་

all the elements of convenience and propriety, facility and delicacy" (p. 219). In another instance, the faith of the Baptists "requires a most sovereign disregard of probability" (p. 213). But enough. How far short of Dr. Miller, Mr. Thorn, and some others, he comes, we wish to be seriously considered by himself. Verily "there is ground for an attempt of showing men to themselves." We do not disapprove of strong language in certain cases, especially if, instead of being used in application to a mere figment of the bewildered imagination, it is used in support of what is clearly demonstrable. We all use it in regard to things which we deem almost self-evident. We regard the expressions to which we have referred as a proof of the extent to which prejudice has blinded our estimable brother; and as a call from ourselves to adduce facts of which, as we presume, through a one-sided-a most partial examination of this subject, the worthy author, and many others who share with him in the dishonour and culpability of the most unfounded assertions on the import and history of baptism, from the same cause are ignorant.

Dr. Halley labours hard to convince us that we have insuperable difficulties in believing that baptizo was not diluted and changed in its import, if not immediately on being touched by the pen of inspiration, at least whilst it was being held; and he is sufficiently severe with Dr. Carson, and he sufficiently animadverts on the Baptists as not being consistent with themselves; but whilst he wishes all supposed and supposable difficulties in the way of immersion to be considered, he makes many more candid confessions in favour of immersion than our wary brethren Stacey and Wilson. It is not intimated, it is not believed, that there is any design on the part of these and other brethren to deceive. It is believed that they are so blinded by prejudice, and that some are on this subject so ignorant through their partial and prejudiced reading, as to require varied evidence from varied sources before they can see that baptism is immersion; whilst it is believed that, if they were free from this prejudice, nothing but God's Word would be needed. We shall conclude this part in the words of Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Stuart, and Mr. I. T. Hinton:

Dr. CHALMERS."When a hundred facts exhibit one and the same phenomenon, the expression of this phenomenon in its generality is the expression of a principle in philosophy: when a hundred verses speak one and the same truth, this truth, sustained on the basis of a multiple testimony, may by means of one brief and comprehensive affirmation become the article of a creed.”—Inst., vol. i.,

292.

pp. 291,

Dr. STUART."We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to come to the following general conclusion respecting the practice of the Christian church in general with regard to the mode of baptism, viz., that from the earliest ages of which we have any account subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for several centuries, the churches did generally practise baptism by immersion, perhaps by immersion of the whole person; and that the only exceptions to this mode which were usually allowed, were cases of urgent sickness, or other cases of immediate and imminent danger, where immersion could not be practised. It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular cases been now and then practised in primitive times, were gradually introduced, and became, at length, quite common, and, in the Western church, almost universal, before the reformation."

L T. Hinton (pp. 183, 184), from whom this is quoted, designates the clause,

I. T. HINTON.-"Can any historical evidence be more complete respecting the time and the causes of the introduction of the innovation of sprinkling? May I respectfully ask the Pædobaptist who reads this volume (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Methodist), 1. Whether he has not been kept in ignorance of these facts? 2. Whether those clergy* who withhold these facts from their flocks do not take upon themselves an undue and dangerous responsibility? 3. Whether he will have independence enough to take any adequate means to ascertain if these statements can be denied? And, finally, whether, if they cannot be gainsaid, he will remain unbaptized, and in a state of disobedience to the King of kings?"

SECTION XIII.

ON EVIDENCE FROM THE FUTILITY OF ALL KNOWN OBJECTIONS.

GILBERT WEST.-"Objections built on popular notions and prejudices are easily conveyed to the mind in few words; and so conveyed, make strong impressions: but whoever answers the objections must encounter all the notions to which they are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well if with many words he can find admittance."-The Trial, &c., p. 57.

