which the scriptures may be translated, allowing such a necessary variation of sound or letters, as the idiom and structure of different languages may require. No common term signifying dipping, or washing, or sprinkling, can supply its place.

2. Let us consider whether there be evidence that baptism was generally administered by immersion, or whether there be proof that it was so administered at all, from probabilities arising from those accounts in the word of God where baptism is spoken of.

Here it is not affirmed, that immersion was never used as one of the modes of baptism, but simply that there is no proof that it was so; and that whatever degree of probability there may be on that side of the question, there is, in many cases, a much greater probability of a more partial application of water. Let us examine some of the scripture accounts of baptism to begin with that of John.-This baptism, as has already been observed, was different from christian baptism; but with reference to the mode, it may be admitted, that the same might also be used in the ordinance as applied to the new dispensation. Now it is evident, that John baptized great multitudes; for "there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." It is stated that John baptized these multitudes in Jordan. But how? This is the question. Is it probable that he either could or would baptize such multitudes by immersion? For, be it observed,

he baptized alone, and not by the ministry of his disciples, as our Saviour afterwards did. It is the opinion of some able commentators, that the persons whom John baptized stood in ranks, just within the edge of the river, and the Baptist passing along before them, cast water upon their heads or faces, with his hand or some proper instrument; by which means he might baptize many hundreds, or even thousands, in a day. But, perhaps, an advocate for immersion may ask Is it not said of Jesus, when he was baptized by John, that "he went up straightway out of the water?" This question may be answered by an other. Is it possible that the fact could be expressed with greater propriety, had our Lord gone into the water only as high as the knees or the ancles? In this case he went up out of the water, and came up the rising ground, which necessarily borders every river. But this objection, with the reply to it, is founded on our English translation of the passage. The Greek simply states it, "he came up from the water." Again, the advocates for immersion lay a stress on the circumstance of John's baptizing Enon, because there was much water there. Now, if John baptized by immersion, one at a time, he would not have needed much or many waters for this purpose; a small pool or a baptistry would have sufficed, as well as all the waters in the ocean. The expression in the Greek is, "because there were many waters there;" probably many little brooks, which made the place convenient, in that hot climate, for the multitudes who came out to be baptized of

him. These brooks were necessary for the refreshment of themselves, and of their cattle; but nothing is said to imply that they were immersed in them. The supposition that they stood in, or at the edge of, the brooks, is much more probable. Let us now advert to the preaching and baptizing of Peter, as recorded in Acts ii. 38-41: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation.' It may here be observed that three thousand souls were baptized immediately. Was it possible that Peter could have baptized so large a number in one day by immersion? Could he, even with the assistance of the other eleven apostles, have administered the ordinance by this mode to three thousand individuals, in the time specified? Had they only repeated the words," I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and immediately immersed the subject, every one must have occupied three minutes; and on this principle, the person baptizing must have stood in the water at least five hours, to have baptized one hundred persons. The baptism of these three thousand persons, on the same day, does not agree with the scheme of immersion ; but it is perfectly consistent with that of pouring,

ON BAPTISM:

that

sprinkling, or the application of water to the subject. To refer to the case of Saul.-Can we suppose in his faint and weak condition, having been three days without food, he was baptized by immersion? Besides, is there the least intimation that he went out of the house, or even out of the room, for this purpose? Again, can we imagine that Cornelius and his company went out to a river or a baptistry to be baptized, when the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"-Or could it be believed that the jailor of Philippi and his family, went out to a river at midnight to be baptized ?—and it is stated, that they were baptized immediately, at the same hour of the night. But is it probable that they were immersed? In the several instances on record, of Christian baptism, we never read of individuals going to a river for the purpose of baptizing. The Ethiopian eunuch indeed, who was on a journey, came to water, probably a rivulet running through the desert, where he was baptized; but nothing is here said of his immersion, which is very improbable. The Greek text only states, that he went down to the water, and came up from the water. Now, what are the inferences to be drawn from these scriptural accounts of baptism? A plain man may be supposed to take up his Bible to examine the word of God upon the subject. He there reads of three thousand being baptized in one day, in one place, and on one occasion; of a company being baptized in the house

of Cornelius; and of another at midnight, in the house of the jailor. But he finds nothing said respecting rivers, pools of water, or baptistries; nothing respecting garments being provided for change of dress at any place; no mention is made of any separation between the sexes; nor does he hear of their putting on or putting off their clothes. In short there is nothing stated, directly or incidentally, which makes it probable that immersion was generally, if ever used. He would therefore conclude that the probabilities are altogether on the side of sprinkling, or pouring.

But further; scripture language, in general, affords no evidence for the exclusive mode of immersion.

What is the general language of the word of God on this subject?" I indeed baptize you with water," not in water. "I come baptizing with water-He that sent me to baptize with water." To what mode of baptism does this language most properly apply? Not to immersion certainly. It naturally expresses the application of water to the subject. This is evident from other instances, in which the same mode of speech is used: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost: ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." But how? The Holy Ghost was 66 poured out" upon them;- -was "shed abroad" upon them. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, as expressed by falling on the subjects of his operations, is connected with the baptism of water about eight times in scripture. Again, the baptism