than the baptistery.

I also had the privilege of visiting the catacombs of St. Calixtus, on the Appian way, near Rome. In these catacombs, the oldest and most noted in Rome, there is a very ancient baptistery, in which immersion was practiced by our ancient brethren when they fled thither from the persecutions of Rome.

During our travels through Greece we ascertained beyond all question the practice of the Greek Church to be immersion. We had a long conversation with an educated Greek gentleman in Athens, and he was surprised at my statement that some people in my country claimed that sprinkling and pouring were legitimate meanings of baptizo. He said that such meanings were impossible, except such sprinkling or pouring were so profusely administered as to cause the object so sprinkled or poured upon to become completely saturated with the water or other element used.

I made it my particular business, while traveling through Palestine — and I spent three months there, studying, measuring, investigating and exploring — to look into the question of ancient pools. Any ordinary traveler through the East will soon learn to distinguish between the different styles of architecture, and the different markings on the stones, as determining to what age such stones belong. A stone carved or hewn by an Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Hebrew, Roman, Saracen or Turk is as plainly distinguishable as such as are the features of these several nationalities different from each other. After studying these several features and becoming quite familiar with them, I set about searching for the pools, to determine their date.

Solomon's Pools, about two or three miles south of Bethlehem, are the most extensive and best preserved of any in Palestine. Their dimensions can be ascertained from any Bible dictionary. They are built of fine stone — a kind of marble — and were repaired by Herod Agrippa, since which time they have remained untouched. Either of them is large enough to float an ocean steamer, and they are yet fine reservoirs, in winter being fairly filled with water.

An amusing, instructive incident occurred while I was on my way from Jerusalem to Hebron. You may not have seen it as it was published in the Arkansas Baptist, and so I repeat it for your use, only should you ever use it in print, you will please omit the name of my friend, Professor ——, D.D., LL.D., of Princeton, N. J. I met with Professor —— in Athens, Greece. He decided to accompany me to Palestine and Egypt. We had frequent friendly discussions as to the differences between Baptists and Presbyterians. Professor always had the advantage of me in point of scholarship, while I had the advantage of him in my acquaintance with the English Bible, and always in the configuration of the country. It was peculiarly irritative to Professor —— to see me measuring the pools, sounding the streams, etc., which I invariably did. The sight of water was unpleasant to the good doctor; he would not even take it at the table, but followed literally Paul's advice to Timothy. We had taken the trip through Galilee, had gotten soaking wet going, which increased the Professor's irritation. We stood at Jacob's well, while Brother Kary, the Baptist native preacher at Nablous, pointed out to us the objects of interest. Professor —— was all animation as Joseph's tomb, the old temple on Mt. Gerizim, where the Levites stood on Mt. Ebal, where the ark rested midway, and other objects, were pointed out. “Over there, across the valley of Salem, and Ænon just beyond it, where you know there is 'much water,'” said Brother Kary. “'Many waters,' the original has it,” quoth the Professor. “I'll tell you how that is,” said Brother K. “Over yonder at the foot of that mountain are a number of springs, very bold and excellent water. They come together down the valley near Ænon, and they form quite a stream. It is frequently past fording this time of year, and I have baptized there more than once.” The Professor felt that the air was chilly, and he proposed that we should return. At Cana of Galilee we came to the fountain where doubtless the water was obtained which our Lord made wine, and was flowing into a suspicious-looking rock basin, about nine feet long by four feet wide and three feet deep. While I was taking the dimensions of this pool the Professor caught the rickets, and wanted to go on. At the beautiful sea of Galilee I remarked that here was surely sufficient water for all practical purposes. We went together to the old town of Hebron, the ancient home of Abraham. As we journeyed we passed the noted pools of Solomon, of which I have already spoken. I here descended into an old well of a looking place, much to the disgust of Professor ——, but there I found the veritable sealed fountain spoken of in the songs of Solomon. Later on our way we fell to discoursing on the localities through which we were passing, and then the driver informed us that we were near the place where Phillip baptized the eunuch. The Professor looked out on the bleak and barren-desert looking place, and remarked: “Yes; this is just about such a place.” Taking a map from his pocket he noticed that this was about on a line from Samaria, where Phillip would have intercepted the eunuch on his way from Jerusalem to Gaza. It was a chariot road, and this was the only way that a chariot could go from Jerusalem to Gaza, unless they should go via the Joppa road, which was very much out of the way. These mountains had always been there, and were scarcely accessible for horseback riding, much less chariot driving. “Yes; this is just about the place — a desert place, too; and now,” continued the Professor, triumphantly looking around, “where is your water to baptize a man? Now, there in that rock is water enough fallen during the night in which to baptize a man decently, as we believe it; but where would you immerse a man here? You will have to give up that where Phillip baptized the eunuch there is no possibility of immersion.” I was feeling a little uneasy, as the place was truly a desert-looking place, and there was not the least appearance of water. He seemed to enjoy my confusion, and pressed his point mercilessly. “You will have to give it up.” Just at that most opportune moment I heard the bleating of a lamb, and on looking out I saw, to my joy, that we were approaching a pool. “Are you sure that this is the place?” said I (Professor —— had not seen the pool). “'It must be,” said he, “this is just about the place, and, besides, it corresponds so well with the Bible description. Then tradition comes in as collateral evidence, so that we may be morally certain that this is the place. Now, what if I wanted to be baptized, what would you do to baptize me the way you so strenuously contend to be the only way?” Just then we rounded by the pool, and I laid my hand on his shoulder, and, pointing to the pool, said, “See, here is water; what doth hinder thee?” A clap of thunder from a clear sky would not have been more surprising to the Professor, who stammered, gazed, and turned red, and finally said, “Well, this is very unfortunate.” “It is quite fortunate,” I replied, “to see how completely God is answering your objections to His ordinance.” After that the subject became so unpleasant that I had to change it.

Yet, when we returned to Jerusalem, and as we were visiting the tombs of the kings on one occasion, I noticed that at the bottom of a flight of steps there was a beautiful baptistery — just the most complete thing I had hitherto seen in that line. Professor —— had not followed me down, but when he saw me leaning over the side, as if I were surveying something of interest, he came down. I looked down into the clear waters, at the steps which lead down into it, and then looked up at the Professor a little quizzically, and with a twinkle of the eye which had its meaning. “Doctor Holt,” brokein the Professor, “you seem to be intent on pushing this matter of the baptismal controversy on me to unpleasantness.” “No,” I replied, “I have been amused at your impatience when, time after time, the configuration of the country, as well as the word of God, has been against your position. But, as you seem to be irritated over the matter, I promise you that I shall not say another word about it. I beg your pardon for my seeming lack of Christian courtesy.” “It is my right to apologize,” spoke out the generous Professor; “I am the one who has been ungenerous. And now I had as well say it as think it: I find abundant evidence here in this country to justify your idea of baptism; and, further, though my denomination may not fully agree with me in the assertion, I know Greek too well for me to not know that the original meaning of the word for baptism not only admits immersion, but prefers it — if, indeed, it admits of anything else.” We clasped hands good friends for these candid admissions, and were, until the departure of Professor —— from Palestine, the best of friends.

While standing on the bank of the Jordan with Mr. T. J. Alley, a Methodist of prominence and piety, from Oregon, and watching the stream in its deep and steady flow, he remarked, reflectively, “No man can hold to sprinkling in the presence of this stream.”

I suppose I might as well tell you of his baptism.

It was while walking through old Samaria that he first asked baptism at my hands. He had heard all the controversy between myself and Professor ——. While we were climbing the Horns of Hattin — the Mount of Beatitudes — he said that he was convinced that the Baptists were right on baptism; but he stumbled over communion. I then took patient pains to go over the whole ground of the relation of baptism to the Lord's supper, and the significance of the latter ordinance. He said nothing at that time about being convinced, but on our return, at Samaria, he asked baptism at my hands. We slept that night beneath the roof of Brother Kary, the pastor of the Baptist Church at Nablos. There I carefully laid the matter before Brother Kary, and received from the Church authority to baptize Brother Alley. On the 9th day of March, 1890, we stood beside that beautiful, historic stream, and sang “On Jordan's Stormy Banks,” and then I read the account of the baptism of our Lord in that same stream, and, as near as could be ascertained, at that very spot. We then knelt in prayer in the presence of our little company of natives and our traveling companion, Mr. A. J. Jordan, of St. Louis; then I led down into the water that old man, who had spent the flower of his life in a vain attempt to reconcile his conscience with the traditions of men for the commandments of God. Looking up into the same skies whence had descended the dove — from whence had fallen the voice of Jehovah — I invoked the blessing of Him who had commanded this ordinance, and had submitted to it, and Who had said, “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” and then, as gently as a tender mother lays her sleeping babe to its cradle, as reverently as we lower our beloved dead into the tomb, I buried beneath the crystal waves of the Jordan this happy believer in Christ, with his hands clasped upon his bosom, and his silvery hair a crown of glory floating about his head. It was a melting scene. Mr. Jordan wept, and the dusky Arabs were reverently tender, and all shook hands with us as we came up from the water. Brother T. J. Alley, at this writing, is still in Jerusalem, a self-supporting missionary; you can write to him for particulars of life and customs among the modern inhabitants of Jerusalem. But I have already said more than you asked, or than I had an idea of giving. You can use it all or any part of it which you may select, only, for the sake of the feelings of Professor ——, do not mention his name; he is sensitive about the use of his name; when he and I called on Mr. Stanley, in Cairo, he asked me not to report to the papers his name in connection with the interview. May the Lord grant you great blessings and abundant grace.

Your grateful friend and brother,

A. J. Holt.

Infant Baptism Unscriptural

PART III - CHAPTER I

Axiom — Expressio unus est exclusio alienus. The specification of one thing is the prohibition of every other.

THIRTY-FOUR LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

Christ positively forbade Infant Baptism, for He specified believers as the subjects.

Argument I. — 1. Positive ordinances or institutions of Christianity require, in all cases, positive commands.

2. The baptism of unconscious infants, which is a positive ordinance, is nowhere commanded in the Word of God.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is not an institution of Christianity.

Dr. F. Schleiermacher (Lutheran): “All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the New Testament must first be put into it.” — Christ. Theol., p. 383.

Argument II. — 1. That rite or ordinance is evidently not an institution of Christianity, but a human tradition, of which, confessedly by all, no clear example can be found in the Word of God.

2. But there can be no example of infant baptism found in the Word of God.

3. Ergo, infant baptism is evidently not an institution of Christianity, but a human tradition.

Argument III. — 1. That rite, for which there is no express command, or undoubted example of, to be found in the New Testament or Bible, is evidently not of God, but a human tradition.

2. But there can be neither an express command for, nor an undoubted example of, infant baptism found in the Word of God.

3. Ergo, infant baptism is not of God, but a human tradition.

Argument IV. — 1. If there was one precept for, or example of, infant baptism in the Bible, the supporters of the practice could and would have found it in the course of fourteen hundred years, and the most distinguished scholars and advocates would not frankly admit there was neither.

2. But they have not found the precept or example, and their standard scholars and advocates frankly admit that neither the one nor the other can be found in the Word of God.

3. Ergo, the Word does not contain either precept for, or example of, infant baptism.

Limborch: “There is no express command for it in Scripture; nay, all those passages wherein baptism is commanded do immediately relate to adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is prerequisite as a necessary qualification. There is no instance that can be produced from which it may indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles.” — Com. Sys. of Div., b. v, c, xxii, §2.

Argument V. — 1. If none are to be baptized by the authority of the great commission (Matt xxviii), which is the only law of baptism, but such as are made disciples by being taught;

2. Then, as unconscious infants are incapable of being taught,

3. They ought not to be baptized.

Argument VI. — 1. If there be but one way for all, both parents and children, Jews and Gentiles, to be admitted into the gospel Church, and that is upon the profession of their personal faith in Christ and baptism, then should neither parent nor child, to the end of time, be admitted in any other way.

2. But there is but one way.

3. Therefore no man, woman, or child was ever naturally born into Christ's Church; which is fatal to the whole theory of infant baptism.

Argument VII. — 1. Whatever practice adds the unsaved to the Church of Christ, is subversive of it, and is not of God.

2. Infant baptism does this; for, according to the teachings of the Discipline and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, all infants are born depraved, the children of wrath, and they continue in this state until regenerated by the Spirit of God. While in this state they are unsaved.

