The Nature of Conscience.

Turn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe guide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience fought on both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we should stay this awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the conscientious; at least, long enough to examine most earnestly into the cause of this strange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not a safe guide, then woe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we have, or, at least, the only avenue through which human and divine truth can guide us. For it is the moral nature itself.

The eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the eye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye is a safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only guide we have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes must have light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to act as a guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements, that the conscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes without light and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience without love and truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and conscience. And as long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to discriminate between conscience proper and the term as used in the looser, larger sense, we will have nothing but confusion. Conscience proper is simply the impulse of the soul that urges us to do right as we see the right. We do not deny that it also embodies the basic element in the soul that enables us to discover what is right; but our conviction as to what is right is dependent upon knowledge acquired through other faculties. When we speak of conscience in the loose and general sense, we refer to both of these elements. In this sense conscience is the product of a number of faculties working together. Thus when we talk about following conscience, we mean following the voice of our moral nature, or the convictions of the highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience should always be followed as a guide in both its proper and larger sense; but as an impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is infallible, while as a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is fallible and liable to lead us into all kinds of folly and error.

While, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our highest conviction of what is right, we should assiduously probe our conscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is dependent upon information. In other words, a truly conscientious person not only scrupulously does what he believes to be right; but he also constantly strives to get all the truth, that his conscience may be enlightened more and more. To follow our conscience, therefore, in searching for and obeying the truth, is our highest duty to God, and it is the sine qua non of acceptance with him. This is the "love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10), "the good and honest heart" (Luke 8:15), through which the gospel becomes fruitful. To refuse to follow our conscience, or highest light of duty, as revealed in the Bible or from any other source, is treason toward God in whose image we were morally created; and such persons forfeit heaven, no matter how faultless their outward acts may be. With God it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire Bible reveals. The man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but fails to meet his inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but a hypocrite. Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the full and true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by truth, is the voice of God to the soul. The Proverb says, "The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov. 20:27), while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: "For when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ."

God wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by investigation we discover a better one. Thus God guides the individual in his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual. It has a fallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant and vigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge and sharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much mischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to thrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of creeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and despised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of opinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to recognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How foolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The infidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and that Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then promulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an illustration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted conscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very conscientious young man who left the ministry because he could not agree, with members of the church he was serving, on matters of expediency. On my table lies a letter recently received from a young man who graduated for the ministry last spring, but through doubts, similar to those I formerly experienced, left the ministry for conscience' sake. This unhappiness of doubters and this testimony of their consciences, even while they hold opinions that logically rob conscience of any authority, should cause every one to think; and is strong evidence that skepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong. I followed rationalism into infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave up belief in the miraculous and supernatural in the Bible for conscience' sake. But after the rationalists had driven me to this bitter end, through my sensitive conscience, I was gravely informed that conscience was a mere creature of education and therefore should only be followed conditionally.

I discovered sufficient truth in this claim to open my eyes to the fact that I had been deceived and had followed the fallible part of my conscience, which is a creature of education, as though it were infallible and the voice of God.

It will be noticed that eternal life depends on the infallible element of conscience, while stupendous, yet only mundane, interests depend upon its fallible element. This is a mystery that perplexes a great many people. Is ignorance an excuse? Does it not matter what you believe, just so you are honest? The highest and best thing anybody can ever do, is to follow his conscience, or the voice of his highest moral and spiritual nature. This the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. To teach that God would damn a soul for doing this is destructive of all moral distinctions, and is as abominable as the old doctrine that God elects certain people and damns others irrespective of their thoughts and conduct. Ignorance is an excuse if it is innocent ignorance. What about those who are willfully ignorant? or those who have a seared conscience? They are not following their conscience at all. Conscience insists that we make every possible effort to get the truth. By a seared conscience we mean a person who does not follow his conscience at all, and he knows it.

We know that ignorant innocence is an excuse in the sight of God, but we do not know who is innocently ignorant. The former fact is revealed to us in the Bible, but the latter is known only to God. Therefore in these matters we should "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall each man have his praise from God" (I Cor. 4:5).

Nothing has ever been revealed more clearly in the Bible than that innocent ignorance is an excuse in the sight of God. The cities of refuge and the entire ceremonial law were based upon this fact. Christ said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). James says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). In Acts 17:30 we read, "The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked." In the second chapter of Romans Paul makes it clear that each person shall be judged by the light that comes to him, whether in or out of the law or of the gospel. Heathen people, who never heard the gospel, will not be condemned for rejecting the gospel, but for rejecting the light that came to them through their conscience and through other sources. "For this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). But we will be condemned if we do not do all in our power to bring the gospel to the heathen.

We need not worry about the pious, conscientious peoples scattered among the sectarian churches; but we need to worry lest we do not do all in our power to make it impossible for them to remain pious and conscientious while upholding sectarianism. It is our duty to help them to understand the Word; and if, after they understand it, they refuse to obey it, they are under condemnation. But we cannot and dare not decide whether they understand it or not. It is ours to preach the Word, and it will judge them in that Great Day.

The ground or mainspring of conscience is love—love of the well- being or welfare of all sentient beings, or of all beings capable of enjoying happiness. Our conscience goads us to do what love demands as our duty. He who, through want of discrimination, ignores the love element in conscience, becomes a cruel misanthrope, and is misguided by a perverted conscience. May the Lord help us to clear up our minds on this subject of conscience so that this divine light may lead us onward and upward towards perfection in holiness; and that this eye of the moral nature may not be deprived of love and knowledge and thus flounder around like a blind giant spreading misery and suffering everywhere.

The Feelings or Emotions.

Psychology divides the mind into intellect, sensibilities and will. This is doubtless a valuable classification in a general way. But the classification is very general and indefinite. Indeed, school psychology has confined itself almost entirely to a consideration of the general operations of the mind and has given us very little light on the classification of the mental faculties. The limited attempts at classification have varied considerably according to the subjective make-up of the author, as the classifications were based on introspection.

