altars at which we kneel; "God alone can see the breadth and vastness of that canopy which over-arches each and all, and in whose heights the incense rising from them all mingles into one cloud.” W. P. JOHNSTON.

REMARKS.

It was not our intention to provoke discussion of our church position on the question discussed above. We have explicitly said in the July number what the reason was for our reference to the question, in our remarks upon the proceedings of Synod. After all the above reasoning has been listened to we must say there is one point in which there ought to be unity of opinion among us. We have a rule. This is confessed. "Both the speakers showed satisfactorily enough what had been the general, and therefore authoritative law on the subject."-Christian Statesman, vol. 10, No. 40.

The Synod has had the matter before it. It has decided that there shall be no change. Let that suffice, and let us not have a disregard of the decision of Synod. The evil effect of such a course does not end with the matter in hand. It spreads. Lately we heard an elder of another denomination lament the spirit of trampling under foot all obligations except what suited us. Men that pursue a divisive course will reap as they sow. They will deem some matter worthy of a decision (for we all hold something fixedly), and they will find they have no decision after all, for which they can find respect.

We have given our brother the space he asks, though we see no especial force in his remarks. The position of the church does not rest on the denial of the principles he judges right, but rather on the assertion of them. This we hope to show. The article contains much that is acceptable-its declarations of the unity of the church, its warm encomiums upon the labors of other churches in winning souls to Christ, its eulogies upon many of their ministry. Our church assents to all this. Her Testimony, chap. XXI, says: "The visible church, according to the institution of Christ, the head, is ONE among all nations."

We need only say that we seek to cultivate the kindest relations with the brethren of other churches, and in all work wherein a basis of co-operation can be found that is broad enough to include our church testimony, or wherein the special testimony is not concerned, we are glad to co-operate with them. Comfort may be taken by our brother in his position, from the fact that certain changes have taken place in the church, and he may number this interchange of pulpits as one of the expected welcome changes, but we have passed through some changes, as in '33, that were nearly fatal to us. It is well to examine closely what is proposed, and it is a bold step for any minister to take to invade the rule in the presence of a people who know it is a rule. It is not the act of a law-abiding minister.

No good is to be gained by indulgence in rhetoric, or placing the opinions of others in an odious light by the use of honored names. The simple question

is, by what rule are we to be guided in avoiding men, and what doctrines are we to shun. If we should avoid a brother for misinterpreting Scripture, surely we must avoid men for erroneous doctrine and practice. Our church has a standing Testimony. We witness against the churches in which these ministers are found. We condemn certain errors and testify against those that maintain them. These errors include the use of uninspired hymus in the worship of God, the use of instrumental music as corrupting his worship, admission to the church of men who belong to secret oath-bound orders, identification with immoral civil government, by holding office, voting and sitting on juries, &c., &c. Certainly these men are in this relation. Certainly these churches stand in this attitude. It requires no change of words in our brother's appeal to make it include communion and union with these ministers, the appeal is just as touching. But we are not dealing with sentiment, but with principle, and the Covenanting Church testifies against these sins. We know our brother's convictions too well to conclude that he thinks that two passages "of all the armory of Scripture" are all that condemn their sins.

We do not think the fourth paragraph in our brother's remarks will have much force with the church. We are too used to our paucity of members being used in argument against us to overthrow our position to give it any weight, from whatever quarter the endeavor may come, and as to the rest of the paragraph, we need only forsake generalities, and look at the facts. The authority to minister in holy things comes from Christ through the constituted order of the church, and the ministry of each denomination are held and bound to a certain creed. Our ministry are under covenant engagement to testify against men and churches who do not teach and practise the duties of the word of God in all relations, and none are received into our ministry from other denominations who do not accept the position of our church, nor are any admitted to the communion table who do not so engage. Are we to testify against the nation, and yet homologate the churches? churches any less guilty? Consider the history of the slavery question in the churches and in the nation, and then decide between them.