3. Therefore, the practice of infant baptism is subversive of the Church of Christ, and is not of God.

Argument VIII. — 1. Whatever practice reflects upon the honor, wisdom, or faithfulness of Jesus Christ, or renders Him less faithful in His Church than Moses was in his house, and makes one of the great ordinances of God's Word to lie more obscure in the New Testament than any law or precept in the Old Testament, can not be of God.

2. To suppose that infant baptism is a Christian duty, is to reflect upon the honor, wisdom, and faithfulness of Jesus Christ; for if it is an ordinance of Christ, and its supporters can not find it commanded or exampled, rewarded or punished in God's Word, it certainly makes Christ less faithful than Moses; for Moses left not one of the least of all the ordinances or rites of the law, dark, or in the least difficult to be understood, whether an ordinance or not. But the Holy Spirit expressly declares, that Christ was more faithful than Moses.

3. Ergo, the institution of infant baptism (a law or example for which Pedobaptists confess they can not find, and concerning its use differ so generally among themselves), is no ordinance of Christ, and per consequence, can not be of God.

Argument IX. — 1. Whatever theory opens the door of all the corruptions that characterize the great apostasy, such as the adulterous union of the Church and State, human priests, literal sacrifices, sacraments, etc., is manifestly opposed to the teachings of the Word of God, and subversive of the Church of Christ.

2. The theory upon which Pedobaptists introduce unregenerate children into the Church of Christ — i. e., the identity of the old Jewish commonwealth with the Christian Church — manifestly does open wide the door to Church and State, a human priesthood, etc.

3. Therefore, the theory by which Pedobaptists introduce unregenerated children into the Church of Christ is opposed to the teachings of the Word of God, and subversive of the Church of Christ.

Argument X. — 1. That practice which opens a door to human traditions, additions, changes, or innovations in God's worship, is a sin and an abomination in the sight of God, and a curse to the world. “The principle,” says Dr. Owens, “that the Church hath power of God, either as to matter or as to manner, beyond the orderly observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ Himself has instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstitions and wars that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.”

2. But the practice of infant sprinkling does open a wide door to any human tradition, addition, or change in the ordinances of God; for, though it was never instituted by Christ, the Romanists, who made the change, declare, and opened the door to the use of the cross, exorcism, salt, chrism, God-father and God-mother, and sponsors, the consecration of the baptismal water, confirmation, the offering of prayers and oblations for the dead, the mass, extreme unction, and a host of other innovations. Not even do Catholics, but Protestants — even Prof. Stewart himself, who stood for many years at the head of all Pedobaptist writers in America — admit that it was instituted by man, and he defends it upon the ground that the Church has a right to change the nonessential ordinances, and make them conform to man's convenience! How wide this open door! for the right to add one, implies the right to add or change a thousand! There remains no bar to any innovation a corrupt Church might choose to introduce.

3. Therefore, the institution of infant baptism is a tradition of man, a sin, and an abomination in the sight of God, and a curse to the Church and the world; a curse to the Church, because it corrupts and carnalizes it; and to the world, because it teaches men to believe and trust in the traditions of men rather than in the commands and ordinances of God.

Argument XI. — 1. The Lord purposed only the saved to be added to the Church; and to add the unsaved is to contravene His expressed purpose — “and the Lord added to the Church daily the saved.” Tous soudzomen ous — those who are saved (Acts ii, 47).

2. But living infants and unbelieving children are not saved.

3. Therefore, to add them to the Church is to contravene the express purpose of God.

Argument XII. — 1. Whatever practice inverts the order of the pine law of baptism is a perversion of pine law, and is therefore sinful.

2. Infant baptism does this by practically putting — in direct opposition to what the commission requires — baptism before faith or teaching.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is a perversion of pine law.

Argument XIII. — 1. Christ declared that His kingdom was not of this world, else His subjects would fight for him — i. e., with carnal weapons.

2 But the Jewish kingdom was of the world — a politico-religious government — and the subjects of it did fight for their kingdom with carnal weapons.

3. Ergo, the Jewish kingdom was not the kingdom or Church of Christ.

Argument XIV. — 1. Paul said, by the Holy Spirit that, “flesh and blood” (carnally-minded men) “can not legally inherit the kingdom of God.”

2. But “flesh and blood” (carnal men) did legally inherit the old Jewish commonwealth.

3. Ergo, the old Jewish commonwealth was not the literal kingdom of God.

Argument XV. — 1. That which is already in existence can not be brought into existence; and that which is already set up, can not be set up. The Church and kingdom of God existed in the days of Abraham.

Argument XVI. — 1. If teaching, so as to secure repentance and faith, is required by Christ before baptism, as the most learned and candid of Pedobaptists themselves admit, then, to baptize before teaching repentance and faith, is to alter and pervert the Word of God, which is to incur this displeasure of God and endanger the salvation of men.

2. But all those who practice infant baptism do baptize before they secure repentance and faith by teaching.

3. Ergo, they do pervert the Word of God and endanger the salvation of men.

Argument XVII. — 1. If men were not to presume to alter anything, however minute, in rites or ceremonies under the law, either to add to nor take from them, without incurring the displeasure of God, and if He is as strict and jealous of His worship under the gospel, then men can not alter by adding to the ordinances, under the gospel, without incurring the anger and displeasure of God.

2. That this is the case, read Rev. xxii, 18. But infant baptism was never instituted by express command or example, or promise, as all candid Pedobaptists admit; therefore, to practice it as a religious rite, and in the name of Christ, is to alter, by adding to His words, and to incur the displeasure of God.

3. Ergo, we are bound to conclude that those who do so, incur the anger and judgments of God — the plagues of the Book will be added to those who do it willingly, or wilfully or ignorantly, if they have and can read His Word.

Argument XVIII. — 1. If there be but one baptism of water, left by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and but one condition or manner of right thereto, and that one baptism is that of an adult, and that one condition faith, then to teach and practice two baptisms — one of unconscious infants and one of adults — and to make two conditions — one of faith, and one without faith — is knowingly to alter and pervert, by adding to, the plain law of Christ, and can but be impiety and sin in the sight of God.

2. But there is but one baptism of water left by Christ in the New Testament, and but one condition or manner of right thereto, and that one baptism is that of an adult, as Richard Baxter and others are free to admit.

He says: “The way of the Lord is one — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; and repentance and faith is the condition of the adult, and as to any other condition I AM SURE THE SCRIPTURE IS SILENT.” And we know, if we have honesty enough to admit, that wherever the Scriptures specifies any one character, or condition, it prohibits every other.

3. Ergo, those who practice infant baptism do make two baptisms — one of adults and one of infants; also, two conditions to it — one of faith, and one without faith, contravening the command of God, and do thus knowingly alter and add to the Word, which is a sin in the sight of God.

Argument XIX. — 1. Any ordinance that makes void the express command of Christ, must be a tradition of men — for men^s traditions invariably make void the law of God, and are sinful.

2. But the baptism of all infants, as Pedobaptists teach, would make null the command to baptize believers.

3. Ergo, infant baptism is a human tradition, and sinful in the sight of God.

Argument XX. — 1. Christian Baptism is, in every case, an act of intelligence and voluntariness.

2. The baptism of an unconscious infant is an act of ignorance and constraint, never of intelligence and voluntariness.

3. Ergo, infant baptism is in no case Christian baptism.

Argument XXI. — 1. Any religious act that is not of faith, is displeasing to God. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”

2. Infant baptism is a religious act that is not of faith, nor can it be said to be of faith in either parent or infant, since there is no command for or promise attached to it, or knowledge of it on the part of the infant.

3. Therefore, infant baptism must be displeasing to God.

Argument XXII. — 1. If infant baptism were an institution of Christ, for some specific purpose, then Pedobaptists could not be at a loss, or would differ about the grounds of the right of infants to baptism.

2. But they are at a great loss, and they can not agree either upon what authority to desire it or the purpose for which it was given.

3. Infant baptism is not an institution of Christ.

Among the many reasons for baptizing an infant I notice the following:

1. It is to wash away original sin, as Wesley and the Methodist Episcopal Church teach. (See Doctrinal Tracts “Wesleyana,” and her Ritual.)

2. It is their right by the Abrahamic covenant;

3. They have a right of their own faith superinduced;

4. On the faith of their parents;

5. On the faith of their sureties or sponsors;

6. That the Church can give them the right;

7. On apostolic tradition;

8. On the inferred authority of the Scriptures;

9. On the silence of the Scriptures;

10. Because infants of believing parents are born pure or holy, and, therefore, entitled to it;

11. Because they are born members of the Church, and, therefore, entitled to it;

12. Because baptism is a sacrament, a divinely appointed means of grace, and should be withheld from none, young or old (M. E. Church);

13. Because it is a seal of the covenant of grace, out of which no one can be saved;

14. It produces for the child, though unconscious, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and creates it a member of Christ, an heir of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven;

15. Because, without it, there is no certain promise to any to enter heaven;

16. Because, as [N]eander teaches, though the Scriptures do not enforce it, and are, indeed, silent about it, yet it is in accordance with the spirit of Christianity.

Argument XXIII. — 1. That practice which tends neither to glorify God nor to the profit of the child, when grown up, but may prove hurtful and endanger his salvation, can not be of God; and to teach and practice it, is a sin against both God and man.

2. But infant baptism does not tend to the glory of God, for He has nowhere required it, but, by the very words of the commission, forbidden it; and how can God be glorified by man's disobedience, or by his practicing contrary to His Word, or doing what He hath not required! Read Lev. x, 1, 2. Neither does it profit a child. The Bible contains no promise to a sprinkled child. The advocates of infant sprinkling have been searching for it for upward of fifteen centuries in vain.

3. Ergo, we must conclude that infant baptism is not of God, and that to teach and practice it, is a sin against God and man.

Argument XXIV. — 1. Whatever rite puts it out of the power of a child, when it comes to years of discretion, to obey Christ, or obtain the answer of a good conscience, is evidently not of God; for Christ would not make any given act a duty and obligatory upon a believer which He had contravened, rendered nugatory and impossible, by a previous one.

2. Infant baptism does this. The child that is sprinkled in infancy can not obey Christ in baptism, for his parents performed the duty for him. They can repent for him as well. If there were none but Pedobaptist churches, he never could obey Christ or obtain the answer of a good conscience.

3. Ergo, infant baptism can not be of God.

Argument XXV. — 1. Any religious rite that necessarily generates in the subject or others wrong notions of personal religion, or is calculated to implant unbelief in personal religion, is not of God, and is subversive of the Christian religion and pernicious to the souls of men.

2. Infant baptism does this. All Pedobaptist countries are proof of it. Every infidel in England, Germany, Italy, Prussia, or Russia is a member of a Pedobaptist Church. While the overwhelming mass, though unregenerated, rely implicitly upon the efficacy of their infant baptism to save them, they urge, with reason, that they are saved without personal repentance or faith, if the teachings of their Church be true.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is not of God, and is subversive of the Christian religion and pernicious to the souls of men.

Argument XXVI. — 1. If Christ, when He gave the commission for baptizing, specified the character to be baptized, as the one believing. He forbade the baptism of any other.

2. But He did specify the one believing.

3. Ergo, He did forbid the baptizing of unbelieving infants or adults, bells, horses, etc.

Argument XXVII. — 1. Christian baptism is, in every case, an act of personal obedience.A law, and a knowledge of it, and volition, are essential to obedience.

2. Infant baptism is not an act of obedience in any sense, since it is nowhere commanded. Since it is nowhere commanded, there is no law for it, and if there were, an infant could have no knowledge of it or volition concerning it.

3. Therefore infant baptism can not be considered Christian baptism in any sense.

Argument XXVIII. — 1. Christian baptism is, in every case, an act of religious worship, since obedience is the highest act of worship.

2. Infant baptism is in no case an act of worship, because not an act of obedience.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is in no case Christian baptism.

Argument XXIX. — 1. It is sinful to neglect anything required of God.

2. It is not sinful to neglect infant baptism, says a Presbyterian. It is not sinful to neglect infant baptism.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is not required of God.

Argument XXX. — 1. Paul shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God to the Church at Ephesus.

2. He did not declare infant baptism to be required of God as a religious service or parental duty.

3. Therefore, infant baptism is not according to the counsel or ordination of God.

Argument XXXI. — 1. If no one were baptized during the apostles' ministry but such as were baptized into Christy and thereby “put on Christ” — i. e., took upon themselves, voluntarily, the entire and sole jurisdiction of Christ — then infants should not be baptized, for they have no faith and can make no profession, and whatever they may do, is no act of obedience on their part.

