superstition, and bigotry, could not be prevailed upon to abandon them.

The intellectual light of the nineteenth century, flashing and bright, and piercing as the electric glare, could not drive out the demons of error. They had had undisputed possession too long. The reader can verify this statement. For example: The sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism is not mentioned in the entire Bible, as you will see if you will examine. But you see churches to-day practicing this invention of man with as much confidence, apparently, as if the God of Heaven had commanded it. Why does the preacher practice sprinkling? Because his church creed or book of discipline teaches it. Why does the person submit to it? The babe submits because it cannot help itself; and the believer because the preacher tells him it is all sufficient.

Tell me why men teach many things about which the Holy Spirit never communicated a single idea, and you will have answered the question, why do men teach and practice sprinkling and pouring for baptism, and at the same time admit that the New Testament teaches immersion only?"

"A

CHAPTER XII.

A CRUMB OF COMFORT.

CRUMB of comfort" is enjoyed by the effusionist from the fact that Webster

speaks of baptism being administered by sprinkling. It will be well to remember that the men who write dictionaries do not make the meaning of the words. They simply define the words as used by the best writers and speakers. Should the meaning of the word ever be changed from immerse to that of sprinkle, it would be no argument in favor of sprinkling for Christian baptism, since the question does not hinge upon what the word baptizo means now, but what did it mean when used by Christ and the Apostles.

Another grain of comfort is found in the statement that a

MAJORITY PRACTICE SPRINKLING.

Such a statement proves that the man who makes it is very poorly posted, for it is just seven points from the truth.

When the Council of Ravenna (Catholic) granted to the Papal world the privilege of sprinkling, we must not conclude that the millions of Germany, France, Spain, Portugal,

Italy and England at once accepted the privilege. Not so. Catholic France rejected it. England held on to immersion for three centuries more; so did other states of Europe. And a very large part of the Catholic Church holds on to the Apostolic custom to this day.

The whole church practiced immersion for thirteen centuries, and half of it for eighteen hundred years, and the balance for fourteen and sixteen hundred years. There are to-day 85,000,000 souls in the Greek Church.

From the days of the Apostles down to the present time, the Greeks have practiced im

mersion.

There are many Protestant bodies that practice immersion. There are comparatively few, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, who have not been immersed. About seven persons have been immersed to every one that has been sprinkled.

Alas! how mightily the truth has blasted many an error. One verse of scripture, affirming, approving or even hinting at the doctrine of sprinkling water upon people, and calling it Christian baptism, will overturn everything that I have said in favor of immersion. But where is the scripture? And echo answers where? Let some wise man find it, and settle this "fool," (I speak after the manner of men) forever.

WR

CHAPTER XIII.

WHAT DID JESUS MEAN?

E have no way of arriving at the meaning of a law, but by the words used in publishing the law, and we must know the meaning of the words.

All intelligent law-makers and law-givers use words in their ordinary acceptation. If used otherwise there is an explanation of the reason why they are used in an extra-ordinary

sense.

In the commission given to the Apostles by Jesus, as recorded in Matt, 28:19-20, we find the instructions that were to guide them in their work of completing the Kingdom of God, and of making known the terms of admission, and the benefits to be enjoyed by every one who would become a citizen thereof. In this commission Jesus says, "Go teach all nations, baptizing (baptizo) them," etc. What did He mean when he said "baptizing?" If we do not know what He meant we do not understand Him, and hence cannot obey Him, and yet He commands us to be baptized (Acts 2:38). This places our Lord in an awkward attitude before intelligent persons, and shows the utter foolishness of saying "we do not know what He

meant.' Or, He meant two or three things, either one of which is as different from the other as immerse is from sprinkle, or as pour is from immerse or sprinkle.

We must arrive at the meaning of words by consulting our best writers and speakers. This has been the burden of our task in this little work.

We have called up scores of men who lived before Christ and since; literary men,-famous for their Greek lore: the best historians, writers of our greatest encyclopedias, the best lexicographers the world has given us, and our most scholarly translators, and without a single exception these men affirm most positively that the word Jesus used when He said " baptizing (baptizo) them," means immerse, and that it does not, and never did mean, sprinkle or pour. If we may not come to this conclusion without a doubt, then we can never arrive at the meaning of any law, command, or promise made in former times, and hence all our history is a perfect failure, incomprehensible and inexplainable. But this, nobody believes.

We can, and do, arrive at the correct meaning of all words used in all languages. Jesus said, "Go teach all nations, immersing them." Peter, in Acts 2:38, said, "Repent and be immersed." Luke said, Acts 8:38, "They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him.'