ROBERT HALL."As we no longer live in times (God be thanked) when coercion can be employed, or when any individual, or when any body of men, is invested with that Divine authority which could silence disputation by an oracular decision, there appears to be no possibility of maintaining the interests of truth without having recourse to temperate and candid controversy." Dr. J. PARKER." As there are millions of men who must be instructed upon the questions which are involved, and as every year more exactly circumscribes and defines the battle-ground, there is no course so just, so wise, so useful, as an open and conscientious statement of the argument on both sides."-Ch. Ques., p. 8.

Dr. J. P. SMITH." We believe that God, the fountain of all truth and goodness, has furnished us with means for the obtaining of evidence, sufficient for a rational satisfaction, upon all objects which it concerns us to know." But, alas! "the suspicion and disapprobation-I might even say horror-with which some excellent persons view any deviation from those interpretations which they have been accustomed to hear and read."-Cong. Lec., pp. 16, 17, 154.

IN adducing objections, we feel a delicacy, if not a difficulty, from the fact that in several instances, if not in all, what one Pædobaptist has adverted to as an objection to our sentiments, another has acknowledged to be invalid; or even to favour our views, if considered apart from other facts or considerations. It is therefore impossible to notice all objections without adducing those that by some of our opponents are, as objections, deemed altogether irrelevant. We might, therefore, appear to some Pædobaptist readers, if this fact were not stated, as if we were adducing objections for the purpose of holding up the entire body to contempt for what one or another has foolishly advanced in opposition to the sentiments of the Baptists. Yet, if we overlooked certain objections which to us appear contemptible, and overlooked certain authors of celebrity, we might be regarded by some as shrinking from the work we have undertaken, and by others as overlooking some of the strongest supports of sprinkling or pouring. We are not sure, indeed, that some of the most groundless objections, some of the most unsubstantiated assertions, and most improbable hypotheses, have not proceeded from some of the Pædobaptists of note in their respective denominations. Unless we mistake, certain names to which diplomatic honours belong, occupy a most unen

"perhaps by an immersion of the whole person," a literary curiosity. Also he says: "The reader will be able to correct Prof. Stuart, by substituting the words soon after, for before."

Clergy, in the United States of America, is applied to ministers of the Gospel of all denominations.

viable position in the character of their objections. Perhaps it is to be expected that the most learned, under the blinding influence of prejudice, and being driven to extremities, will advance and applaud first one and then another supposition, which will temporarily please or satisfy, till the unsoundness of these hypotheses is exposed, and one after another is abandoned. Believing our sentiments on baptism to accord with Holy Writ, to be based on sound philology, and to be confirmed by every historical fact, we doubt not their ultimate adoption, notwithstanding the many objections which of late years by one and another have been brought against them. We will neither deny nor affirm the correctness of Mr. Okely's opinion: "We must wait for the more general effusion of the Holy Spirit, in the latter days, and then the right use of this ordinance will be restored, as well as other things, as surely as the trees will bud forth at the return of spring."

The objections which we shall now notice are objections to certain positions which we have before maintained. The first objections which we shall notice are objections to our philology and philological deductions in proof of immerse as the import of the Greek baptizo. In some instances, our reasoning is examined and referred to by our opponents, and in other instances a false philology supplies arguments to establish their sentiments.

§ 1.-FUTILITY OF PÆDOBAPTIST PHILOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS.

Prof. GOLDWIN SMITH.-"I do not believe controversy to be an evil if it be conducted fairly, temperately, and with a determination to come to a decisive issue. I believe that it is the only mode we have of settling disputed questions." "The only security against the bad consequences of human speculation is discussion; and, as discussion is necessary, it must not be taken as an offence."-Rat. Rel. and Rat. Obj., pp. v., vi, 146.

Dr. EADIE Foolish is it for any person first to imagine that the Bible ought to contain what he thinks is true, and then to come to it resolved to find in it nothing else than his own cherished opinions." "He will not allow the Bible to speak its own meaning, but he imposes his favourite sense upon it. He tries to bribe the oracle; he is determined that it shall not teach him certain truths; he twists and perverts all the texts opposed to his own view, and so handles the Word of God deceitfully." "Ever aim at clear and just conceptions of the Word of God." "Remember that every word has a meaning." "The sense of a verse is only the united signification of all the words contained in it. Never, then, pass lightly or lazily over any word which you may not at the moment comprehend." "The smallest words and particles have each its own signification.”—Lee. on the Bible, pp. 38-44.