While the deductive, axiomatic or intuitive, scholastic or introspective methods of inquiry prevailed in the intellectual world, systems of philosophy, psychology and theology were built up according to the peculiar subjective nature of their author, and held the field until some other strong mind projected its views of the subject and thus rivaled or supplanted the other systems. It was the modern inductive or empirical method of investigation, introduced by Bacon, Locke, Mill and others, that has put knowledge on a real scientific basis and has led to the marvelous scientific and material progress of recent times. I believe the time is not far distant when the old medieval, introspective psychology of the schools will be displaced by a more scientific system. All that is of value in the old system will be retained, but the most valuable psychological knowledge will come from the new system. That this need is generally recognized by those who have given the matter most attention, is evidenced by the words of that prince of modern psychologists, Professor James, when he says, "At present psychology is in the condition of physics before Galileo and the laws of motion or of chemistry before Lavoisier." I believe that phrenology has blazed the way for this new psychology. It was violently attacked by the old- school psychologists because it taught that the brain is the instrument of the mind, that the mind has a plurality of faculties and that various brain functions can be localized. Every one conversant with the present literature on physiology and psychology will see that phrenologists have conquered, and that their basic principles are now accepted by all. It is now simply a matter of the application of these principles by further investigation. The psychologists have made some progress in brain localization through various mechanical and more or less abnormal methods of investigation. When they come to a more sensible and natural method of inquiry by observing the concomitance between various brain developments and various mental traits, I feel sure that they will have to admit that the phrenologists are essentially right in their brain localizations, just as they have already admitted that they are right in their basic principles.

That the tide is already turning is manifest from the following quotations.

Alfred Russell Wallace, one of the greatest of scientists, in his book, "The Wonderful Century," says: "I begin with the subject of phrenology, a science of whose substantial truth and vast importance I have no more doubt than I have of the value and importance of any of the great intellectual advances already recorded.

"In the coming century, phrenology will assuredly attain general acceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of mind. Its practical use in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory treatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane, will give it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of sciences; and its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years, will be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness and prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time they were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and action."

Benard Hollander, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in his late book on "Functions of the Brain," says: "What Gall knew at the close of the eighteenth century is only just dawning upon the scientists of the present day. The history of Gall and his doctrine is given in these pages, and will be quite a revelation to the reader. No subject has ever been so thoroughly misrepresented, even by learned men of acknowledged authority." In his "Scientific Phrenology," Dr. Hollander says: "In this volume I have laid stress on the strictly phrenological method of observing special parts of the brain, distinct lobes and convolutions, and comparing their size to development of the rest of the brain—which, if applied in conjunction with the study of the mental characteristics of our fellow-beings, would enable us to make observations by the million. This method, which was considered unscientific, and hence shunned, for a long time, has found favor with scientists, since the author's first papers on scientific phrenology were published in 1886, and was for the first time advocated publicly last year by Dr. Cunningham, professor of anatomy in Dublin University, in his presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the British Association at their meeting in Glasgow. Dr. Cunningham was upheld by Sir Wm. Turner, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University and president of the General Medical Council, who, like Sir Sam. Wilks, the expresident of the College of Physicians, and the late Sir James Paget, besides others with whom I have not come in contact, have always kept an open mind on this subject. In Germany, Dr. Landois, professor of physiology at Griefswalt, has been long urging a reinvestigation of Gall's doctrines; Dr. R. Sommer, professor of clinical psychiatry at Griessen, recommends it, not dogmatically, but as a working hypothesis; and the Swiss professor of physiology, Dr. Von Bunge, in his text-book just published, acts as pioneer in devoting two chapters to a rehabilitation of Gall; Dr. Mobius, of Leipsic, has published several books on the same subject, and, quite lately, the renowned professor of psychiatry in the University of Vienna, Dr. R. Von Krafft-Ebing, has joined in the defense of this great discovery."

Beecher said that if he were in the pulpit without his knowledge of phrenology, he would feel like a mariner at sea without a compass; and he declared: "All my life long I have been in the habit of using phrenology as that which solves the practical phenomena of life. I regard it far more useful, practical and sensible than any other system of mental philosophy which has yet been evolved."

Horace Mann said: "I declare myself a hundred times more indebted to phrenology than to all the metaphysical works that I ever read. . . . I look upon phrenology as the guide to philosophy and the handmaid of Christianity. Whoever disseminates true phrenology is a public benefactor."

Joseph Cook declared: "Choosing a foreman or clerk, guiding the education of children, settling my judgment of men in public or private life, estimating a wife or husband, and their fitness for each other, or endeavoring to understand myself and to select the right occupation, there is no advice of which I so often feel the need as that of a thoroughly able, scientific, experienced and Christian phrenologist."

Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his views on phrenology in his maturer years and said: "We owe phrenology a great debt. It has melted the world's conscience in its crucible and cast it in a new mould, with features less like those of Moloch and more like those of humanity."

Andrew Carnegie said: "Not to know phrenology is sure to keep you standing on the 'Bridge of Sighs' all your life."

I think the superiority of the phrenological classification of the mental powers to that of other systems of psychology will be apparent from the following:

Phrenological Analysis of Mental Faculties.

I. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).

1. Amativeness—Love between the sexes. 2. Conjugality—Matrimony, love of one. 3. Parental Love—Regard for offspring, pets, etc. 4. Friendship, sociability. 5. Inhabitiveness—Love of home. 6. Continuity—One thing at a time.

II. Selfish Propensities (Lookout for "No. 1").

1. Vitativeness—Love of life. 2. Combativeness—Resistance, defense. 3. Destructiveness—Executiveness, force. 4. Alimentiveness—Appetite, hunger. 5. Acquisitiveness—Accumulation. 6. Secretiveness—Policy, management. 7. Bibativeness—Fondness for liquids.

III. Selfish Sentiments (Promote Self-interests).

1. Cautiousness—Prudence, provision. 2. Approbativeness—Ambition, display. 3. Self-esteem—Self-respect, dignity. 4. Firmness—Decision, perseverance.

IV. Moral Sentiments (Religion and Morality).

1. Conscientiousness—Justice, equity. 2. Hope—Expectation, enterprise. 3. Spirituality—Intuition, faith, credulity. 4. Veneration—Devotion, respect. 5. Benevolence—Kindness, goodness.

V. Semi-intellectual Sentiments (Self-perfecting Group).

1. Constructiveness—Mechanical ingenuity. 2. Ideality—Refinement, taste, purity. 3. Sublimity—Love of grandeur, infinitude. 4. Imitation—Copying, patterning. 5. Mirthfulness—Jocoseness, wit, fun. 6. Human Nature—Perception of motives. 7. Agreeableness—Pleasantness, suavity.

VI. Intellectual Faculties.

1. Perceptive Faculties (Perceive physical qualities).

(1) Individuality—Observation, desire to see. (2) Form—Recollection of shape. (3) Size—Measuring by the eye. (4) Weight—Balancing, climbing. (5) Color—Judgment of colors. (6) Order—Method, system, arrangement. (7) Calculation—Mental arithmetic. (8) Locality—Recollection of places.

2. Semi-perceptive or Literary Faculties.

(1) Eventuality—Memory of facts. (2) Time—Cognizance of duration. (3) Tune—Sense of harmony and melody. (4) Language—Expression of ideas.

3. Reasoning or Reflective Faculties.

(1) Causality—Applying causes to effects. (2) Comparison—Inductive reasoning.