2. But none were baptized by the apostles, but such as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. iii, 27).

3. Therefore, infants should not be baptized.

Argument XXXII. — 1. None but persons — which means accountable beings — are commanded to be baptized by Christ, or authorized to be by His Word.

2. The civil law admits that infants are not persons, and all know that they are not accountable being?

3. Therefore, infant baptism is not authorized by the Word of God.

Argument XXXIII. — 1. A baptism that is not the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, can not be called Christian baptism.

2. The baptism of an unconscious babe, is manifestly not the baptism of repentance.

3. Therefore, infant baptism can not be called Christian baptism.

Argument XXXIV. — 1. That can not be an institution of Christ for which there is neither command nor example in all God's Word, nor promise to those who observe it, nor threatenings to those who neglect it.

2. But Pedobaptists assert that there is no command for or example of infant baptism, and, consequently, there can be no promise to those who observe, or threatenings to those who neglect infant baptism.

The Old Testament Covenant Given Up as Affording any Ground for Infant Baptism

PART III - CHAPTER II

A large number of Pedobaptist polemics insist for no better ground than the covenant which God made with Abraham concerning the land of Canaan, saying, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” This ground for the practice and church membership, more than any other, is more generally relied on for Infant Baptism.

What do the most eminent scholars (Pedobaptists) say of it?

I will give a few of their most distinguished scholars.

Dr. Alexander, Professor of Princeton Seminary, reviewing Dr. Wardlow's book on the Covenants in support of Infant Baptism, says: “I find nothing in the reasoning of this book that helps me to comprehend. This argument from the Abrahamic covenant in favor of infant baptism always presents itself to my mind as fallacious. If baptism is to be regarded as having come in the place of circumcision, the argument from the Abrahamic covenant lies altogether with the Baptists.” — Life of Dr. W., pp. 237-239.

Dr. Erskine (Presbyterian): “Baptism has none of those properties which rendered circumcision a fit sign and seal of an external covenant. Circumcision impressed an abiding mark, was the characteristic of Judaism, belonged to all Jews, however differing in opinion or practice, and those born of a Jew, even when come to age, were entitled to it; whereas baptism impresses a profession, a suitable practice, and is the characteristic of Christianity. When God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his posterity, circumcision was instituted for this, among other purposes, to show that descent from Abraham was the foundation of his posterity's right to these blessings.” — Theo. Dis., p. 9.

Dr. Moses Stuart, the most distinguished theological Professor at Andover Theological Seminary, says: “How unwary, too, are many excellent men in contending for infant baptism on the ground of the analogy of circumcision! Are females not proper subjects of baptism? And, again, are a man's slaves to be baptized because he is? Are they church members of course when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between engrafting into a politico ecclesiastical community and into one which it is said it is not of this world? In short, numberless difficulties present themselves in our way so soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this.” — Old. Tes. Com.

J. A. James: “As to the argument founded upon the constitution of the Jewish Theocracy, we consider it so irrelevant and inapplicable that the very attempt to bring it forward in support of a Christian institute betrays at once the weakness of the cause.” — On Dis., p. 10.

Dr. J. Stacy (Methodist) will speak for his people: “Baptism and the Lord's Supper * * were not Jewish, but Christian — not a brief continuation of the past, but a regulative commencement of the future. They were observed as modified rites of an old, but as distinguishing signs of a new, dispensation.” — The Sac, p. 272.

Jacob Ditzler: “I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testament have nothing to do with infant baptism.” — See Carrollton Debate, p. 692.

See Elder D.'s indorsement of the correctness of the published debate, on page 3 of the Debate.

JOHN BAPTIZED NO INFANTS — THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVEN UP AS AFFORDING ANY GROUND FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

“All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is utterly opposed to the apostolic age and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament. It can not, in any point of view, be justified by the Holy Scriptures.” — Dr. Lang (Pedobaptist).

Bishop Barlow: “I do BELIEVE AND KNOW THERE IS NEITHER PRECEPT NOR EXAMPLE in Scripture for Pedobaptism.” — Dr. Wallace's Chr. Bap., p. 59.

P. Edwards: “There is neither express precept nor example for infant baptism in the New Testament.” — Can. Rev., p. 9.

Dr. M. Stuart (Congr.): “Commands or plain and certain examples in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find.” — On Baptism, p. 201.

P. Montgomery: “Scripture makes no direct and authoritative reference to infant baptism at all. It can not be shown that Scripture gives any open, plain, and decisive precept to baptize infants.” — The Gospel, in Advance, etc., p. 402.

Pedobaptists Answer Themselves A Most Singular Argument

PART III - CHAPTER III

HERE is a full and complete surrender of the whole New Testament.

Thus fully is every passage in the New Testament surrendered as affording no shadow of authority for infant baptism. And Dr. Lange, the distinguished Lutheran theologian in Germany, declares that infant baptism is opposed to the very genius of Christianity and spirit of the gospel. What more can Pedobaptists say against it?

Christ positively forbids the baptism of unconscious infants, as he does of all unconscious and inanimate beings or things; while there is not only neither a precept for nor an example of infant baptism in the Bible, and, therefore, to baptize them in the name of the Trinity is to add to His word, and to incur the penalty of suffering all the plagues written in the Book. (See Rev. xxi.)

The great commission (Matt. 28) is admitted by all to be the law of Christian baptism. In that law, Christ enjoins, in every case, personal faith on Christ before baptism.

The specification of one thing, is the prohibition of any and every other. Therefore, as Christ specifies the believer as the only proper subject of baptism. He positively forbids the baptism of unbelievers and non-believers — as certainly as He does the baptism of horses, mules and asses, or of bells and church houses. Those who baptize infants in His name, openly violate the law of God, and are guilty of falsehood.

There is not a single passage referred to in the New Testament urged by Pedobaptists in support of infant baptism that other and most eminent of their own scholars — D. D's, Bishops, and Archbishops — do not refute as affording any support to the practice. I give this chapter of examples in support of this statement. They can not all agree that any one passage does, certainly.

FIRST INSTANCE.

Some claim that among the multitude of parents doubtless baptized by John the Baptist, not a few infants were also baptized.

Mr. Thos. Scott (Episcopalian): “It does not appear that any but adults were baptized by John.” — Com. on Matt, iii, 6, 6.

Dr. Jacobi: “Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor His apostles.” — Kitto's Art. Bap.

Mr. Burkitt (Episcopalian): “John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which infants are incapable.” — Com. on Matt, xix, 13-15.

Dr. Wall (Episcopalian): “There is no express mention, indeed, of any children baptized by him” — i. e., John. — Introduction, p. 27.

Mr. Marshall: “Both John and Christ's disciples and apostles did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of baptism.” — Quoted from Booth, p. 303.

SECOND INSTANCE.

“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” is the stronghold of infant baptism.

Dr. L. Wood says: “No one pretends that the children spoken of in this passage were brought to Christ for baptism, or that the passage affords direct proof of infant baptism.” — Com. on Bap., p. 75.

Bishop Burnet: “There is no express precept or rule in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.” — Expo, of 39 Art.; Art. xxvii.

Therefore there is neither precept nor example of the practice here.

Bishop Taylor (Episcopalian): “From the notion of Christ's blessing infants, to infer they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much as that there is a want of better argument. The conclusion would be with more probability derived thus: Christ blessed infants, and so dismissed them, but baptized them not; therefore infants are not to be baptized.” — Lib. of Prop., p. 326.

Mr. Poole: “We must take heed we do not found infant baptism upon the example of Christ in this text; for it is certain that He did not baptize these children.” — Anno, on Matt, xix, 14.

Dr. Macknight (Presbyterian) says, on “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven”: “The Church of God on earth and His kingdom in heaven is composed of persons who resemble little children.” — Com. on Matt. xix, 13.

W. Burkett: “They were brought unto Christ; but for what end? Not to baptize them, but to bless them.” — Com. on Matt, xix, 13-15.

Dr. Lange, on “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” says: “According to the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it must also be regarded as a symbol of a childlike spirit, just as baptism itself is the type of personal regeneration.” — Com. on Matt, xix, 13-15.

THIRD INSTANCE.

Another stronghold of Pedobaptists is I Cor. vii, 14: the holiness of children, and therefore fitness for baptism and church membership.

Olshausen (Lutheran): “It is moreover clear, that St. Paul could not have chosen this line of argument, had infant baptism been at that time practiced.” — Com. on I Cor. vii, 14.

Neander (Lutheran), speaking of the distinction between the children of heathens, and of their being “considered in a certain sense as belonging to the Church,” immediately adds: “But this is not deduced from their having partaken of baptism, and this mode of connection with the Church is rather evidence against the existence of infant baptism.” — His. of Plan, etc.; Vol. I, p. 165; Bohn's ed.

John Wesley: “For as many of you as have testified your faith by being baptized in the name of Christ, have put on Christ — have received Him as your righteousness, and are therefore sons of God through Him.” — New Testament.

Methodists will readily accept John Wesley's authority.

Lutz (Lutheran): “If Paul had only thought of infant baptism, he could not possibly have spoken thus.” — Stier's Words, etc.; Vol. III, p. 229; Clark's ed.

Dr. Bledsoe, editor of the Southern(M. E.) Review, and the most scholarly man in the Methodist denomination, thus frankly and explicitly gives up the New Testament, ex cathedra: “It is an article of our faith that the baptism of young children [infants] is in anywise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ. But, yet, with all our searchings, we have been unable to find in the New Testament a single express declaration or word in favor of infant baptism. We justify the right, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or His apostles. This may perhaps be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a Pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of learned Pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion, especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious and more candid exegesis, than was formerly practiced by controversialists.”

The Presbyterians will accept the testimony of Dr. Barnes, who has produced by far the best Commentary on the New Testament of any Pedobaptist in this century with which we are acquainted. He says: “This passage has been often interpreted, and is often adduced, to prove that children are 'federally holy,' and that they are entitled to Christian baptism on the ground of the faith of one of their parents. But against this interpretation are insuperable objections: 1. The phrase 'federally holy,' is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scripture; and what can be meant by it? 2. It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here, not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. Paul's argument, in a few words, is this: If the intercourse of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband was so improper as that she must separate from him, then all of you would have to separate from all your children, for they stand in the same relation to you.”

The Greek Church, A. D. 3d Century

PART III - CHAPTER IV

WHAT DOES THE GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE OLDEST OF HUMAN CHURCHES, SAY IS THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO, AND ITS PRACTICE IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES?

“BAPTISM represents the death of our Lord. The first baptism was the flood. The old man was entirely buried in the water.” — “John of Damascus;” Lib. 4; c. 9; Greek.

“We represent our Lord's sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a pool.” — Justin Martyr, Questio; 13, 7; Greek.

“The total concealment in water fitly represents Christ's death and burial.” — Dionysius, “de eccl. Hierarchia;” 2; Greek.

“Baptism is an immersion, and then an emersion.” — 1845; Chrysostom; Greek Catholic. Ep. c. 11; Greek.

“Men descend into the water bound to death; but ascend out of it sealed to life.” — Hermas, “Pastor,” 3; Greek.

“When our heads enter the water as a tomb, the old man is buried, and plunging down is wholly concealed all at once. Our Lord delivered to His disciples one baptism by three immersions.” — 1848; Chrysostom; Greek Catholic.

“Baptism typifies by immersion the death, by emersion the resurrection of Christ.” — Theophylact; Greek Catholic.

“In the primitive Church, baptism was a total immersion or burial, as it were.” — “Theology;” p. 632; 1701; Bechmann.

“The Greeks put the candidate under the water so that the water comes together over the head. The Greeks regard immersion as essential to baptism and reject sprinkling. The ancients were not accustomed to sprinkle, but to immerse the candidate.” — “Controversies;” vol. V; pp. 476, 477; 1733; Walch.

“Baptism is to be understood of immersion in Matt. iii: 16, for Christ is said to have come up out of the water.” — “Oecon. Salutis;” p. 184; 1737; Jacob Carpovius.

“He came up, therefore He went down. Behold an immersion, not an aspersion.” — “Ductor Dubitantium;” vol. X; p. 368; 1660; (Jeremy, Patriarch of Constantinople, quoted in works of Bishop Taylor) — Greek.