T. H. HORNE." Although in every language there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance there is only one true sense attached to any word; which sense is indicated by the connexion and series of the discourse, by its subject-matter, by the design of the speaker or writer, or by some other adjuncts, unless any ambiguity be purposely intended. That the same usage obtains in the sacred writings, there is no doubt whatever. In fact, the perspicuity of the Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of sense, in order to render intelligible to man the design of their great Author, which could never be comprehended if a multiplicity of senses were admitted. In all other writings, indeed, besides the Scriptures, before we sit down to study them, we expect to find one single determinate sense and meaning attached to the words; from which we may be satisfied that we have attained their true meaning, and understand what the authors intended to say. Further, in common life, no prudent and conscientious person, who either commits his sentiments to writing, or utters anything, intends that a diversity of meanings should be attached to what he writes or says; and, consequently, neither his readers nor those who hear him affix to it any other than the true and obvious sense. Now, if such be the practice in all fair and upright intercourse between man and man, is it for a moment to be supposed that God, who has graciously vouchsafed to employ the ministry of men in order to make known His will to mankind, should have departed from this way of simplicity and truth?" "Since no text of Scripture has more than one meaning, we must endeavour to find out that one true sense precisely in the same manner as we would investigate the sense of Homer or any other ancient writer." 1. Ascertain the usus loquendi, or notion affixed to a word by the persons in general by whom the language is now or formerly was spoken." "2. The received signification of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned

* Mr. Okely was a Moravian minister at Northampton, who was baptized at Blunham, in Bedfordshire, and who retained his opinion on baptism, though he returned to his connection with the United Brethren.

or neglected." "Of any particular passage, the most simple sense, or that which most readily suggests itself to an attentive and intelligent reader, possessing competent knowledge, is in all probability the genuine sense or meaning."-Intro., vol. ii., pp. 357–366.

We have maintained that philologically we are required to regard immersion as the import, and only import, of the Greek word chosen by the Spirit of inspiration to describe the Christian's initiatory ordinance. We shall now notice some objections of good and learned men; show some of the fallacies and absurdities into which they are unconsciously drawn by the unfounded hypotheses to which their prepossessions cling with unenviable tenacity; and further establish our own position. We shall not be lengthened in exposing every objection and supposition. We remember the declaration, To propose this is all but to refute it.

I.-On baptizo as meaning to dip for the purpose of sprinkling, and on ascertaining its import from the occurrences of tabal.

The assertion of the well-known commentator, Dr. A. Barnes, that the import of baptism is to be obtained from a careful examination of the passages in the Old Testament in which the word tabal occurs, we will not combat at length. He comes by this route to the very sage conclusion, "that its radical meaning is not to sprinkle or to immerse. It is to dip, commonly for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other purpose" (Com., on Matt. iii. 6). That tabal and bapto, or tabal and baptizo, are univocal, we are far from maintaining. Let Dr. Barnes, however, and those who in this agree with him, if there be such, have a practice accordant with their belief. Let them "dip for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other purpose," if they believe this to be the import of what Christ has enjoined.

II.-On baptizo as meaning to purify.

In the estimation of the late Prof. Beecher, we are greatly at fault in regarding baptizo, when occurring in the New Testament, as meaning to immerse. We shall, however, say less in opposition to purify, as the meaning of baptizo, than in opposition to pour and sprinkle as supposed meanings of the Greek word, because to purify, we believe to be an import less generally embraced, or more generally abandoned, and because those who advocate this import of the word, so far as we know, practise sprinkling.