NOTE.—These definitions are taken from "The Self-instructor," Fowler & Wells Co., New York, the leading phrenological publishing-house.

I have received more help for my practical work in the ministry from phrenology than from any other half-dozen studies, except the Bible. Even if its physical basis could not be substantiated, its analysis of the mental faculties is far better and more helpful than that of any other system of psychology. While it places the intellectual, moral and spiritual faculties at the top as supreme, it is just as vitally interested in the care of the body, education, discipline, self-culture, choice of occupation, matrimonial adaptation, heredity and all the practical affairs of life. How could a person be more healthy, happy and successful than by normally and harmoniously developing all his faculties as phrenology points them out to him?

Phrenology teaches that the mind has certain elementary, selective instincts, or propensities and sentiments, that attract to them the mental food germane to their function just as the various cells of the body select from the blood the elements required. I say that these instincts have selective power, but they are subject to perversion, and dependent upon the guidance of judgment and knowledge, just as conscience does. Take, for example, the appetite for different kinds of food, the faculty of music, judgment of color, beauty, etc.; and you will see at once that they have selective power, but that this power can become perverted, and thus lead to great difference of opinion. Notice that while these faculties are not infallible guides, and need the earnest help of other faculties to be the most useful to us, no one can deny that they point toward truth on these subjects, and are our proper and only guides along these lines.

Some of the faculties of the mind inspire the specialized affections; as, love for wife, children, home, friends, etc., which are at the very foundation of our Christian civilization. These special affections have their proper claims upon us, and in so far as they are neglected we become unhappy; but when they exert more than their proper influence, they warp our judgment and more or less unbalance our character. How many people are blinded to truth because of selfish love for their children, or their home, or their party, or their church.

There are some things that the feelings cannot do. For example, they cannot give us information about facts outside of the mind. The faculty of love cannot reveal to a young man the existence of a young lady; but when he gets acquainted with her through what he sees and hears, he can feel that he loves her; and after learning that she is willing to become his, he can and will feel happy because of the fact. The world is full of folly, division and fanaticism because people look to their feelings or impressions for things that they cannot furnish. Thus people have claimed immediate knowledge of God, of pardon, of the will of God, of their perfection and security, etc., through their feelings. It is true that God created all nations "that they should seek God, if haply they might feel [Professor Green says the Greek word here means 'to feel or grope for or after, as persons in the dark'] after him and find him" (Acts 17:27). When we see the condition of the heathen nations to whom the revelation of the Bible has not come, we must admit that they are indeed "groping or feeling in the dark after God," as their superstitions and idolatries abundantly testify.

Of course people feel good whenever they follow their conscience, or best conviction of duty; but the feeling of conscience cannot tell them of the gospel of Christ, and of the pardon it makes possible to them. Just as people who trust their "reason," or their "think so's," as the voice of God, naturally reject the Bible as a revelation from God, so those that trust their "feel so's" will naturally have no use for the Bible in conversion, sanctification or as an evidence of pardon. It is easy to become so self-confident about our feelings, or impressions, as to believe them to be axiomatic truths or direct revelations from God. This has been one of the most fruitful sources of strife and divisions in religion, and the handicap that for centuries held the world in medieval darkness. The false prophets of the Old Testament were very religious men. That is, they had strong hereditary religious faculties. But these strong religious feelings, perverted, led them to trusting the imaginations and impressions of their hearts as the will of God instead of following his will as revealed in the Bible (Jer. 23:16, 17, 28, 30-32).

Conscience is a safe guide; but it is not an infallible guide, and it is our duty to perfect it day by day by seeking more truth and obeying it. Our instincts or feelings are safe guides within certain limitations; but they are not perfect guides, and it is our duty to strengthen, guide and restrain them with the knowledge and help that other faculties can supply.

The Intellect.

Let us now see what light we can get concerning the intellect. What are its functions and limitations? Is it safe as a guide? According to the phrenological classification, the intellectual faculties are divided into three classes; viz.: the perceptive, literary and reasoning faculties. The perceptive faculties bring us into relationship with the external world, and through them we learn about the color, size, form, weight, etc., of material objects. If the phrenologists are right, then neither those who claim that the mind is like a blank sheet and knows nothing but what it gets from without, nor those who ascribe almost everything to innate, intuitive ideas, are wholly correct. As usual, the truth lies midway between the two extremes. The mind has innate, intuitive powers of perception, selection and discrimination without which material objects, events and thoughts could make no more impression upon us than upon a fence-rail. But these innate powers are subject to improvement by heredity and culture and their dictates must be carefully watched and corrected by other faculties, as they are fallible and most of them subject to perversion and delusion. As the conscience and sentiments although not infallible, are our only guides in their sphere; so our perceptive faculties are good and safe, but not perfect, guides. These perceptive faculties, in a measure, help and correct each other's impressions; and through optical illusions, expectant attention, dreams, etc., we learn that their dictates must be carefully watched and verified. The latest voice of science is that all the sensation produced by physical stimulants can also be produced by the imagination; so that people can feel cold, heat, pain, etc., when there is no physical cause for them. These things should not make us skeptical about our perceptive powers, but rather cautiously critical.

If we turn to the reasoning faculties we find that they have been the cause of most contention and misunderstanding. On the one hand have been the extreme intuitionalists, or deductive theorizers, who for centuries limited philosophical thought almost entirely to fruitless, abstract, deductive reasoning based upon premises that had no real foundation in facts. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the mind may become so accustomed to conceiving of a thing as true that it seems like an axiomatic truth, although facts discovered later may show that it was an error. Thus the time was before modern discoveries, when people could not conceive of persons living under the earth walking with their heads down, or of objects attracted towards each other without some material object to connect them and thus draw them together.

Other extremists have looked upon the mind as a blank sheet, or have become so skeptical of its intuitive impressions that they mistrust its guidance almost entirely, especially in religious matters; although, strange to say, they inconsistently seem to trust it all the more in material things.

It cannot be denied that our "think so's," "feel so's," impressions, prejudices and inherited or preconceived ideas may seem as infallible to us as any so-called axiomatic or intuitive truths. This delusion of the mind has led to multitudes of errors and has held people in bondage to ignorance and superstition in all centuries and in all countries. It has ever been the greatest hindrance to progress. Closely allied to this and reinforcing it is the inertia of the mind, through which it naturally continues to run in the grooves in which it has been running. After awhile the grooves or ruts become so deep and smooth that it seems next to impossible to turn out of them without breaking something or upsetting the mental team. We see on every hand how hard it is to get away from the ideas we have inherited or in which we have lived a long time. When truth, like a vine-dresser, has attempted to trim off these unnecessary and injurious accretions, it has always raised the hue and cry that the foundations of truth were being destroyed.