Are the

It is idle to adduce the action of men in other generations to undermine our practice now. These questions are questions of our time in carrying out the same principles as applied to our present relations. Joseph's case, Daniel's case, their position in heathen courts, has been often used against our attitude against the United States Constitution. This argument will not do. The duty of a decided testimony is admitted. What does this involve? We repeat what we have said, that we might rewrite our brother's article, only changing his heading-"Interchange of Pulpits," and his arguments, if of foree, would sweep away not only all separation in worship, but all separation in the communion service. This done, denominational separation would cease and we should yield our name. There would be only the name to yield.

With reference to the concluding paragraphs we have to say, that however winning our brother's pen may be, and however convincing to himself his

arguments, there must be some flaw in them, when we can look back over the recent history of our church in this and other lands and see that the steps he counsels have ended in division and dissolution. Non tali duce.

Against all we put his own admission-his own convictions, "We admit that the Reformed Presbyterian Church occupies a higher position than other churches in this land, that her testimony must be clear, definite, decided; that she must, for the sake of that testimony, retain her denominational standing; that she should cry aloud and spare not, until every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. We ask and maintain that she shall not compromise her testimony in any one particular." This is what we profess, and what we seek.

THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

(Continued from page 327.)

5. The real meaning of Baptizo precludes the idea of dipping into

water.

It has been reserved for the latter half of the nineteenth century to bring out the central idea of this long contested word, and hold the Baptists to their own terms of argumentation. This has been accomplished by Dr. Dale, of the Presbyterian Church, at Media, Delaware county, Pa. He has given to the subject the labor of twenty years, and has followed up Baptizo through classic usage, Judaic usage, Johannic baptism, Christic baptism, and Patristic. In all of which, covering a period of a thousand years, he finds a uniform interpretation from first to last.

On this subject volumes on volumes have been written. All scholars agree that the primary idea of the word is immerse, submerge, overwhelm; while they are equally agreed that-like many other words— it has secondary applications, such as saturate, tinge, dye, purify. Baptist brethren insist on carrying the primary idea through all its applications, not excepting its sacramental usage. Our authors have generally contented themselves with parrying this thrust, and showing that the secondary meanings have superseded the primary in many cases, especially in the Christian ritual; and thus we have been kept see-sawing between the primary and secondary meanings, for two centuries, to go no higher in history.

Among authors we may take as a sample the somewhat elaborate work of President Edward Beecher, of Galesburg, Ill. This work is designed to show that although Baptizo formally expresses submersion, yet the principal, leading, central idea is purification. On this hypothesis he has produced many pertinent quotations, classical as well as other. Still he leaves the mind unsatisfied; it requires too much effort to prove his point. Many of his best references can never be brought into line; and after all, Christian baptism symbolizes much more than is usually expressed by purification.

Dr. Dale has taken a much safer road. He grants the Baptist theory, and holds them to it. The one idea-under modifications, of course

which he finds pervading all its uses, is immersion, so as to accomplish a change of condition, thorough and permanent, never to cease, and not needing to be repeated; and to this he holds the opponent through the entire length of the stadium.

He brings out very happily the following points, as no known author has ever done before:

(a.) A clear distinction between in and into.* This he demonstrates by such examples as the following: 1 Cor. 10: 2, "All baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Here he rather exposes the opponents, who really change their own position at this point. For if they should carry out their mode in this case they would virtually make. the people to have been by Moses baptized into the sea. Now it so happens that there was a people so baptized in fact; but they were not "our fathers."

Matt. 3: 11, "I indeed baptize you with water into repentance." Here again, it is not into the water that they are submerged; but into a new condition, from which they will never require to be dipped out.

1 Cor. 12: 13, "For in or by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Ritual baptism is intended to incorporate us all into one visible church; real baptism-that of the Spirit-brings us into the body mystical of Christ. Those who are really members of that one body, whether visible or invisible, have undergone a change of condition.

In like manner also from Josephus: Antiquities, 10: 9, "Baptized by drunkenness into insensibility and sleep." Jewish Wars, 2: 18, "He baptized the entire sword into his throat."