“The words of Christ are that they should baptize or dip. In things which depend for their force upon the mere will and pleasure of Him who instituted them, there ought, no doubt, great regard be had to the command of Him who did so.” — “Sacram. of Bap.;” vol III; p. 53; 1676; Dr. Towerson.

“Baptism is a type of our Lord's death. In holy baptism we receive the type of the resurrection.” — Theodoret, Greek Catholic.

“He who is immersed in water and baptized, is surrounded with water on all sides.” — Cyril of Jerusalem; Cat. 17; Greek.

“As in the night so in immersion, as if it were night, you can see nothing.” — Cyril of Jerusalem; “Cat. Mystag;” 2; Greek.

“Coming to the water, we conceal ourselves in it, as the Savior concealed himself in the earth.” — Gregory Nyssen; “Baptism of Christ;” Greek.

“On the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, the 16th day of April, 404, Chrysostom, with the assistance of the clergy of his own Church, baptized by immersion in Constantinople about three thousand catechumens.” — Chrysostom's Ep. ad. “Innocent;” vol. III; p. 518; Greek.

The following testimony of a prominent Greek scholar appears in one of our exchanges:

“Rev. C. G. Jones, of Lynchburg, Va., some time ago wrote a letter to Dr. A. Diomedes Kyriasko, Professor of Church History in the university, of Athens, Greece, asking him about the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. The following extract from a recent letter published in the Co-worker, shows what this Greek scholar thinks about the matter:”

Athens, August, 1890.

Dear Sir — The verb baptizo in the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle, but invariably “to dip.” In the Greek Church both in its earliest time and in our days, to baptize has meant to dip. It is through this process that our Church baptizes and always has baptized both infants belonging to Christians families and adults turning from any other religion to Christianity, i. e., by dipping them thrice into water. Thus also, (meaning by dipping) used the apostles to baptize. Were it not so, St. Paul could not have compared baptizing to the death of Christ, saying that in baptism we are buried with Christ and are risen with Him; that is to say, the old man in us has been buried, and the new man fashioned according to the likeness of Christ risen again. Since baptism, therefore, by the cleansing of the soul, this idea can only be clearly represented by the entire dipping of the body into the water, and not by sprinkling or pouring.

Yours truly, etc.,

Dr. A. Diomedes Kyriasko, Professor.

I took tea with Mr. Kalopothake, the native Presbyterian pastor, one evening after I had addressed his congregation. It was a delightful evening. Among others I met a Presbyterian minister who was attending the great University in Athens, where there are 3,000 students and seventy professors.

I asked him if he would kindly act as my interpreter at the University on the day following. He readily consented and asked what I wished. I replied that I wished to ascertain what the word baptizo meant.

We met at 11 A. M. and went directly to the great library, where there are 200,000 volumes. I was introduced to the librarian and then to one of the professors. I asked through my interpreter if they would kindly inform me what act the word baptizo signified. “It has but one meaning — to submerge, to immerse. Why do you ask?”

My Presbyterian friend said that the word might mean figuratively something else. “Not at all,” said the professor, “it never means anything but to put under the water and take out of the water.” Then two other professors came up, one of whom spoke Spanish beautifully, and they all ratified what had been said, and looked rather surprised that any question should be raised as to the meaning of the word.

One of the professors brought two Greek and English lexicons, one I remember was by Dr. Sophocles, who was a professor in Harvard University for twenty-eight years, and both lexicons rendered the word to dip, to plunge, to immerse.

I asked the professors what the word baptizo meant in Latin, and they replied, “submergere.” I inquired furthermore what it meant in Spanish, and they said, “immersion.”

An intelligent Greek said, “Don't ask me, ask any common laborer you meet on the street and he will tell you.” So when I returned to the hotel I requested the head waiter, who was a Frenchman, to ask the porter what the word baptizo meant. He replied that it meant “to put under the water and to take out of the water.”

I asked Bro. Sahallarios, who has charge of the Baptist Church in Athens, if the Greek word could mean anything but immersion, and he said, “No.” To my inquiry how the Presbyterians managed this question, he replied, “Very easily, by having a baptistery made in which they immerse infants, just as the Greek priests do.” Said he, “Once they sprinkled some children and it created such a scandal that it came near breaking up the Church, and they were compelled to have a small baptistry made. Adult Greeks are received into the Presbyterian Church on the baptism which they received in the Greek Church.

In Greece, Bulgaria, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and wherever the Greek language is spoken, immersion for baptism is practiced.

In Cairo I visited a Coptic Catholic Church, called “The Church of the Virgin,” and was shown a baptistery with the water three feet deep, where both adults and infants were immersed.

Russia, with its eighty million inhabitants, was converted from paganism by two Greek priests, consequently all the people have been immersed, and thousands of the people go annually on a pilgrimage to the river Jordan to dip themselves where our Savior was baptized.

It can not be denied that the Greeks understand their own language.

The Roman Catholic Church, 7th Century

PART III - CHAPTER V

WHAT DOES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SAY BAPTIZO MEANS, AND WHAT WAS ITS PRACTICE FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY?

“NOTHING can be more monstrous than these emblems! Was our Lord Christ baptized by aspersion? This is so far from being true that nothing can be more opposite to truth, and it is to be attributed to the ignorance and rashness of workmen.” — “Christian Antiq.;” p. 56; 1755; P. M. Paciaudi; Italian Roman Catholic.

“Nowadays the priests preserve a shadow of the ancient Ambrosian form of baptizing, for they do not baptize by pouring, as the Romans do, but dip the hinder part of the head, which is a vestige yet remaining of the most ancient and universal practice of immersion.” — “Antiq. Ital.;” Vol. IV; 67; Muratori; Italian Roman Catholic.

“I will never cease to profess and teach that only immersion in water, except in cases of necessity, is lawful baptism in the Church.” — “Ceremonies of Baptism;” Lib. IV; chapter 6; Joseph de Vicecomes; French Roman Catholic.

“Baptism was performed by immersion in the name of the Trinity.” — “Church History;” Trier; p. 56; 1882; F. X. Kraus; German Roman Catholic.

“For the dead, representing the dead, because the immersion and emersion, performed in baptism, are a kind of representation of death and burial.” — 1842; Chancellor Est; German Roman Catholic.

“John had chosen the Jordan because there was enough water for the customary baptism, and at the fords much people were passing.” — 1821; Grass; German Roman Catholic.

“Immersion, which takes place in baptism, signifies and expresses, as has been said, the burial of Christ. We are buried, I say, to the death of the old man and sin, as Christ lay in the sepulchre dead in mortal flesh.” — 1842; Chancellor Est; German Roman Catholic.

“Although immersion was more inconvenient and immodest, nevertheless, because of its greater conformity and likeness to the mystery of the Lord's death, burial and resurrection, it was ordinarily used by the primitive Church.” — “Cabassutius; Notitia Eccles.;” 1690; Roman Catholic.

“Baptism by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the Church as late as the fourteenth century.” — “Church History;” vol. II, p. 294; 1840; Doellinger; German Old Catholic.

“Martyrdom is called a baptism; a metaphor, as I think, taken from those who are submerged in the sea to put them to death.” — 1624, Maldonatus; Spanish Roman Catholic.

“Ordinarily baptism is performed by immersion, and that to represent the burial of Christ.” — “Disputations;” vol. III, p. 279; 1590; Bellarmine; Italian Roman Catholic.

“Plunged into the water. Baptize strictly conveys this Signification, as all the learned are agreed.” — Rt. Rev. Dr. Trenan; Roman Catholic.

“The primary meaning of the term 'baptize' is acknowledged to be to dip or plunge;' and he inserted the word “immerse” in the margin of his translation. — Francis P. Kendrick, Archbishop of Baltimore; Roman Catholic.

There can be no higher Roman Catholic authority than the Douay Bible, with Haydock's Notes, published by Edward Dunigan & Bro., New York. It has the indorsement of the Pope himself. We quote from these Notes what is said on Matt, iii, 6, as follows:

Baptized. — The word baptism signifies a washing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by dipping or plunging a thing under water, which was formerly the ordinary way of administering the sacrament of baptism. But the Church, which can not change the least article of the Christian faith, is not so tied up in matters of discipline and ceremonies. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the pretended Reformed Churches, have altered this primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, and now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person baptized; nay, many of their ministers do it nowadays by filliping a wet finger and thumb over the child's head, or by shaking a wet finger or two over the child, which it is hard enough to call a baptizing in any sense.

Here is another extract from the same Roman Catholic Notes:

See notes on Matthew iii. That Christ was baptized by immersion is clear from the text; for he who ascended out of the water must first have descended into it. And this method was in general use in the Church for thirteen hundred years, as appears from the acts of councils and ancient rituals.

Dr. Doelinger, who died recently, was a man of extraordinary ability and attainments, a leader of his wing of the Catholics, and a standard historian of the Church of Rome. It is worth while to notice that he says:

"The Baptists are, from a Protestant stand-point, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text, and the authority of the Church is regarded by neither party.”

To this statement may be added that of Dr. Moses Stewart, a learned Pedobaptist, who was probably one of the finest Greek scholars that this country has ever produced:

“I can not see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines the subject, to deny that apostolic baptism was immersion.”

“John had chosen the Jordan because there was enough water for the customary baptism, and at the fords much people were passing.” — 1821; Grass; German Roman Catholic.

Lutheran Church, 16th Century

PART III - CHAPTER VI

WHAT DOES THE LUTHERAN CHURCH SAY BAPTIZO MEANS, AND WHAT ITS PRACTICE?

“WE can not deny that the first institution of baptism consisted in immersion, and not sprinkling.” — “Syst. Theol.;” vol. III, chapter 8, p. 369; 1615; Keckerman; German.

“Formerly the candidate was entirely immersed in rivers and founts, great lakes full of water inside the churches of the Christians.” — p. 616; 1625; Wm. Bucanus; Swiss.

“Baptize is generally found used for plunging and a total immersion.” — “Dub. Evan.;” vol. III, p. 24, §2; 1634; Spanheim; German.

“This sprinkling, which appears to have first come generally into use in the thirteenth century, in place of the entire immersion of the body, in imitation of the previous baptism of the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under water.” — “Christian Dogmatics;” p. 749; 1870; Van Oosterzee; Dutch.

“History teaches that baptism at a very early period degenerated from the primitive simplicity. It was originally administered by immersion.” — “Pract. Theology;” p. 419; 1878; Van Oosterzee; Dutch.

“In allowing himself to be dipped into the water, the Son of Man performed the first act of His atoning humiliation.” — Durch's “Heiligeland,” p. 147; 1878; Orelli; Swiss.

“Baptize means dip into anything. Baptism is consecration to the Church, accompanied by a solemn immersion.” — “Die Taufformel;” p. 12; 1885; J. H. Scholten; Dutch.

“The immersion in holy baptism is commonly received as a symbol of mere cleansing — a right thorough ablution, as it were. That may be convenient in order to justify its substitute aspersion, but it is wrong.” — “Theology;” vol. III, §462; Rem. I; 1851; Ebrard; German.

“Baptism is an institution of the New Testament Church commanded by Christ, in which believers, by being immersed in water, testify their communion with the Church.” — “Inst. Theol.;” vol. I, p. 3; 1635; Stapfer; Swiss.

“Baptism is immersion, and was administered in ancient times according to the force and meaning of the word. Now it is only rantism or sprinkling.” — “De Cæs. Virorum;” p. 669; 1644; Salmasius; French.

“We do not deny that the word baptism bears the sense of immersion, or that in the first examples of persons baptized they went into the water and were immersed.” — “Socin. Confut.;” vol. III, chapter 2, p. 268; 1664; Hoornbeck, Dutch.

“It can not be denied that the original signification of the word baptizo is to plunge — to dip.” — Oecon. Foed.;” vol. IV, chapter 16, §13; 1677; Witsius; Dutch.

“The apostolic Church, baptized only by immersion. The conjecture that the three thousand were sprinkled is too much of a conjecture to be trusted.” — “Theology;” vol. II, pp. 673, 684, 686; 1838; Bretschneider.

“Lydia was probably baptized in the river outside the city of Philippi.” — “Offentlich Gottes verehrung;” vol. II, p. 271; 1839; W. Bohmer.

“I dip you in water; this the word always signifies.” — 1815 J O. V. Gerlach; German Lutheran.