When Mansel, in his Bampton lectures of 1858, showed that the finite intellect is inadequate and helpless in trying to grasp the truth where infinity of any kind is involved, the cry was raised that he robbed reason of its glory and authority, tore away the very foundation of religion and of all truth, and opened the way to all kinds of skepticism. But the very purpose of that marvelous piece of reasoning was to lead people to the truth as revealed in the Bible and to keep them from setting it aside or robbing it of its power because it transcends their finite intellects. Good but misled people, in all ages, have set aside or limited God's Word by their "think so's" or "feel so's," which were mistakingly taken as an infallible test of truth. Just as man by feeling knew not God (Acts 17:27), so man by wisdom knew not God; and it pleased God by the foolishness of a revealed gospel to save such as accept it by faith (I Cor. 1:21). President Schurman voices the highest conclusion of philosophy when he says that the farthest reason can go is to assert that God is necessary as a working theory. To this we can add conceptions of God revealed in our moral nature (Rom. 1:19, 20). But what a lifeless skeleton this is compared to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Bacon, Locke, Mill and others have joined in the battle to destroy a false trust in subjective impressions without subjecting them to a fearless test of observed facts as revealed in experience, observation and testimony. This is not intellectual skepticism that destroys all the authority of reason and leaves us to imbecility. Just as the conscience, sentiments and perceptive faculties are our safe, proper and necessary guides, although not infallible, so our logical reason is our safe and necessary guide to truth, although helpless to grasp and understand infinite truths and likely to deceive us unless we carefully test its impressions or conceptions by experience and facts. Reason is the eye of the intellect as conscience is of the moral nature. But as the eye is helpless as a guide without light, and the conscience without love, so reason is helpless and worthless as a guide without facts. There is no conflict between theory and practise if the theory takes into consideration all the facts. For example, if from the fact that a horse can trot a mile in three minutes on the race-track, one should conclude that he can trot from one city to another five miles away in fifteen minutes, the theory would be false, because it did not take into consideration the condition of the road and the fact that a horse cannot keep up the same speed for a long distance. Whatever impressions or conceptions of the mind may be self-evident or axiomatic truths, it is certain that our highest conception of truth must be taken as our only and necessary guide; but, knowing the variable part of our judgment, and knowing how very likely we are to be mistaken in our "think so's" and "feel so's," we should ever be on the alert to verify or rectify our convictions by the help of experience and facts. The question as to how much of our intellectual power is intuitive and innate, or how much is acquired and dependent upon truth learned by induction, is not so important after all. For the powers of the mind which enable it to learn truths through induction from facts observed and experienced come from God just as much as the powers that enable us to see truth intuitively.

If we take the consensus of all the mental faculties, we have the wonderful human intelligence created but little lower than the angels and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Created in the very image of God himself (Gen. 1:27), man is an intelligence with the threefold guidance of intellect, conscience and sentiments which give him abundant light for his daily walk in the fear of the Lord. But even our so-called "consciousness," including all these powers, is fallible and subject to deception, perversion and delusion and therefore it needs the help of the truth revealed in the Bible and the help of all the truth we can learn from life and science to enable us to fulfill our highest destiny and to continue to progress Godward and heavenward.

Let us remember that love is the arch that unites and supports all the mental faculties and all the operations of the mind. On it hang all the law and prophets, and the gospel as well. Let us rejoice and glory in our wonderful heritage of intelligence, but, knowing the limitations of our finite minds, let us walk humbly before God and our fellow-men.



CHAPTER IV.

LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.

Differences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our Attitude Toward Those Who Differ from Us?

The above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to bring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will learn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was prepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and pray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching for truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who differ from us.

I have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among the best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What was said in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices of the different parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed study of these factors in leading people to error and therefore into divisions. Learning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily lead to a perversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there is no norm of truth and therefore that people cannot see alike. Indeed, the differences of opinion in religion and other matters are often condoned by the assertion that "people cannot see alike." Is this true, and, if so, how far?

Over against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put the indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things unlike if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as red, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it at all, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to every mind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical mind will come to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any other conclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based upon this fact, and without it no science or order would be possible.

We will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to be ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and sensibilities. We wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of opinion, and the only one that involves blame; viz.: the human will. Multitudes of people are divided who see things alike and are of the same opinion so far as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble lies in the will power. They deliberately do that which they know is not right, for selfish reasons. If this were the only cause of division, our problem would be an easy one. For then the only proper attitude of the righteous towards those who differ from them, would be that of unqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to act on this basis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and treating those who differ from us as wrong and guilty and as deserving nothing but our condemnation. If guilt were the only cause of division, we would have but two political parties, the one containing all the righteous and the other all the wicked. From a religious standpoint there would be but two classes; viz., saints and sinners. But the problem before us is not such an easy one. The causes that lead to differences of opinion are numerous and complex. It is not an easy matter to get at the truth, although we might think at first thought that it is. Every one seems to be surrounded by an atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists, distorts and colors the rays of truth as they come to him.

Neither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a man error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For the people around us who possess these qualities are divided among all the different religious and political parties. And when people are divided into different parties, that teach contradictory doctrines, they cannot possibly all be right, although they may all be wrong.

Inquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion, aside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them: finite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through heredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.

In the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two extremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those who are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination. They are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." At the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous bigots who absolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth they do not already possess. They know it all without finding it out. It matters not whether you speak of politics, religion or anything else, they know all about it without investigation. They never read any but their own party papers and books and never hear any but their own speakers and preachers.

It is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The father was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to Christianity. They argued and argued until midnight. Finally the father said, "Son, there is no use talking, you can't convert me if you argue all night; I am established." The next morning they went for a load of wood, and as they left the woods the horse got balky and wouldn't move an inch. "What is the matter with this horse, anyway?" asked the father. "Why," replied the son, "he is established." The Bible says, "Be ye not as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding." It is bad enough for a mule to get balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image of God, should become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make for his peace and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of heaven.

An Arabic proverb says: "Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows that he knows; he is wise, follow him." The trouble is to know who "knows not and knows not that he knows not," and who "knows and knows that he knows." For they both speak with absolute assurance that they are right.

Illustrations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found in the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach India and that the Indians planted gunpowder.

It is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows so constructed that if you look out through the one you see a snowstorm; through another, you see it raining; while through a third, the sun is shining. Thus it is that we look at truth through the colored glasses of prejudice and selfish interests, and see what is not.

Probably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a fist- fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read "Ivory Soap," and the other, "It Floats." They saw it from a different angle, and that often accounts for differences of opinion.