That the Greeks had another word for to purify, is as evident as that they had another word for to sprinkle or to talk. That sprinkling and immersion were Divinely-appointed means of purification under the law of Moses, we fully admit. But when purification resulted from immersion or sprinkling, it did not follow that the words meaning to immerse and to sprinkle, meant to purify. The result of immersion and sprinkling has often been a defilement, and that of immersion has been a dyeing; but who says that the meaning of to immerse or to sprinkle, is to defile, or to dye? That John the Baptist was "a purifying priest," as asserted by Dr. W., is no more asserted in Holy Writ than that he was a sacrificing priest, or that his baptism was an expiation. If John was a purifier, why was he called the Baptist? Was the accomplishment of purification a new thing, or a new ordinance from heaven? Or was

John's baptism, and not our Lord's death, "the substitute for all ceremonial purification"? Is it an idea generally entertained by Pædobaptists, that baptism is "purification by water"? "the Christian purification"?

Prof. J. H. Godwin,-of whose work on Baptism The Watchman says, "We fully concur in much of what has been advanced his arguments in defence of infant baptism, and of baptism by sprinkling, are most solid and satisfactory,"―also teaches that "it is highly probable that baptizo denotes to purify," although "the classic sense of baptizo" is "to immerse," which, he says, "commonly denotes continued subjection to a liquid." He says that "if the subject were left for a while in the water, then the effect would be rightly called an immersion." He calls into requisition all his available logic and learning in the vain attempt to prove that the classical baptizo would immerse a man unto drowning, whilst the scriptural baptizo would just sprinkle the same! He also teaches that "the sense of purifying agrees with the peculiarity of sense belonging to baptismos; and that of purification, with the peculiarity of sense belonging to baptisma." John's baptism, according to Prof. G., was "a corporeal purification," and "a spiritual purification," as "baptism and repentance coincide," repentance being represented as a purification both in Isaiah i. 16, and James iv. 8! (See pp. 35, 36, 42, 43, 90, 91, 132, 141, &c.) Prof. Wilson says of baptizo, "Never, even in a solitary instance, have we encountered it in the sense of purification" (p. 184).

Some of our Pædobaptist friends plead for three or four distinct, opposite, and unproved meanings, and in every particular instance take what meaning they like. It has been asserted, and, in substance, reasserted, in favour of purify, that the word baptizo "denotes to put or keep under water for a considerable time,' and would be inappropriate to a transient dipping." We believe not that this is correct; nor that, if correct, it would favour sprinkling or pouring. Dr. Beecher's assertion wants nothing but proof when he says, "Baptizo, as a religious term, means neither to dip nor sprinkle, immerse nor pour, nor any other external action in applying a fluid to the body, or the body to a fluid, nor any action which is limited to one mode of performance; but as a religious term it means at all times to 'purify, or cleanse.' He also asserts: "In this usage it is in every respect a perfect synonyme of the word katharizo." Let any reader peruse the passages in the New Testament where the Christian ordinance is mentioned, and adopt purify instead of baptize as one means of testing the accuracy of his statement.*

* Mr. Wallace thus replies to Mr. A. G. :-"Dr. M'Crie's meaning is, to cleanse. He takes no account of the means, but only of the effect. He looks not at how the thing is done, but at the thing when done. As he states in the last clause of your quotation, It has no reference to any mode of cleansing whatever. True, he says that cleansing may be indicated by sprinkling. But while we may indicate one thing by another, it does not follow that the one includes the other. The thermometer indicates heat, and the barometer the weather; but surely heat does not include thermometer, nor weather barometer. Cleansing, you say, includes sprinkling; then it must also include rubbing in all its forms, and rinsing, and blowing, and brushing,-real means of cleansing; for I am not aware that people cleanse by sprinkling. You might thus indicate the ordinance by any one of these; and I put it to yourself, if any of them would not be more significant of cleansing than sprinkling. The Baptist does literally what he considers God commands, and the word imports: he immerses; you only cleanse by figure. I know you