“That baptism was performed not by sprinkling, but by immersion, is evident, not only from the nature of the word but from Rom. 6, 4. Casaubon well suggested that duncin means to be submerged with the design that you may perish. Epipolazein to float on the surface of the water; baptizo (in reflexive form), to immerse yourself wholly, for another end than that you perish.” — 1826; Fritzsche; German Lutheran.

“Baptizo is the prevalent expression for baptism as it originally took place by immersion under the water.” — 1862; Bleek; German Lutheran.

“And were baptized (immersed) in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” Luke 3, 16. “He will, so to speak, wholly immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in the fire.” — J. P. Lange; German Lutheran.

“The cup signifies a great measure of sufferings; baptism is more, a complete immersion in them. His bloody death.” — 1815; O. v. Gerlach; German Lutheran.

“The learned rightly think that, on account of the mystical meaning of baptism, the right of immersion ought to have been retained in the Christian Church.” — 1829; J. G. Rosenmueller; German Lutheran.

“The immersion of the candidate had too much similarity to the burial of a dead person for the apostle in his allegory not to make use of it.” — 1831; Hueckert; German Lutheran.

“For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circumstance that, in the early days of the Church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below and then raised above the water.” — 1834; Tholuck; German Lutheran.

“Immersion into water is an image of burial. It is not customary to bury any but those reputed to be dead.” — 1840; Fritzsche; German Lutheran.

Presbyterian Church, 16th Century

PART III - CHAPTER VII

WHAT DO THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA SAY BAPTIZO MEANS, AND WHAT OF THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH?

“JESUS certainly makes an illusion to His baptism at the hands of His forerunner, which included a consecration to death. The figure is as follows: Jesus saw Himself about to be plunged into a bath of flame, from which He shall come forth the Torch which shall set the whole world on fire. The Lord expresses with perfect candor the impression of terror which is produced in Him by the necessity of going through this furnace of suffering.” — 1879; Godet; Swiss Presbyterian.

“Respecting the form of baptism, therefore (quite otherwise with the much more important difference respecting the subject of baptism, or infant baptism — Comp. III, p. 144), the impartial historian is compelled, by exegesis and history, substantially to yield the point to the Baptists, as is done, in fact (perhaps somewhat too decidedly, and without true regard to the arguments just stated for the other practice), by most German scholars.” — “History of Apostolic Church,” first edition; p. 570; 1860; Schaff; American Presbyterian.

“We doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles' days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water.” — 1846; Chalmers; Scotch Presbyterian.

“Baptism means immersion, and it was immersion. The Hebrews immersed their proselytes; the Essenes took their daily baths; John plunged his penitents into the Jordan; Peter dipped his crowd of converts into one of the great pools which were to be found in Jerusalem. Unless it had been so, Paul's analogical argument about our being buried with Christ in baptism would have had no meaning. Nothing could have been simpler than baptism in its first form. When a convert declared his faith in Christ, he was taken at once to the nearest pool or stream of water and plunged into it, and hence-forward he was recognized as one of the Christian community.” — “The Growth of the Church;” p. 173; 1886; J. Cunningham; Scotch.

“It is used, as Hoffman rightly observes, to make the analogy between the baptism of the Israelites, which was not by immersion, and the baptism of Christians, which was, at least as a rule, by immersion, more complete.” — 1885; Principal Edwards; Scotch Presbyterian.

“A double allusion, first to the watering of plants, second to immersion in baptism, as in Rom. vi, 4.” — 1885; Principal J. C. Edwards; Scotch Presbyterian.

“That the custom of baptism by immersion is alluded to is generally admitted.” — 1884; M. B. Riddle; American Presbyterian.

“The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.” — “Institutes;” vol. III, p. 343; 1816; John Calvin.

“The symbolic import of the dipping lies in the man's going under, and in his new coming forth; as Luther has so correctly and strikingly expressed it, 'That the old man may be drowned, and a new man come forth again.'”

Presbyterian Dilemma. — Dr. W. D. Powell writes from Greece to the Texas Baptist and Herald that the Presbyterians in Greece practice immersion for baptism, it being impossible to persuade native Greeks that the Greek word baptizo means anything but immerse. Greek is still a living language, spoken by the inhabitants of Greece, and they think they know what Greek words mean. In this country Presbyterians argue against immersion and contend that baptizo has other meanings, and that the right way to baptize is by sprinkling.

Various ponderous volumes for Presbyterian brethren have published to show that sprinkling is the proper act for baptism, and the arguments have not been without weight with those who were not acquainted with Greek. The Presbyterian scholars who are not polemical, frankly concede that baptizo does not mean sprinkle or pour.

American Presbyterians have planted three Churches in Greece, and they have been compelled to practice immersion because everybody there knows Greek and knows that baptizo does not mean sprinkle or pour.

Dr. Powell says: “I found that all Churches in Greece —Presbyterians included — are compelled to immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked, the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for baptizo but immersion.'” He also visited the great university at Athens, which has 3,000 students, and he says: I asked a professor what baptizo meant, and he said, “It has but one meaning — to submerge — to immerse, why do you ask?”

We commend this to the Christian Observer of this ¦city, and to our Presbyterian brethren generally. How comes it that if baptizo means to sprinkle, the Greeks can not be made to believe it? Can it be that the Greeks do not understand their own language? What would the Observer say if a Presbyterian Church in Kentucky should adopt immersion? What will it say that three Presbyterian Churches, one of them established by the Southern Assembly, in Greece have adopted immersion? Are arguments which are valid in America worthless in Greece? By all means let some champion of sprinkling be sent to Greece to explain to the Greeks the meaning of Greek words. — Western Recorder.

“The word baptizo, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse.” — 1848; George Campbell; Scotch Presbyterian.

“The submersion in the depth of the flowing water by the hand of the Baptist became the most effective, visible and sensible symbol of the moral purification of this generation * * * and this deep submersion, by the hand of a confessor * * * was something which had never before existed.” — Ewald, quoted by Thomas M. Lindsay; Presbyterian.

“The neighborhood of the Jordan was indispensable besides on account of baptism, as there is no other watercourse in all Palestine that is not intermittent, and the rite introduced by John and at first preserved by the Church, being immersion.” — 1876; Reuss; French Presbyterian.

“What led him to the Jordan was his business as a baptizer. This action, consisting in complete immersion represents the symbolical sign-language, indispensable to an Oriental, which accompanies the inner experience of repentance.” — 1889; H. J. Holtzmann; German Presbyterian.

“He submitted to be baptized — that is, to be buried under the water — by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection.” — 1843; MacKnight; Scotch Presbyterian.

“The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles' days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water.” — 1846; Chalmers; Scotch Presbyterian.

The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, 17th Century

PART III - CHAPTER VIII

WHAT DO EPISCOPALIAN SCHOLARS OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA SAY BAPTIZO MEANS, AND WHAT THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLIEST CHURCHES?

“IN baptism our sins are drowned and buried. We renounce them and are delivered from them, and leave them there as the Israelites did their enemies, the Egyptians, in the depths of the Red Sea. And we emerge from the baptismal Red Sea of Christ's blood in order to enter on the road which leads us to our heavenly Caanan.” — 1864; Bishop Wordsworth; English Episcopalian.

“Plunged, enveloped in the rushing blast of the pine breath.” — 1865; A. P. Stanley; English Episcopalian.

“This is a reference to the disagreeable sensation which the Jewish proselyte felt when in winter he was dipped under the cold water: perhaps also to the scourging of Jesus when his whole body was covered with blood.” — “Horse Hebr.;” p. 407, Leipsic ed.; Lightfoot; English Episcopalian.

“In the ancient Church, they did not pour, but they immersed in water those who were baptized.” — 1627; John Davenant; English Episcopalian.

“There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmueller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian Churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of baptism.” — 1855; Bloomfield; English Episcopalian.

“This passage can not be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.” — 1870; Conybeare and Howson; English Episcopalians.

“There seems to be no reason to doubt (with Eadic) that both here and in Romans vi, 6, there is an allusion to the immersion and emersion in baptism.” — 1857; Bishop Eliicott; English Episcopalian.

“It is needless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water, to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial, to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness.” — “Life and Epistles of St. Paul;” vol. I; p. 439; 1853: Conybeare and Howson; English Episcopalians.

“That was symbolized in baptism and realized by faith which had already been effected for you in Christ.” — 1861; Webster and Wilkinson; English Episcopalians.

“Overshadowed by the cloudy pillar as a baptism, we pass under the cloudy veil of water; through the sea as through the waters of baptism.” — 1862; Dean Stanley; English Episcopalian.

“We did own some kind of death by being buried underwater.” — 1812; John Locke; English Episcopalian.

“Holy baptism is the outward visible sign of water, in which in those days (apostolic times), one was immersed, or, as it were, buried; the sign, indeed, of our dying and rising again. — 1861; Bp. Colenso; English Episcopalian.

“Our baptism was a sort of funeral; a solemn act of consigning us to that death of Christ in which we are made one with Him.” — 1861; C. J. Vaughn; English Episcopalian.

“Doubtless there is an allusion to immersion as the usual mode of baptism, introduced to show that baptism symbolizes also our spiritual resurrection. We are in Him caused to pass through a spiritual death unto sin, death of the carnal nature, into a state of life to God.” — 1861; Webster and Wilkinson; English Episcopalians.

“There can be no doubt that baptism, when it is administered in the primitive and most correct form, is a divinely constituted emblem of bodily resurrection. And it is to be regretted that the form of administration unavoidably (if it be unavoidably) adopted in cold climates, should utterly obscure the emblematic signification of the rite, and render unintelligible to all but the educated, the apostles' association of burial and resurrection with the ordinance. Were immersion universally practiced, this association of two, at present heterogeneous ideas, would become intelligible to the humblest.” — “Brampton Lectures;” p. 18; 1850; Dean Goulburn.

“There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries any other form was either unknown or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstrous, case.” — “Quarterly Review;” June, 1854.

“The water answers as a figure to the water of the flood. The source of danger was the instrument of deliverance. We are baptized into the death of Christ and He through death destroyed him that had the power of death.” — 1861; Webster and Wilkinson; English Episcopalians.

“The same water which drowned those who disobeyed Noah, saved those who entered into the ark; so also baptismal water, which potentially drowns and destroys the old man, or our sinful nature, saves ail who are brought into and remain in the true ark with Christ.” — 1871-81; F. C. Cook; English Episcopalian.

“I am to be baptized with blood, overwhelmed with sufferings and afflictions.” — “Annotations;” 1842; Poole; English Episcopalian.

“There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmueller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian Churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of baptism.” — 1855; Bloomfield; English Episcopalian.

“This passage (Rom. vi, 3, 4) can not be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.” — 1870; Conybeare and Howson; English Episcopalians.

“Imagine crowds of grown-up persons rising in communion with God and nature. The symbol itself was in a figure death and burial at once, the most important change that can pass upon man, like the sudden change into another life, when we leave the body.” — 1855; Benj. Jowett; English Episcopalian.

“In the ancient Church they did not pour, but they immersed in water those who were baptized.” — 1627; John Davenant; English Episcopalian.

Independents or Congregationalists of England and America

PART III - CHAPTER IX

WHAT DO THE SCHOLARS OF THE INDEPENDENTS, OR CONGREGATIONALISTS, OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA SAY IS THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO?

PROF. L. L. Payne, to his class in their Theological Seminary, Bangor, Maine: “What was the apostolic and primitive mode of baptism? By immersion. When was the practice of sprinkling or pouring generally introduced? Not until the fourteenth century.”

Dr. Payne says: “It may be honestly asked, by some, was immersion the primitive form of baptism, and if so, what then? As to the question of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. No matter of Church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all Church historians of any repute agree in accepting it. We can not claim even originality in teaching it in a Congregational Seminary. And we really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point on which ancient, mediæval and modern historians alike — Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist — have no controversy. And the simple reason for this unanimity is that the statements of the early fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the Church is so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to. * * * * But on this one, of the early practice of immersion, the most distinguished antiquarians, such as Bingham, Augusti (Coleman), Smith (Dictionary of the Bible), and historians such as Mosheim, Geisler, Hase, Neander, Milman, Schaff, Alzog (Catholic), hold a common language. The following extract from Coleman's Antiquities very accurately express what all agree to: 'In the primitive Church, immersion was undeniably the common mode of baptism.' As one further illustration we quote from Schaff's 'Apostolic Church.' 'As to the outward mode of administering this ordinance, immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form.'