How expectant attention can deceive us was illustrated a few years ago when Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of people were in distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on the roof. The monkey was later found safe in an adjoining building. It was an old coat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed into a monkey. Thus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything they are looking for, through a vivid imagination.

In multitudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a different sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when I was keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a bright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were both fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we debated on "Woman suffrage." I opened up on the subject and as I proceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor he exploded something as follows: "I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer- age' with every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand, tongue and purse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so bitterly opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason that I don't want women to suffer." I said, "Amen!" and we were agreed for once. You smile, and yet three-fourths of our differences would vanish if we patiently conferred together long enough to understand each other clearly.

The courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their own interests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who expects parents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when their own children are involved?

The difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a matter of geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the political or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the one to which our associations or environment drew us. Had we been born in the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful Catholics, as all history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other directions abundantly prove. In a series of articles entitled "Why I Am What I Am," one of the most noted preachers in this country candidly admits that his church relationship is a mere matter of birth. This truth is not very congenial to our boasted independence of thought and investigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The power of the above-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is illustrated in all history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about ten years after Pentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to see that Gentiles were creatures as well as Jews, and that therefore he was commissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the pious, earnest and conscientious, "verily thought he was doing God service" in persecuting the Saviour who had been pointed out as the Christ by many infallible proofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory largely through ignorance, due to their being blinded by their traditions, or inherited religious ideas, and therefore Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luther was mighty in throwing off his inherited ideas, and yet he retained so many of them that any church that would to-day practise and teach just as Luther did, would be considered very near to the Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one of the most enlightened men that ever lived, believed in witches and hung them, and many of the pious and enlightened people of New England shared this belief with him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony in court, as to what they saw and heard, of the most contradictory character. In nine cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we bring to it; and thus the most pious and best educated see the most contradictory doctrines in the same passages of Scripture and fight for them with the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the saddest thing about it all is that all these people show by their consecrated lives that they love God and are sincerely trying to serve him. In politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896 about one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of silver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold standard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to prove that at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance and party bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of them were. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be thus divided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering each other, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply neutralize each other's influence and power, while the enemy of right runs off with the victory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good with the bad in two political parties that enables evil to hold its own; while if all the good were united, through the truth, into one political party, arrayed against all the bad in another political party, they could carry this country for Jesus Christ at every election.

Having considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion, how, in the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ from us?

In the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see how the great and good men of all history have been hindered from seeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and preconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us very fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For it is to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is aware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal application, when he said, "I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord, that you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken." Not only is it possible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many of our ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble, teachable spirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat those who differ from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.

And that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from us, with love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers have been crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any other way. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and bad character of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. God gives a vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example, the prohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of God's people on the primitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on our way with great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert everybody to our righteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that people will not convert very fast. Our argument seems to us more clear and infallible every time we repeat it, and yet the people fail to come to our position. And so we are likely to lose faith in the people, and come to the conclusion that it is nothing but sin and guilt that causes them to reject our message. The next step is to forget our own weaknesses, trust in ourselves that we are right, and treat with hate and contempt those who differ from us. Treating our opponents with hate and scorn, we lose both our humility and Christian character, and develop into the most hideous and ungodly characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees. And so it happens that we reformers often need reformation worse than those whom we seek to reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the Apostles severely denounce sinners? Yes, but they always first made sure that they were sinners. Jesus could read men's hearts and, therefore, made no mistake, while Paul always reasoned with his opponents out of the Scriptures in love and humility, and only condemned them after clear and positive evidence that the fault was in their motive. Paul says, in writing to Timothy, "the servant of the Lord must not strive; but must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." And, where he exhorts to "reprove" and "rebuke," it is with "all longsuffering." James says, "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" We are never commanded to despise, hate or denounce any man; but, on the other hand, we are to love every one, even our enemies.

We are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we have the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to cut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do it? Do we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now seems so clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with children, "we should remember that they are left-handed," and this is certainly true of people in their relation to truth. The slowness with which people take up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We could have no stability and progress anywhere if it were not for this inertia in convictions. "The Athenians and strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing," and if we would all be occupied in that way, not much would be accomplished in the world. If we would become disciples of every propagandist whose arguments we cannot answer on the spur of the moment, there would be nothing but change and confusion. Realizing the difficulties in the way of finding truth, and observing how even the wisest and best have been deceived and ensnared in error, naturally ought to make people conservative in accepting new ideas, and the same reasons should make us patient with those who differ from us. They usually need our patient and sympathetic instruction more than our contempt, hatred and denunciation.

All this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our sacred duty to treat those who differ from us, in truth. There are two attitudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our differences with childish sentimentalism, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and abuse those who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as beneath our contempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the whole truth, as we see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are under obligation to tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may be. To those who threaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we must reply in the language of Peter and John: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." When people cry, "Peace, peace," at the expense of truth and right, and want us to speak "smooth things" instead of God's Word, we must take warning from God's words to Ezekiel, which apply to every preacher of truth, "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Paul went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead them into the full truth, although he raised strife and contention in so doing, and even suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a large per cent. of Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on matters in which they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ that we cannot even talk over our differences without getting angry and exhibiting the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, "We will agree to disagree," and we continue to nourish, pet and worship our differences as if they were gods. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the unity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the Apostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament conception of the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among God's people. And while we recognize the fact that there will always be differences of opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and weak, nevertheless it is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort to diminish and remove these differences. There always will be sin in this world but we dare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but, on the other hand, we must fight it with all the power we possess. The same is true with divisions and differences of opinion.

We must, however, not overlook the important differences between matters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly revealed in the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must agree as soon as they get a fair look at them. While matters of opinion, which are not directly revealed in the Bible, but are inferred from things revealed, are important, they are not all important, like matters of faith. But the more we overcome the hindrances to finding truth, of which we have spoken, the more we will be of the same mind and judgment in all things. For truth is not divided, and we will all see it alike in so far as we see clearly. As a rule, we can readily unite on the most important truths, and therefore on those we need to unite on for our present duty. While, if, through lack of faith, we turn away from the clear duty to seek one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice, we usually become hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.

In conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous effect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful causes which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us, let us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth ourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the truth, we shall, with "one mind" and "one soul," go conquering and to conquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his kingdom of love, peace and joy.



PART II.

HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH

CHAPTER I.

SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.

One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism. Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical Christian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The only way that union meetings of different denominations have been at all possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of the Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian union in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will satisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple ordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to bless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to unite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism dispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our sectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament teaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to compromise by "agreeing to disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of the New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing. We can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching. We can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions as to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field is rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.

As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The religious people with whom I was associated in my early life taught and practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I assumed that they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous chapters—that we look through colored glasses —multitudes of people daily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a matter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through hereditary and preconceived ideas.