To this formula Dr. Dale claims that all cases having an important bearing on the ordinance can be reduced. Let us try some examples. Mark 1: 4, "John did baptize in the wilderness." Into what? Into repentance. What element did he use? V. 8, "indeed baptize you with water"-in water; but not into water. Luke 3:3," Preaching the baptism of repentance.' Whereinto? Into the remission of sins. Wherewith? With water, as before. Acts 8: 16, "Baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Wherewith? With water, of course. Gal. 3: 27, "As many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Here, although the Ritual was a transient affair, their baptism with water indicated a permanent change of condition. Rom. 6:, "Baptized into Jesus * * * into his death." Not into water, but by water. So also verse 4th never hints at being buried into water; but into a new condition-"into his death." Mat. 28: 18, "Baptizing them [with water, of course] into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In this very important passage, our current translation is rather unhappy, substituting in for into. A few ministers have ventured to follow the original, as we all ought to do, in administering the ordinance.

In Pentecostal baptism, the Spirit is the element shed forth, baptizing them into the one body; and into all the privileges and immunities of the Kingdom of Grace. Let the reader follow up Baptizo under this formula, with the best Concordances he can procure.

In the original ev and etc.

For the latter we shall use into exclusively.

(6.) Dr. Dale maintains that baptize into carries in it the physical idea of submersion. He admits the Baptist claim here of whelmingoverwhelming; and he only wishes to hold them strictly to it; whether the controlling element be poured on, as when Elijah drenched the sacrifice on Carmel; or poured in, as when a drunkard is drenched with wine. Here he distinguishes clearly between Bapto and Baptizo.

(c.) Dr. Dale maintains the thorough change of condition, against all idea of modal application, whether by immersing, pervading, penetrating, etc. Passages already given go to sustain this; and he has gathered from all sources. The idea of purifying is of course included in the ordinance, as part of the change, but only as part. Our baptism embodies separation, dedication, death, resuscitation, transfer from one dominion to another, and purification pervading all these. The baptism of the sea was a thorough change; so of Pentecost; so of Calvary. And here the Doctor pours on the torrents of classic usus, until he has effected an abundant submersion. The Scripture use is every where clear, when once we distinguish between the wherewith and the whereinto.

(d.) Our author next exhibits the permanency of this change. The Baptist idea of Baptizo is a very transient one-a mere dip; and this is matter of necessity. Of course they maintain, as we do, that the thing signified, is permanent; but Dr. Dale shows that permanency is inherent in the very word itself. That it has secondary meanings he fully recognizes, and some of the side tracks may be short enough; but the central, united, and uniting ideas he holds to be as permanent as duration itself. Here again classic usage is copious; and references already given demonstrate the permanency of Scripture baptisms; whether into Moses, or into Christ. If any should hesitate about the Mosaic baptism being permanent, they may consult the following, among other places: Deut. 18:18; Ex. 20: 1-17; Mal. 4:4; Mat. 5:17, and 19: 17; Mark 12:29; Luke 16:29, and 24 : 27, and 24: 44; John 1 : 45, and 5: 46; Acts 26: 22; Rev. 15: 3.

(e.) Our author shows that the subject baptized comes under entire control of the element whereinto it is introduced. This we cannot here follow up. We have reached our limits, for the time being.

The advantages of Dr. Dale's labors are numerous, as well as important. (1.) They furnish a complete armory, offensive and defensive, against immersion as a mode of baptism. (2.) They are every way adapted to remove doubts from some who are even well established, in regard to sprinkling. One question often put forth is, Why did Christ use a term which signifies immersion, when he could as well have said sprinkle? Answers have long since been given to this question; but the new development makes it clear to even a controversialist. It would be very incongruous to say, Sprinkle them into Moses; sprinkle them into repentance; sprinkle them into Christ, &c., even though the ritual administration should be, in all cases, like the primary one-by sprinkling clean water. When we sprinkle the water, we precipitate the persons-submerge them into the Kingdom, as said already. It is now easy to see how "baptizing them" comes exactly in place.