“As late as the thirteenth century immersion still held its ground. * * * *

“We have no controversy with our Baptist brethren on the historical question of the primitive form. It was without doubt immersion. We are ready even to allow the superior significance, in some aspects, of this form of the rite. Some passages of scripture can be understood only by recognizing immersion as the form of baptism employed when they were written. * * * * Therefore we say to our Baptist friend, immerse, if you please; we say not a word against it. Our full Christian fellowship and sympathy are with you in it.”

“I have, indeed, a most dreadful baptism to be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly be baptized, as as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress.” — 1862; Doddridge; English Congregationalist.

“Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion.” — “The Beginnings of Christianity;” p. 565; 1877; G. P. Fisher; American Congregationalist.

MISCELLANEOUS.

“Baptism, or our immersion under water, according to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our burial with Christ.” — 1802; Charles Buckley.

“The ceremony of immersion in the baptismal water indicates that we are like Jesus, buried to our former state, so that we have no more connection with it than a dead body.” — 1822; T. Belsham; English Unitarian.

“But in our day, almost all the mystical meaning of baptism has perished. It is to be lamented and condemned that most Churches have substituted sprinkling and repudiated the first original rite of immersion.” — 1824; J. B. Koppe; German.

“We are buried in baptism like Him. That dipping was a picture of burial. It explains that we have really died to sin.” — 1825; C. C. Flatt; German.

“When ye were immersed into the water of baptisry, ye were engrafted into the death of Christ. That is, the immersion of your body was a sign.” — 1832; Zwingli; Swiss Reformed.

“For we were then immersed in the water, and, as it were, drowned unto our own death, representing His thereby.” — E. Bosanquet; French.

“The idea to be sure loses much of its point when we compare it with our present form of baptism, but it is the more striking when we think of the rite as it was originally constituted.” — 1874; J. C. F. Schulz; German.

“It was the practice of the ancient Church not to sprinkle the candidate with water, but to sink his whole organism into the fluid element."— 1835; W. Boehmer; German.

CONCLUSION.

“I would rather raise cabbages than be a scholar who does not agree with the leading voices of his age.” — Erasmus.

“Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion.” — G. P. Fisher, Yale University.

“Respecting the form of baptism, therefore, the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point to the Baptists, as is done in fact, * * by most German scholars.”— Philip Schaff, New York— the highest Presbyterian authority in the world.

Unsectarian Works, English Encyclopedias and Dictionaries

PART III - CHAPTER X

UNSECTARIAN WORKS, ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND DICTIONARIES — WHAT IS THE VERDICT OF THESE AS TO THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO, AND THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLIEST CHURCHES?

EDINBURGH Encyclopedia says: “In the time of the apostles the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordained, and, to express more fully his change of character, generally assumed a new name. It was not until 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases before the Reformation. From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Established Church. In the assembly of pines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted. Twenty-five voted for sprinkling, and twenty-four voted for immersion; and even that small majority was attained at the earnest request of Doctor Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in the assembly.

Brand's Encyclopedia says: “Baptism (Greek bapto — I dip) was originally administered by immersion, which act is thought by some necessary to the sacrament.”

Chamber's Cyclopedia says: “Baptism, in theology formed from the Greek baptidzo or bapto (I dip, or plunge). Some are of the opinion that sprinkling in baptism was begun in cold countries. It was introduced into England about the beginning of the ninth century.”

National Cyclopedia says: “The manner in which the rite was performed appears to have been at first by complete immersion.” In regard to the early custom of the English Church, it says: “It was the practice of the English, from the beginning, to immerse the whole body.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the process of changing from the primitive custom. It says: “Several of our Protestant pines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant Churches beyond the sea, where they bad been sheltered and received; and having observed that at Geneva, and other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an authority as Calvin.”

Rees' Cyclopedia says of baptism: “In primitive times this ceremony was performed by immersion.”

Penny Cyclopedia says: “The manner in which it was performed appears to have been at first by immersion.”

Encyclopedia Metropolitan says: “We readily admit that the literal meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and the desire of resorting again to the most ancient practice of the Church — of immersing the body — which has been expressed by many pines, is well worthy of being considered.”

Encyclopedia Americana says: “Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, from the Greek baptidzo), was usual with the Jews, even before Christ. In the time of the apostles the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and, to express more fully his change of character, generally adopted a new name.”

The Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica says: “Whatever weight, however many, be in these reasons, as a defense for the present practic[e] of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first ages of the Church, and for many centuries afterward, the practice of immersion prevailed.”

Rtitto's Cyclopedia of Bib. Lit., vol. I, p. 288, says: “The whole body was immersed in water.”

The July number of the London Quarterly, the organ of the English tories, in an article on Christianity, compares the baptismal rites of the Latin and Greek Christians. The reviewer says:

“There can be no question that the original form of baptism — the very meaning of the word — was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that, at least for four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To this form the Greek Church still rigidly adheres; and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid. The Latin Church, on the other hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of northern climate, and the convenience of custom, has altered the mode.”

Encyclopedia Metropolitana, London, says: “Whether immersion only was the mode of using this sacramental symbol is a question which need not detain the inquirer, since he will doubtless, in conformity with certain principles already established, perceive at once, that to such departure from apostolic custom, as may be supposed to exist in sprinkling rather than immersing the candidate, the discretionary authority of any Church clearly extends.”

“We would like to know why Protestants, who profess to imitate so scrupulously the primitive Church, have not renewed the usage of giving baptism by immersion. — “Encyclopæd. Methodique Theol.;” Vol, I; p. 186.

“It is, however, indisputable that in the primitive Church the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion.” — “Chamber's Encyclopædia,” Art. Baptism; 1860.

“The origin of Jewish proselyte baptism is later than that of Christian baptism. Baptism was probably always performed by immersion (untertauchen) in flowing water.” — “Encyclopedia,” 2d ed., Art. “Taufe;” 1877; Herzog.

This article was prepared by Samuel Hinds, D. D., Bishop of Norwich.

What the Commentators Say

PART III - CHAPTER XI

DR. Rainsford: “The baptism of Jesus was prophetic of His suffering, death, burial, resurrection. As He was plunged by John's hands into the Jordan, so by the violence of men He should be plunged into death, plunged under penal judgment. As John raised Him from the waters, so He should be raised from the grave by the glory of the Father.”

John Henry Blunt, says: “Immersion was the ordinary mode during as long as twelve centuries. The innovation of affusion, or pouring water on the baptized, afterward began in the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church, and has become the general Western usage. In the Eastern (or Greek) Church, baptism has always been by immersion, and the Eastern Church has never ceased to protest against the innovation in the mode of baptizing of the Latin Church.”

Whitby's Commentary on Rom. vi, 4 (in Bailey's Manual of Baptism, p. 146), says: “Buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, * * * this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Churches.”

Stackhouse's History of the Bible, p. 1234 (in Bailey's Manual of Baptism, p. 146), says: “Several authors have shown and proved that this immersion continued as much as possible to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ.”

Bishop Smith, of Kentucky (Bailey's Manual 147), says: “Immersion was not only universal six or eight hundred years ago, but it was primitive and apostolic, no other case standing on record by any other mode for the first three hundred years, except the few cases of those baptized clinically — that is, lying in bed.”

Bishop Jeremy Taylor (Conant's Baptizein, p. 157), says: “The custom of the ancient Churches was not sprinkling, but immersion.”

John Henry Blunt says: “Hence, as might be supposed, the primitive mode of baptism was by immersion, as we learn from the clear testimony of Holy Scriptures and of the fathers.”

Conybeare & Howson (Life and Epistles of Paul, p. 557), say: “This passage — buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. vi), when we sank beneath the waters — can not be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.”

Towerson (Bailey's Manual of Baptism, p. 150), says: “So much the more reason to represent the rite of immersion as the only legitimate baptism, because the only one that can answer the ends of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it.”

Bishop Jeremy Taylor (in Conant's Baptizein, p. 153): “Straightway Jesus went up out of the water (saith the gospel); He came up, therefore He went down. Behold an immersion, not an aspersion. And the ancient Churches, following this usage of the gospels, did not, in their baptism, sprinkle water with their hands, but immerged the subject.”

DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM.

The following summary is given by the Christian Commonwealth as the views of the late Dean Stanley on the subject of baptism:

“1. Immersion was wisely selected, not only because it was 'a most delightful, ordinary, and salutary observance,' but because it was significantly expressive of baptism.

2. The word which Christ used to express baptism is literally translated immersion.

3. Christ himself was immersed.

4. The apostles uniformly practiced immersion.

5. Immersion was the invariably practice of the primitive Church.

6. It was the almost universal practice of Christians for thirteen centuries.

7. When the substitution of sprinkling for immersion began to find favor, it was stoutly resisted as an innovation.

8. Even in some of the cold countries (Russia, for instance,) the innovation has been up to the present time successfully resisted.

9. Immersion, even in the Church of England, is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward VI were both immersed. The Rubric, in the public baptism for infants, enjoins that, unless for special cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled.

10. The change from immersion to sprinkling is greater than that which the Roman Catholic Church has made in administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the bread without wine.”

“The change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word.” — “Nineteenth Century,” 1879; Oct.; Dean Stanley.

“If from the general scene we turn to the special locality of the river banks, the reason of John's selection is at once explained. He came baptizing i. e., signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their former sins.” — “Sinai and Palestine;” pp. 304, 306; 1862; Dean Stanley.

Dean Stanley (in an essay on baptism 1879) says: “Baptism was not only a bath, but a plunge — an entire submersion in the deep waters. * * * This was the part of the ceremony upon which the apostles laid so much stress. It seemed to them like a burial of the old former self and the rising up again of the new life.”

Stanley is the leading authority on baptism in the Church of England.

Reasons Why I Should Prefer Immersion, Were Sprinkling and Pouring Admissible?

PART III - CHAPTER XII

1. I wish to honor and obey my Savior, and enjoy the blessing of obedience when I am baptized. In no way can we more highly honor Christ than by rendering Him a cheerful, loving obedience. The highest worship we can render the Father and the Son is loving obedience. Him that serveth Me will My Father honor. By no other act than immersion can we obey, or honor, or serve Christ, because He has appointed or commanded no other act for baptism. As the Father and the Holy Spirit honored Christ in His baptism, so will Father and Son and Holy Spirit honor and bless us in this His appointed act. Christ has nowhere commanded His disciples to be sprinkled or to be poured for baptism, or to have water sprinkled or poured upon them for baptism, but He has commanded them to follow Him in this: be immersed in water.

2. I want to give my Savior and all men an unmistakable, visible mark and proof of my love for Him; and He has made this act, and no other act, of baptism a visible mark of love for Him. “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” And again, “If ye love Me ye will keep My commandments.” What does this mean? But if we truly love Him, or love Him in truth, we will love Him in deed — be willing to outwardly manifest it. “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?” What hypocrisy is this! He has appointed but one act for baptism, and that is the act which He received at the hands of His servant, John the Baptist. No honest man ever doubted what that act was. He tells me and you, follow me, “For thus it becometh us, master and servant, to fulfill all righteousness.” It is eminently proper and fitting for us to do this, and by solemn immersion in water by a church's officer, we alone can do this. How can we do this? By being baptized, and with the design, as Christ was; and with the design or for the self-same purpose that Christ was baptized. He fulfilled in His baptism what He came to this earth to accomplish — not literally, else He needed not to have gone to the cross, but He could have summoned a chariot from the skies and ascended to the throne of glory He had for a season vacated to literally fulfill. But since Baptism itself is a figure, all that He fulfilled figuratively. He fulfilled all righteousness figuratively. He died for our sins, and His death He prefigured in His baptism. He was buried, and He arose out of the water, foreshadowing His own resurrection for our justification, and in pledge of our own resurrection. He in figure fulfilled the three vital doctrines of the gospel.

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand: by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” (I Cor. xv, 1-5.)

“Thus did the glorious Prince of Life
All righteousness fulfill,
In emblem of that fearful strife
Where, by His Father's will,
He sank beneath death's darker flood,
And angels saw Him bathed in blood.”

I am willing to testify before all men that by His all-righteousness he prefigured in His baptism I have indeed been saved.