As already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I studied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville Theological School. When we came to the word baptizoo, Dr. Cary told the class that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the word in the mouth of Jesus was to immerse. This statement was a great surprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement. What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists, who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are perfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible teaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever hinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the matter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not the shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament baptism.

While a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the authorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while their churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek, we used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, "having our bodies washed with pure water," Dr. Westcott said this referred to the "laver of regeneration" or the primitive practice of immersion. When we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International Critical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr. Thayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us was the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined baptizoo as meaning to dip, and never hinted that sprinkling or pouring might he its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct in claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the word in the mouth of Jesus was to immerse, and I have never been able to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines baptizoo as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.

The following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about the meaning of the Greek word baptizoo without quoting from a long list of lexicons:



You notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words in the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words have their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of which must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore cannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the words. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all scholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when it is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands another meaning.

Notice the English words shoot, hang and poison. These express specific outward acts; and, then, in their secondary meaning, they mean to kill, but always to kill in the way indicated by the primary meaning of the word. A man can be hung, shot or poisoned without being killed; but if it is reported that he was hung, shot or poisoned, we would all understand that he was killed. However, you cannot conceive of words so changing their meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means that he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was hung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word baptizoo (to immerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (rantizoo), or when the word rantizoo (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by immersing (baptizoo). These words refer primarily to separate and distinct outward acts. It is true they may meet in their secondary meaning in the idea to cleanse; but they always refer to cleansing in the way indicated by the primary meaning of the word used. When they travel so far from their primary or proper meaning, which has reference to specific outward acts, that their meaning is said to be tropical or metaphorical, they lose their specific idea and have no longer any reference to the specific acts denoted by the words.

It is true that words can and do often change or enlarge their meaning. But this is always to supply a need created by the lack of a proper word to express an associated idea. Now, both the specific and general ideas with reference to the application of water are so copiously supplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of changing the meaning of a word like baptizoo to supply such a need. We have louoo, to wash or bathe the body; niptoo, to wash a part of the body, as the hands, feet, face, etc.; plunoo, to wash clothes; brechoo, to wet, to rain; katharizoo, to cleanse; ekcheoo, to pour; rantizoo, to sprinkle; baptizoo, to immerse, etc.

Thus we have a threefold guard to keep baptizoo to its primary or proper meaning of to dip or immerse. First, an abundance of Greek words to express every general and specific idea about the application of water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical meaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by the word; and third, the law of interpretation which demands that a word be given its primary or proper meaning in commandments, or plain narrative, unless the context expressly demands a different meaning.

The above definitions of the word baptizoo are taken from Dr. Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon." In reply to letters inquiring about Dr. Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon," the following answers-were received. It is the "best" (Professor Hodge, of Princeton); it is the "very best" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt University); "nothing can compare with it" (Dr Hersman, president of the Southwestern Presbyterian University). This opinion is practically made unanimous from the fact that Dr. Thayer's Lexicon is used at all of the leading schools in the country.

A request for an authoritative lexicon that gives "sprinkle" or "pour" as a meaning of baptizoo, elicited the following answers: "There is no such lexicon" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia, and Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); "I know of none" (Professor Flagg, of Cornell); "I do not know of any" (Professor Tyler, of Amherst). "Baptizoo means to immerse. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this."—Dr. Moses Stuart.

Thus we learn, through the testimony of experts, without consulting all the numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word baptizoo as meaning to immerse and that none of them say it means to sprinkle or to pour.

The great mass of Christians know nothing about the Greek experts who make the lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced by the great church leaders and church standards. Therefore we present the following quotations:

Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion.

NOTE.—These quotations are taken from a tract of mine on baptism.

I. Council of Toledo, 633 (Catholic): "We observe a single immersion in baptism."

2. Council of Cologne, 1280 (Catholic): "That he who baptizes when he immerses the candidate in water," etc.

3. Martini (Roman Catholic): "In all of the pontificals and rituals I have seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have seen many, ancient as well as more recent, immersion is prescribed."

4. Dollinger (Roman Catholic): "Baptism was administered by an entire immersion in water." (Chu. History, vol. 2, p. 294.) "A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of." (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) "Baptism by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as late as the fourteenth century." (Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 295.)

5. Ritual of Greek Catholic Church: "The priest immerses him, saying the servant of God is immersed, in the name of the Father," etc.

6. Russian Catechism (Greek Catholic): "This they hold to be a point necessary, that no part of the child be undipped in water," etc.

7. Alex. De Stourdza (native Greek): "The verb baptize, immergo, has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and to say baptism is by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of the same nature." (Con. sur LaDoc. et L'Esprit, p. 87.)

8. Dr. Kyriasko, of University of Athens, Greece: "The verb baptize in the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle, but invariably that of to dip." (Letter to C. G. Jones, Lynchburg, Va.)

9. Syrian Ritual (Nestorians): "The priest immerses him in water, saying such a one is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.

10. Martin Luther: "Baptism is a Greek word. In Latin it can be translated immersion, as when we plunge something into water, that it may be completely covered with water; they ought to have been completely immersed." (The Sacrament of Baptism.)

11. Lutheran Catechism, p. 216: "In what did this act (baptism) consist?" Answer: "The one to be baptized was first immersed in water, signifying death, and then he was drawn out again and was dressed with a new dress, as if he now were a different new being."

12. John Calvin (Presbyterian): "The word baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church." (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.)

13. Richard Baxter (Presbyterian): "It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles' time the baptized were dipped over head in the water." (Dis. Right to Sac., p. 70.)

14. Dr. W. D. Powell, while in Athens, Greece, wrote: "I found that all churches in Greece—the Presbyterian included—are compelled to immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked, 'the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for baptizoo but immersion.'"

15. Zwingle (Reformed): "When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye wrere engrafted into the death of Christ." (Com. Rom. 6:3.)

16. John Wesley (Methodist): "We are buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." (Notes on N. T., Rom. 6:4.) "Baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In Savannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found guilty of breaking the laws of the realm, among other things "by refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child otherwise than by dipping." (Jour., vol. I, pp. 42, 43.)

17. The Methodist Discipline of 1846, and the old Discipline compiled by Wesley himself, assert that "Jesus was baptized in the river of Jordan, and that the sixth of Romans means simply a burial in water."

18. Adam Clark (Methodist): "As they received baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an emblem of the resurrection into eternal life, in coming up out of the water." (Com., vol. 4, N. T.)

19. Prayer Book (Church of England): "The priest shall dip him in the water, discreetly and warily."

20. Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians): "It is needless to add that baptism was administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages of Scripture." (Life of St. Paul.)