3. In all things that concern our temporal happiness we must have them assured, or we can not rest serene and happy. If we loan a friend one thousand dollars of our gold, essential to our support, however responsible we believe him to be, we are scarcely willing to take his promise only to pay on a certain day; we demand something more sure and certain in the shape of a note — a visible and effectual pledge. The Father in heaven recognizes this want of our natures, for He implanted it within His creatures, and has provided for its satisfaction. In addition to His promise to Noah, that the waters should no more overwhelm the earth. He pointed to the bow upon the clouded heaven as a visible token and confirmation of His promise, to strengthen Noah's faith. In addition to His promise to Abraham, that his seed should possess the Land of Promise, He gave him the rite of circumcision — a visible mark in his flesh, to confirm his faith and assure his hope. The spies had solemnly promised temporal salvation to Rahab; but, as they were leaving, she earnestly said, “Give me a certain and sure sign whereby I may know that I shall be remembered,” and they told her to bind in the window of her house the scarlet cord by which she had let them down and over the wall, and thus had saved them. And so my soul wants, demands for its perfect peace, a full assurance a certain and sure token of my resurrection from out the sleeping dead and the dark and silent tomb, in the glorious likeness of Christ my Savior, and this He has graciously given to me, and to all who truly love Him. And this one form of baptism — the likeness of His death — He has made that token and pledge of my resurrection in the likeness of His resurrection. The pledge reads thus: “If we have been planted in the likeness of His death” — mark it! — “planted in the likeness of death” — of His death — implies that there is but one likeness of death. Some twenty-five years since, a wealthy man offered a reward of one thousand dollars in gold to any artist who would paint for him a second likeness of Death — a burial being undoubtedly one.[1]

I never heard of the thousand dollars being called for. There is but one likeness of death, and immersion is that likeness; and every one who ever has been planted in the likeness of death will be raised on the resurrection's morn in the likeness of Christ's own resurrection. No other form of baptism is God's visible pledge and seal of salvation. Mark it! The pledge is not to every one who has been or may be immersed, but only to those who have been or may be planted in the likeness of death. There must be a death before a burial, for it would be murder in the first degree to bury a person knowingly before his death. The subject must be dead to sin.

4. There is another thing I wish to enjoy — a perfect and a continual peace and joy; and no one can enjoy this with a dissatisfied conscience toward God — its goadings[2] for conscious disobedience. Christ has appointed another precious blessing to doing as He says in this religious duty, viz: That it shall be the satisfaction of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No other act received for baptism will satisfy a good conscience — a conscience that is in accord with the teachings of God's Word. Educated and formed by that Word, and not influenced by prejudice.

An Illustrative Fact.

When Elder Penn was holding a meeting in the First Church, in this city (Memphis), an aged Methodist, of forty years' standing, and of unspotted Christian character, was in constant attendance. Elder Penn, as all revivalists should do, gave an opportunity each morning to unite with the Church, and there were daily adding of the saved to the Church. Mr. Allison selected the end seat, next to the baptistery, the better to observe. He was often seen wiping his eyes as the happy ones arose with beaming faces, and often shouts of praise. One morning, at the close, as he was passing me in the aisle, he remarked, with eyes still undried, “I don't believe I can stand this much longer.” “Has aught been said to hurt your feelings, Mr. A.? I will assure you it was not intended!” “No! No! not a word; but those baptisms!”

“Why, brother, why will you withstand them? You want to enjoy the happiness and joy you see those happy converts enjoy, and you may if you too will follow your Savior. Come forward to-morrow morning and offer yourself to the Church, and ask for baptism, and I assure you, on the word of the Savior, that He will bless you.” He pressed my hand as he passed on with this: “I believe I will have to do so.” He took the front seat the next morning, and related his experience of grace, and, among other things, said: “They told me that sprinkling would do as well as immersion, and I supposed it would; but, brethren, I have for forty years been trying to make it do; but it will not do. I have never been entirely satisfied, and now I want to follow my Savior and be baptized as He was.” He was, of course, received, and when he rose from the baptismal water he shouted forth the joy of his o'erfull heart: “It is enough! enough! blessed Savior!” Some three weeks after this he met, one morning, one of his old Methodist brethren, who bade him “Good morning, and how do you feel this morning?” “I can not say I feel right well; my head feels heavy and dull; the fact is, I don't believe I have had a full night's sleep in three weeks past.” “Humph! Your dip did not do as much for you as you thought it would?” “Now, Brother C, let me tell you how it does me: I lay my head on the pillow when I go to bed, and I get to thinking and so happy that I can not sleep; and when I awake in the night I get so happy that I can not sleep until the day breaks; and I don't know that I ever will sleep all the night again. I never did so fully realize before, as I do now, that old hymn you and I have so often sang together:

'O, how happy are they
Who their Savior obey
And have laid up their treasures above.'”

Chapter Footnotes

1 - I published the offer in my paper for months.

2 - See Tract: “Conscience — What Is It?” Have you a Good Conscience?

The Children of Christians Not Baptized in the Early Centuries — Acts of Councils

PART III - CHAPTER XIII

HUGO Grotius testifies “that Chrysostom was born of Christian parents, and educated by Meletius, a bishop; was not baptized until past twenty-one.” And Montfancon further testifies, “that his father's name was Secundus, and his mother's Anthusia, both Christians before John was born; and that John was twenty-eight years of age when he was baptized.” Jerome saith, “that, in Eastern Churches, the adults only were baptized.” — Epistle against the errors of John of Jerusalem. Again, in his epistle to Pumachius: “They are to be admitted to baptism to whom it doth properly belong, viz: to those only who have been instructed in the faith.” But Jerome (Protestant) was himself not baptized until thirty years of age. Erasmus, in “Vita Hieronymi,” testifies “that Jerome, born in the city of Strydon, of Christian parents, and brought up in the Christian religion, was baptized at Rome in the thirtieth year of his age.”

Acts of Councils show that infant baptism was unknown when they were held. The Council of Elvira or Granada, A. D. 305, enjoins a delay of baptism if the catechumeni act worldly; also, adultery and inter-marriages should be checked, and ministers of religion should not have strange women with them.

“The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365, required notice from the person who intended to be baptized, and resolved all should be instructed before they received it; and determined that the baptized should rehearse the articles of the creed.”

The Council of Constantinople, A. D. 384, decreed that certain persons should remain a long time under scriptural instruction before they received baptism.

The Council of Carthage, in Canon 34, declares that “sick shall be baptized, who can not answer any longer, when those who are by them testify that they desired it.” Again, “those who have no testimonial, and do not remember that they were baptized, shall be baptized anew.”

Why I am a Baptist

PART III - CHAPTER XIV

THERE is one principle that distinguishes Baptists from all other denominations — a principle that is essential to a Christian Church, and which, if disregarded, would blot the gospel of our salvation from the earth; a principle which is the mission of Baptists alone to maintain and perpetuate, for to them alone it was delivered, to hold and to teach. This principle no other denomination ever did, does now, or ever can hold. The principle — THE CHURCH AND ITS ORDINANCES BELONG TO THE SAVED ONLY. (John iii, 5.)

And the Lord added to the Church daily those who were saved, or “the saved.” (Acts ii, 41.)

John came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord — material for Christ's churches and kingdom; he did this according to the express direction and commandment of the Lord. John was not commissioned to build a Church for Christ, nor to set up the kingdom of Him whose presence he announced, but only to prepare the material for them.

The kingdom was the ante-type — the reality — of that kingdom foretold by Daniel 603 years before should be set up by the God of Heaven (Christ) in the days of the kings (emperors) of the fourth universal, the Roman or Iron Kingdom.

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS REWARD

OFFERED FOR SCRIPTURES TO WARRANT INFANT BAPTISM.

In the discussion between the author and Elder A. B. Fly, at Quincy, Tenn., some thirty years ago, a sight-draft on the Bank of Trenton, signed by three of the wealthiest men in the county, was offered Mr. Fly for a precept for, or one clear example of, infant baptism in the Bible, the moderators being judges. Mr. Fly, with the assistance of Mr. McFarland, his presiding elder, were unable to present one. The offer was published in the Tennessee Baptist, open to any one for a year, without any one applying for the reward. A young Methodist minister saw it, and read his New Testament through two or three times, expecting to find it; but at the next monthly Baptist church-meeting in the neighborhood he applied for baptism. That man is Dr. Hackett, joint editor of the Southern Baptist Record.

Appendix A

LET us see what Mr. Campbell said about this God-given name:

Mil. Har., vol. IV, p. 24: “Have we any divine authority for being called Christians at all? Was the name Christian first given by heaven, or men? We may fearlessly affirm that no man can possibly prove that it was divinely introduced or sanctioned. Now, if the name Christian had been given at Antioch twenty years before by divine command, what an ungodly man must Luke have been during these twenty years after, and fourteen years before, in all thirty-five years, never to have called them Christians, but, on the contrary, waywardly and frowardly, to have called them disciples all the time. Unless we suppose this man Luke to have been a bold and daring offender against a divine revelation, it is infallibly certain that he, and his companions, the apostles, did not receive the name Christian as coming from God, but from the rude and profane Antiochians.”

Mil. Har., vol. IV, p. 365: “I know there are among us some who have sought distinction because of their own ideas, their grand discoveries, their priority in some idea, saying, doing, etc. One claims to have been the first to discover the true gospel; another, the true order of ownership; another, the true doctrine of human souls; another, the true doctrine of eternal life; another, the value of the Christian name; another, the true version of Acts xi, 26; and many there be who have some pampered little hobby, on which, when mounted, they are more laughed at than laughing. This is all human notions.”

Mil. Har., vol, IV, p. 366: “The moment any man proves to me that Paul and Barnabas, by divine oracle, called the disciples Christians, no matter where they did, first or last, I yield to that name as the exclusive name of the followers of Christ. I will wear no other; and I will contend for one name as for one faith, one Lord, one baptism, although Paul forgot it in his letter to the Ephesians.”

Mil. Har., vol. IV, p. 366: “I was not willing to admit that the man who said he was for Christ was as great a sectary as he who said he was for Paul. * * * If I am not now fully convinced that there is as much of the spirit of intolerance and heresy in contending for the name Christian as for the name Baptist, I begin to think more favorably of those great and good men who have assumed that the man who said he was for Christ alone, might be as very a sectary as any of the others.”

Mil. Har., p. 378: “It is however but an earthly name. There are no Christians in heaven — no Jews in heaven — no divisive names in heaven; but there are saints in heaven, holy brethren, and other designations of great age and of unquestionable divine authority. Abraham and Moses, though no Christians, were saints.”

Later still, in his notes on Acts, Mr. Campbell asserts that the disciples obtained this name “from them” (the Antiochians). Mr. C. subsequently became quieted, but we have not found where he became converted.

Kuein. Welts., quoted by Comprehensive Commentary: “Beyond all controversy, the name was given them by the Gentiles, probably by the Romans, as the very form of it suggests.”

Dr. Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, says: “It is clear the appellation 'Christian' could not have been assumed by themselves. To the contemptuous Jew, they were Nazarenes, Galileans, from whence nothing good and no prophet could come. The Jews could add nothing to the scorn which these names expressed. They would not have defiled the glory of the name of their Messiah by applying His title to those whom they regarded as the followers of a pretender. The name Christian, then, which in the only other cases where it appears, is used contemptuously; and it could not have been applied to the early disciples by themselves. It must therefore have been imposed upon them by the Gentile world. The inhabitants of Antioch were celebrated for their wit and propensity for conferring nicknames.”

Dr. Watson, in his Bible Dictionary, says: “It is probable that the name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in reproach, or contempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts xi, 26, where they were first called Christians, are observed by Zosineus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of which cases surely we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written some years after; whereas it is found in but two more places in the New Testament — Acts xxvi, 28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in I Peter iv, 16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed upon them by their enemies. The word used, Acts xi, 26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take it to imply a divine appointment, they disregard the usus loquendi (established acceptation of the term), which gives no support to that opinion.”

Coneybeare and Howson, in their great work, Life And Epistles of St. Paul, after showing the name could not have been given by the Jews, say:

“Nor is it likely that the 'Christians,' gave this name to themselves. In the Acts of the Apostles, and in their own letters, we find them designating themselves as 'brethren,' 'disciples,' 'believers,' 'saints,' Only in two places do we find the term Christian; and in both instances it is implied to be a term used by those who are without. There is little doubt that the name originated with the Gentiles, who began now to see that this new sect was so far distinct from the Jews that they might naturally receive a new designation. And the form of the word implies that it came from the Romans, not from the Greeks. Thus 'Christian' was the name which naturally found its place in the reproachful language of their enemies. In the first instance, we have every reason to believe that it was a term of ridicule and derision. And it is remarkable that the people of Antioch were notorious for inventing names of derision, and for turning their wit into the channels of ridicule. In every way there is something very significant in the place where we first received the name we bear. Not in Jerusalem, the city of the Old Covenant, the city of the people who were chosen to the exclusion of all others, but in a heathen city — the Eastern center of Greek fashion and Roman luxury.”

Landmarks of Truth, by D. M. Evans, Philadelphia, 1882, says: “The term was given as one of reproach.”

Dr. Wheden, in his Commentary, says: “The Greeks and Romans gave them this name.”

Dr. Ellicott, in his Commentary, says: “The Romans stationed at Antioch * * * gave them this name.”

Tacitus, Ann. XV, p. 44, says: “Nero punished with refined cruelty those whom the vulgar called Christians.”

Chrysostom, who preached in this very city, said of its wicked inhabitants: “Although they had invented the Christian name, they left to others the practice of the Christian virtues.”

Paton J. Gloag, D. D., Minister of Blantyr, vol. I, Edinburg Edition, 1870: “The name 'Christian' was first given to the disciples at Antioch, but by whom it is not mentioned. It is improbable that it was given by the disciples themselves. The name only occurs twice again in the New Testament, and in both instances as proceeding from those who were not Christians. Thus Agrippa said to Paul: 'Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian' (Acts xxvi, 28); and Peter says: 'If any man suffer as a Christian (the name given to them by their enemies) let him not be ashamed' (I Peter iv, 16). If it had originated in the Church, we would have expected its more frequent occurrence. * * * Still less can we suppose that it was given them by the Jews. * * * It, therefore, remains that the name proceeds from the Gentiles.”

Meyer on Acts, Edinburgh Edition, 1877: “This name decidedly originated not in, but outside of the Church, seeing that the Christians in the New Testament never use it of themselves, but designate it of themselves by Mahetes, Adelphoi, believers, etc.; and seeing that in the two other passages where Christianoi occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as extrinsic to the Church (Acts xxvi, 28; I Peter iv, 16). * * . The origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles at Antioch.”

Riehm's Dictionary of Biblical Antiquity (now in process of publication), p. 235, in the article Christen, or Christianer: “The name was applied to them by the non-Christians, and, in fact, as the Latin formation shows, undoubtedly by the heathen dwellers of the city. The Jews, who also hoped for the coming of the promised Christ, preferred to call the despised sect (Acts xxiv, 14; xxviii, 22) Nazarenes (Acts xxiv, 5). He adds that it 'came into use in apostolic times only among non-Christians; thus by Agrippa (Acts xxvi, 28), and so also the lips of those from whom the Christians had to suffer (I Peter iv, 16). It first came into use among the Christians also, as a respectful designation applied by themselves, in the second century.'”

J. P. Lange, translated and Edited by Philip Schaff: “It has long since, and with great truth, been said, that the Christians did not originally apply this name to themselves; for throughout the whole New Testament it is employed by those who were not Christians. Neither could the Jews have introduced it, since they would never have applied the Messianic name, which they held to be sacred, to a hated sect; it would have, according to their views, been desecrated by such a use. No other explanation is possible, except that the name proceeded from the Pagans; and this view is sustained by the form of the word, which, in every respect, resembles the names of political parties, such as Herodians [Matt, xxii, 16], Cæsareans, Pompeians.”

Wm. Gilson Humphry, M. A., Trinity College, Cambridge: “This name evidently did not originate with the disciples themselves, and in the New Testament there is no trace of its being adopted by them. It occurs only twice after this. * * * It was applied by adversaries.”

Dr. Herman Olshausen, translated from the German by A. C Kendrick: “This name proceeded from the Gentiles, and, as the form of it shows, from Romans. * * * The name certainly did not take its rise among the Christians themselves, because it is not used in the New Testament in a good sense.”

Life and Epistles of Paul, by Thos Lewin, M. A., F. S. A.,Trinity College, Oxford, Third ed, vol. I, pp. 96, 97: “As the first great impression was made on the heathen world at Antioch, the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. * * The explanation is, that the Romans, who made Antioch their headquarters in the East, taking the word Christos to be the real name of the founder of the society, adopted the Greek word, and Latinized the form of it.”

Hackett says: “It is evident that the Jews did not apply it first to the disciples. * * * It is improbable that the Christians themselves assumed it; such an origin would be inconsistent with its impregnant use in the New Testament. It occurs only in Acts xxvi, 28; I Pet. iv, 16, and in both places proceeds from those out of the Church. * * * Probably the heathen, whether they were Greeks or Romans, or native Syrians, needing a new appellation for the new sect, called them Christians.”

International Revision Commentary: “It certainly was not given by the Jews. * * * Nor did the followers of our Lord assume it, for they employed the titles, 'disciples,' 'brethren,' 'saints.' The term came from without, and from the Pagans.”

The Pulpit Commentary, by Farrar, Cotterill, Tulloch, Rawlison and Plummer, London and New York: “The name not given by Jews. * * * Not by disciples. * * * Nor by divine direction. It was either a name of reproach or a convenient designation of a rapidly enlarging society.”

The Bible Educator, by Plumtree, London and New York: “'Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian, now acknowledged by all competent scholars to have no such meaning * * * With a little — with but scanty measure of proof, thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” are words far more strikingly characteristic. He uses for the name of the new sect that which was essentially Latin in its form. * * * 'He speaks altogether in the tone of sceptical sarcasm which we might expect to find in one who had been the friend of Nero.”

The Bible Commentary, by F. C. Cook, M. A., Canon of Exeter, preacher at Lincoln's Inn, chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, vol. II, Chas. Scribner & Sons: “Christians. A name coined on the model of Herodians, Pompeians, etc., by the Pagans of Antioch, the population of which was given to jests and gibes. * * * It was not assumed by Christians, for Luke did not adopt it, and it is found in only two other passages of the New Testament, in each case in the mouth of an adversary; as a matter of fact (Acts xxvi, 28), twenty years later than this date; and hypothetically (I Pet. iv, 16). Turtullian complained of the detestation with which the name was regarded.”

Life and Work of Paul, by F. W. Farrer, D. D., F. R, S., Trinity College, Cambridge, vol. I, pp. 298, 299: “An hybrid and insulting designation was invented in the frivolous streets of Antioch, and around it clustered forever the deepest faith and the purest glory of mankind. I have assumed that the name was given by Gentiles, and given more or less in sport. It could not have been given by the Jews. * * * Nor was it in all probability a term invented by the Christian, themselves.”

French, on the Study of Words: “Imposed,” I say, “for it is clearly a name which they did not give to themselves, but received from their adversaries. * * * And as it was a name imposed by adversaries * * * it was plainly the heathen, and not the Jews, that gave it.”

Albert Barnes: “I incline to the opinion that it was given to them by the Gentiles. * * * If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to that effect, not simply that they 'were called,' but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: “This name originated, not within, but without the Church. Not with their Jewish enemies * * * but with the heathen in Antioch. * * * It was not at first used in a good sense as Ch. xxvi, 28; I Pet. iv, 16, shows.”

Cyclopædia, McClintock and Strong: “It is most likely to have been suggested by the Gentile inhabitants of Antioch.”

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia: “Nickname, meaning 'partisan of Christ,' given by the people of Antioch.”

Henry Alford, D. T., Trinity College, Cambridge, vol. II, London, 1855: “This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the New Testament. Only as spoken by or coming from those without the Church.”

J. M. Atwater, Ada, Ohio, in Christian Standard (Campbellite): “I fully accept the name 'Christian' as one of the names of believers, while I utterly deny that it is the revealed name, or is in any way exalted in the Bible. It seems to me that it is incredible that God revealed a special, chosen name for all the followers of Christ, and then out of the entire number of the apostles only one should be found using it, and he only once! Many of the others wrote books long after the rise of this name. They constantly talk of what we call 'Christians,' but they always chose some other name. Jude wrote one letter; James wrote a longer one; John wrote three letters and the long book of Revelation; but they never use this name. Paul wrote thirteen long letters to churches, pastors, etc., and made many recorded speeches; he used other titles hundreds of times in those cases where we employ the word 'Christians;' but he never used the appointed name even once! Such conduct on the part of Paul is inconceivable. * * * Peter's use of the name 'Christian' (I Peter iv, 16) shows that it was used by opposers as a term of hatred and contempt, for they were liable to ' suffer ' as Christians, and needed to be exhorted not to be 'ashamed' on that account. But the great body of the best critics do not see in Peter's expression anything more than a toleration, or perhaps adoption, of a term used by the outside world. I base this statement on a pretty wide examination of authorities.”

Appendix B

CERTIFICATES VS. DITZLER

REV. Jacob Ditzler, with whom we debated at Carrollton, Mo., in 1875, and in which discussion he surrendered the Abramic covenant as affording any ground for infant baptism — which was acknowledging a disastrous defeat — is, we learn, denying the stenographer's report, and charging us with forging the report.

We submit the following certificates from most reliable men. J. B. Hale was the President of the Board of Moderators.

Mr. Ditzler convicts himself of falsehood when he denies the correctness of the report. He gave a certificate, over his own name, of the correctness of the published book:

Carrollton, Mo., Sept. 23, 1876.

Dr. J. R. Graves — Dear Sir: You call my attention to the note of the reporter, found on page 692 of the published debate between Dr. Ditzler and yourself, held at this place, in November, 1875, and ask if I have a distinct recollection of the circumstance therein alluded to, and whether it is a correct report of the language used by Dr. Ditzler and yourself on that occasion? Would say, in reply, that I have a tolerable distinct recollection of the circumstance mentioned in the note. According to my recollection, the language used by the reporter in the note is substantially a correct report of what was said by Dr. Ditzler and yourself on that occasion.

Very respectfully, John B. Hale,
Presiding Moderator.

(As published in "The Baptist," July 3, 1880.)

Kansas City, Mo., March 27, 1891.

I attended the discussion at Carrollton, in November, 1875, and was present when the conversation, in footnote in published debate, was had, and certify to its correctness. Am in full accord with Col. John B. Hale, the Moderator of the debate, in his published statement.

G. W. Hatcher,
Thomas A. Welch,
Wm. S. Ceonch,
*L. Tull, M. D.,
Robert C. Ely,
William Agee,
Jas. F. Tull,
Peter Austin.

* Minister of Christian Church.

Humiston, Iowa.

It seems to me that I could swear to nothing in more positive terms than I could to the correctness of the note by the reporter on page 692 of the debate. I heard Mr. Ditzler give up the covenants, out and out, and it seems strange to me that he would make any attempt to deny it.

I. M. Neelson.

Books

WRITTEN BY J. R. GRAVES

First Baptist Church in America not founded by Roger Williams

The Seven Dispensations
A key to the whole Bible and of the prophetic Scriptures, embracing a complete work on Eschatology.

The New Great Iron Wheel
A complete exposition of the doctrines and policy of New Methodism

Exposition of the Parables and Prophecies of Christ
An invaluable book for pastors, Sunday-school teachers, and Bible students

The Baptism of John: was it from Moses or Christ?

The Bible Doctrine of the Middle Life, or the State of the Dead between Death and the Resurrection

Seven Denominational Sermons

Intercommunion Unscriptural

Old Landmarkism – What Is It?

The Trilemma
The death of Protestantism, as well as the Catholic Church. A startling discussion. Few books have made so many converts to the truth

The Relation of Baptism or Obedience to Salvation

The Act of Baptism

What is it to Eat and Drink Unworthily?

Conscience – What Is It? Have you a good conscience?

Baptism the Profession of our Faith

WORKS BY PENDLETON

A Compendium of Theology
No minister should be without it

The Distinctive Principles of Baptists

Church Manual

Three Reasons Why I am a Baptist, and Treatise on Communion

Thoughts on Christian Duty

Questions to the Impenitent

DAYTON'S WORKS

Theodosia Earnest

Ten Days in Search of a Church

Infidel's Daughter

Alien Immersion

How Children May be Brought to Christ

Sunday-school Question Books

Church Roll and Record Book

The Little Baptist