26. Prof. L. L. Paine (Congregational): "It may be honestly asked by some, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? As to the question of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which ancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. No historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to."

27. Dr. George Campbell (Presbyterian): "I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the N. T. baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments, sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a falsehood even in support of the truth." (Lect. on Pul. El. Lect, 10, pp. 294, 295.)

28. Philip Schaff (Un. Theo. Sem.): "The baptism of Christ in the river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by an unnatural exegesis." (Teaching of Apostles, pp. 55,56.)

29. Paul: "We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4.)

30. Peter says our bodies are washed in baptism, (1 Pet. I:23.)

31. Mark: "Jesus—was baptized in [Marg., Greek, into] the Jordan" (Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not have been baptized into the water without being immersed.

Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling.

1. The first record of sprinkling for baptism is that of Novatian, A. D. 250. It was thought he was dying and, as he could not be immersed, they sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called clinic or death-bed baptism. Its introduction was vigorously opposed for centuries and clinics were not admitted to sacred orders, many doubting their baptism.

2. Pope Stephen III. In 754 the monks of Cressy asked Stephen III.: "Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?" The Pope replied: "Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity, shall be accounted valid." Basnage says:" This was accounted the first law against immersion."

3. The Council of Ravenna, 1311, decreed: "Baptism is to be administered by trine aspersion or immersion." This was the first authority for sprinkling except in case of sickness.

4. Cardinal Gibbons (R. Catholic): "Since the twelfth century the practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion." (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275.)

5. Bishop of Bossuet (R. Catholic): "The case (communion under one kind) was much the same as that of baptism by immersion, as clearly grounded on Scripture as communion under both kinds could be, and which, nevertheless, had been changed into infusion, with as much ease and as little contradiction as communion under one kind was established, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the other. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although some will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the whole body in water. This fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by all the divines of the Reformation: by Luther, by Melancthon, by Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest." (Varia. Protest., vol. 2, p. 370.)

6. Archbishop Kenrick (R. Catholic): "The change of discipline which has taken place as to baptism should not surprise us, for, although the church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her Divine Spouse instituted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the manner of their adminstration. Immersion was well suited to the Eastern nations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was, therefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not prevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually multiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by affusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less solemn, is equally effectual. The power of binding and loosing, which she received from Christ, warrants this exercise of governing wisdom. It is not for the individuals to question a right which has been at all times claimed and exercised by those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries is divinely intrusted." (Kenrick on Bap., p. 174.)

7. Haydock, Endorsed by Pope Pius IX.: "The church, which cannot change the least article of faith, is not so tied up in matters of discipline and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the pretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism and now allow of baptisms by sprinkling and pouring water upon the person baptized."(Notes on Douay Bible, Matt. 3:16.)

8. Lutheran Catechism, p. 208: "What is baptism?" Answer: "To dip under water." "Do we still baptize in that way?" Answer: "No; because of the rough climate, the subject now is only sprinkled."

9. John Calvin (Presbyterian): "Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the person that is baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different regions."

10. Westminster Assembly (Presbyterian), 1643: "In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., vol. 3, p. 236.)

11. Dr. Wall (Episcopalian): "One would have thought that the cold countries should have been the first that should have changed the custom from dipping to affusion. But by history it appears that the cold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England, which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling. The Prayer Book, printed in 1549, adds: 'And if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it'"(Wall's Hist. Inft. Bap., vol. 3, pp. 575,579.)

12. Dean Stanley (Episcopalian): In speaking of immersion, he says: "The cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its continuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for infants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled."(Institutes, pp. 18,19.) The Church of England has changed to sprinkling, but its creed teaches immersion.

13. Sir John Floyer: "I have now given what testimony I could find in our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time the Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love of novelty and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty, they laid aside immersion." (History of Cold Bathing, p. 61.)

14. Bishop A. C. Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers (Episcopalian): "The word (baptizo) means to dip. In the Church of England dipping is even now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died out early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France (unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was disused in England. But for this bad example, my own opinion is, that dipping would still prevail among Anglicans. I wish that all Christians would restore the primitive practice." (In a letter to J. T. Christian.)

Thus we have the testimony of all the scholars in all the churches, who are recognized as Greek experts outside of their own party, that the New Testament teaches immersion and that it has been changed to sprinkling and pouring by human authority. We do not believe that this change was made with a bad motive. It was evidently done in sincerity and in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must accept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New Testament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were mistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take such liberties, all of the commandments of Christ will soon be set aside and confusion will be worse confounded. Indeed, it is this very liberty of substituting what men thought best for the things revealed in the New Testament, that has caused our present sectarian divisions by adding human names, creeds, customs, etc., to the primitive gospel.

Scriptures to Show It is Wrong to Change Christ's Commands.

"They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5).

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do" (Mark 7:7-9, 13).

"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3: 15).

"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (I Sam. 15:22,23).

"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination" (Prov. 28:9).

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it" (Matt. 7:24, 26,27).

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. If a man love me, he will keep my words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John 14: 15,21,23; 15:14). "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say" (Luke 6:46).

"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:29,30.)

"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (I John 2: 3,4).

But, after all, the very best way for ordinary people to learn the meaning of baptism, is to go to the English Bible. Although human authority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating the Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the contexts and sidelights on the subject make its meaning so plain that all can readily see it if divested of prejudice and preconceived ideas.

By reading the introduction to the English Revised Bible, you will learn that the translators of the Authorized Version were forbidden to translate the word. Other translators have followed their example; so that it is neither translated to sprinkle, to pour nor to immerse in our standard English Bibles. The Greek word baptisma has simply had the last letter dropped and been carried over into English bodily. But the word has been translated in numerous editions in various languages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the word immerse or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has ever had the temerity to translate it to sprinkle or to pour. Even our English translators translate it when it is not used as an ecclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means to dip. In 2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman, "He went down and dipped [baptizato] himself seven times in Jordan." We may not have a sufficient knowledge of Greek to determine what Jesus meant when he commanded us to be baptized. But the Apostles certainly understood him; and if we can find out what they did when they baptized, and we do the same thing, then we know we are right, and have done what Christ commanded.

Let us turn to the Sacred Record and see what they did when they baptized.

We read: "And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem, and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in [Greek into, marg. of A. R. V.] the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:5,9,10). "John was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). "And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water . . . he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:38,39). "We are buried with him by baptism," "planted in the likeness of his death," "and raised in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:4,5). "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (Heb. 10:22). "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). The italics are mine.

The following chart summarizes our study of baptism in the English Bible:

BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE

THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION SPRINKLING AND POURING REQUIRE: REQUIRE:

1. Water. Acts 8:36; 10:47 1. Water

2. Much water. John 3:23 2. Little water

3. Going to water. Mark 1:9 3. Bringing water

4. Going into water. Acts 8:38 4. Staying out of water

5. Putting into water. Mark 1:9 5. Putting water on (Margin of A. R. V)

6. Form of burial. Col. 2:12 6. No form of burial

7. Form of planting. Rom 6:5 7. No form of planting

8. Form of birth. John 3:5 8. No form of birth

9. Form of resurrection. 9. No form of resurrection Rom. 6:4

10. Form of doctrine. Rom. 6:17 10. No form of doctrine

11. Bodies washed. Heb. 10:22 11. Head wet

12. Coming up out of the water. 12. No getting out Mark 1:10

We thus learn that in being baptized they went to water, to much water, went into the water, were put into the water, were buried in the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out of the water, had their bodies washed and came up out of the water. If we do these things, we are Scripturally baptized and have been immersed.

The following passages are the only places where sprinkling and pouring are found in the New Testament:

Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament.

1. Heb. 9:13.—Blood. 2. Heb. 9:19.—Blood. 3. Heb. 9:21.—Blood. 4. Heb. 10:22.—Hearts. 5. Heb. 11:28.—Blood. 6. Heb. 12:24.—Blood. 7. 1 Pet. 1:2.—Blood. 8. Matt. 26:7,12.—Ointment. 9. John 2:15.—Money. 10. Acts 10:45.—Spirit. 11. John 13:5.—Water. 12. Luke 10:34.—Oil and Wine. 13. Rev. 14:10.—Wrath.

You will notice that none of these Scriptures refer to baptism and that none of the Scriptures that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or pouring as the action. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism must come from some other source. We have already learned whence they came.

Some people will argue against immersion for hours, and when they are driven into their last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to escape by saying, "Baptism doesn't amount to anything at any rate, it's a mere form. The great thing is Holy Spirit baptism."

To begin with, Holy Spirit baptism is not baptism at all, strictly speaking. It is only figurative baptism. It is not always called baptism. It is called an anointing (Luke 4: 18), a drinking (1 Cor. 12: 13), an enduing (Luke 24:49), a filling (Acts 2:4), and a sealing (Eph. 1 : 13). No person can be literally sprinkled or poured with the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a person. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His power, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptism is not a command to obey, but a promise to enjoy. It can only be administered by Christ himself (John 1:33). Therefore, whenever in the New Testament baptism is commanded for preachers to administer or sinners to obey, it can never refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but must always refer to water baptism.

In the light of New Testament teaching and practise, it is marvelous that any one who claims to follow its guidance, can make light of baptism. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Christ walk eighty miles to be baptized of John, and insist that it was necessary for him to be baptized "to fulfil all righteousness"? (Matt. 3: 13-17). "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why, in giving his commission to all gospel workers, did Christ say, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them"? (Matt. 28: 19). Those who neglect to baptize their converts have certainly not wholly obeyed their Lord. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Jesus say, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? (Mark 16:15, 16). Not only is every preacher commanded to baptize every convert, but every convert is also commanded to be baptized; and baptism is made one of the conditions of salvation with every proper gospel subject. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Jesus say to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? (John 3:5). All church standards refer this to baptism. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Peter, on Pentecost, when he used "the keys of the kingdom," revealed Christ's will and testament for sinners, and thus proclaimed the conditions of salvation, or of forgiveness, to all whom the Lord should call through the gospel, say to penitent seekers, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"? (Acts 2:38). And why is it said, "They then that received his word were baptized"? (Acts 2:41). Will not the same follow to-day if people will receive the Word of God without any subtractions? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when people believe the whole gospel? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the eunuch that when Philip "preached unto him Jesus," he said, "Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?"? And why did he not go "on his way rejoicing" before he "came up out of the water"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we send them away as finished products without going down into the water with them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the primitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the soul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him what he must do, who said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants to-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to him in baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was there a special miraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter command them to be baptized with water, after they had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that Holy Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave "heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly instructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing to give heed unto the word of the Lord? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why, when the Philippian jailor was told by Paul and Silas what he "must do to be saved," was he baptized "immediately," "the same hour of the night"? (Acts 16: 29-33). Will not the same gospel, if preached in the same way, have the same effect to-day? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said that "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized"? (Acts 18:8). Will not those who hear and believe in sincerity to-day also be baptized? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said by the Holy Spirit that Priscilla and Aquila expounded unto Apollos "the way of God more accurately," after "he was mighty in the scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord," and "taught accurately the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John"? (Acts 18:24-26). If the Lord was then concerned to have preachers set right on water baptism, even when their gospel knowledge was accurate in every other particular, does he not have a similar concern now? and if our hearts are in perfect accord with his, will his concern not be our concern? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was it Paul's first concern, when he came to Ephesus, to set the brethren right on water baptism, even though they were called "disciples," and had already been baptized (immersed) once? (Acts 19: 1-7). This shows that baptism is not a mere outward act, but is important because of its relation to the Lord Jesus, an obedient heart, and to the Holy Spirit. If the Lord, through the Apostle, directed these disciples to be baptized a second time, when they found they were not Scripturally baptized, are not these his directions for to-day also? and should not his preachers show people the truth if they have not been Scripturally baptized, and, if possible, induce them to obey the Scriptural baptism, even when they thought they had been Scripturally baptized?

It is true that Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1: 14-17). In the words I have placed in italics, we are told why he was glad he baptized only a few of them. It was lest they should be his partisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not so interpret the words, "for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," as to contradict the commission of Christ and all the numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant that he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part of the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of the gospel. The same was true of Jesus himself, as we learn from John 4:1, 2: "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)." He baptized them and he didn't baptize them. That is, he commanded them to be baptized and had his disciples perform the act. So evidently with Paul. If he meant that his converts were not to be baptized, then he would certainly not have baptized any of them.

That Paul was zealous in seeing that all his converts were baptized, is apparent from the cases already quoted, especially the baptism of the Ephesians. For when he discovered that their baptism was not Scriptural, he, first of all, insisted that they be baptized again. It is further apparent from his teaching in his Epistles. In 1 Cor. 12:13 we read, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body ... and were all made to drink of one Spirit." In Gal. 3:26, 27, we read, "For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." In Rom. 6:3, 4, we read, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." In Col. 2: 12, we have similar language, "having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who also raised him from the dead." In Heb. 10:22, it is said, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water." After reading these Scriptures, no one can doubt that Paul had all his converts baptized, and believed in baptism just as strongly as Christ and Peter.

That Peter had the same opinion about baptism near the end of his life, as at Pentecost, is evident from his words in I Pet. 3:21: "Which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."