Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here, we are told, the matter is decided that the original Greek word Baлti(w, means to immerse, and nothing else. Now if this be so, dispute about the mode is at an end. If the word admits of no other meaning but immersion, then there can be no other mode. But this is a mere begging of the question, and taking for granted the thing in dispute. What authority has any one for saying that the word has no other meaning? If we look into Lexicons, we can find as many as five or six different meanings to the word; and if we look at the use of it, we find many cases, in which it cannot possibly mean immersion. In classic use, it sometimes means to stain, to dye, to soak, to imbue, to wash, to cleanse this may be by dipping, sprinkling, or pouring. Origen, a Greek Father, and one of the most learned men of his day, says, "Elias did not baptize the wood on the altar, which was to be washed, but ordered another to do it," &c. Here is an allusion to the four barrels of water which the prophet directed should be poured on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. (1 Kings xviii. 33.) Origen regarded baptism as equivalent to washing, and that by pouring the water on. Athanasius used the word (partILouevov) sprinkled, as clearly equivalent to (BantIZOμEVOV) baptized. The baptism of tears and blood, was a favourite phraseology with the early Christians; but surely this was not by immersion. "An ancient oracle, quoted by Sydenham, runs thus ;-Ασκος Βαπτιζε· δυναι δε τοι 8 θεμις 807-i. e. Baptize him as a bottle; but it is not lawful to immerse, or wholly to plunge him under the water. Here baptize is put in opposition to immerse, and cannot mean the same thing." In the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament, made more than 200 years before Christ, the word Bantiw, is often used as equivalent to the word A8, to wash. When the body of Nebuchadnezzar is said to be wet with the dew of heaven, the Septuagint has it, baptized; but surely not by immersion. John the Baptist says, (Matt. iii. 11.) "I indeed baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." If we look in Acts ii. 1-4. we shall see how this was done"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting-(i. e. the sound filled the house.) And there appeared cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon

each of them: and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Here the appearance of fire sat upon their heads, and the Spirit filled them, but they were immersed in neither-there was nothing like immersion in the case.

How would it sound to speak of being immersed in the Holy Ghost and in fire? If John's disciples had understood the word to mean nothing else but immersion, would they not have been startled at such an expression? But if Banrıçw iμas ev idarı, means, I immerse you in water, Βαπτισει ύμας εν πνευματι ἁγιω και πυρι, must mean, he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire-the construction is precisely the same.

Christ calls his last sufferings a Baptism; but there was nothing like immersion in the case. He bore the curse of the law, and the wrath of God; but that is always said to be poured out. The Israelites are said to have been baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Cor. x. 2.) But there could be no immersion there, either in the cloud or in the sea for it is said that the pillar of cloud stood behind them, between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and that they went through the sea on dry ground. The Egyptians were indeed immersed, and sunk like lead in the mighty waters. But the Israelites might have been sprinkled with the spray from the sea which stood as a wall on each side: and it would seem that they were sprinkled with rain at the same time; for the psalmist, speaking of this same thing, says, "The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven : the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook." (Psa. Ixxvii. 17, 18.) Here then Baptism cannot mean immersion.-In Mark vii. 2-4. it is said, "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." In the original Greek it is, except they Baptize, (Banrioara,) they eat not. But how did the Pharisees, and all the Jews Baptize when they came from the market? Certainly not by immersing themselves in water; but by washing their hands, as it is said in the preceding verse, "except they wash their hands oft, they eat not." Here baptizing is equivalent to washing, and neither by immersion.

In Matthew xv. 2. we read, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." In Luke xi. 38, it is Isaid that when a certain Pharisee who had asked Jesus to dine with him, saw him sit down to meat, "he marvelled that he had not first washed, (in the original, baptized,) before dinner." What! did the Pharisee marvel that he had not first plunged himself into water before dinner? No, certainly: but that he had not first washed his hands according to the tradition of the Elders, as mentioned in Matthew.In Mark vii. 4. we read, "And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables," or couches, as the original properly means. And here the word rendered washing is in the original baptizing. And how did they baptize their cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and couches? Some of them by immersion, perhaps; but certainly not all. We find provision made for these various washings or baptisms of the Jews at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. (John ii. 6.) "And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." Here was an ample provision for washing cups, pots, &c. and the hands and feet of the guests, but certainly not for immersing their bodies in water.

In Hebrews ix. 10. we read of "diverse washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation;"-in the original, diapopois Bantioμois, diverse Baptisms. The adjective diapopois, means different, of various kinds, dissimilar. These diverse washings or baptisms, doubtless included all the different ablutions, and ceremonial cleansings prescribed in the Mosaic law; and these were performed in diverse ways. How some of them were performed, the apostle goes on to tell in verse 13-"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more the blood of Christ," &c. And also in verse 19 and following—" For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry." It is evident from the connexion and scope of this portion of Scripture, that the apostle

designed to include these sprinklings in the diapopors Βαπτισμοις, diverse baptisms mentioned in verse 10.

After all this, can any one say that the word Banti?w, means to immerse, and nothing else? The general idea is washing or cleansing; but as it regards the mode, we could scarcely find a more indefinite word. If the mode be so material—an essential point, why has it been left so indefinite, that perhaps nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world at the present day, and ever since the days of the apostles, have believed that Baptism by sprinkling or pouring was valid Baptism? Is it so, that nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world have not been able to arrive at the truth on this subject; and are therefore actually out of the visible church, and without valid ordinances? Is it true that the Baptist denomination, which had its origin about 300 years ago, (as I believe history will fully prove,) is the only true visible Church of God in the world? I cannot think so.

5. Since the word itself does not determine the mode of Baptism, let us look at the practice of the apostles, and see if we can find any thing there that will determine it to signify immersion only. First, however, I must notice the Baptism of John. But here it must be observed that the Baptism of John was not Christian Baptism. John's Baptism formed as it were, a connecting link between the Jewish and Christian church, but belonged properly to neither. If therefore we know certainly John's mode of Baptism, and in what manner the Saviour was baptized, it would not certainly determine the mode of Christian Baptism. The Baptism of John was local and temporary, intended only to prepare the way for the Messiah; it might therefore be very different in its mode of administration, from an institution of the Christian church, intended to be universal; adapted to every region of the earth, and to every condition of society; and to be perpetuated to the end of time.

In Matt. iii. 5, 6, we read, "Then went out to him (John) Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and Εβαπτίζοντο εν Ιορδανη, were baptized in Jordan." The same phraseology occurs, Mark i. 5. "And they were all baptized in the river Jordan." At first sight it may be thought that this determines the mode of John's Baptism. If he baptized in the river Jordan, surely it was by immersion. But this is by no means a necessary consequence. He might stand in the water, and yet baptize the multitudes that came to him, by sprinkling or pouring it on them. But the preposition

here rendered in, has at least sixteen different meanings in the New Testament; such as, with, by, through, to, near, &c. we may therefore say, at Jordan, near Jordan, or with Jordan; i. e. with the waters of Jordan. The same preposition is used when it is said, I baptize with water, but he shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. And if it determines the mode here, and we must say they were immersed in Jordan; then it must determine the mode there, and we must say, I immerse in water; but he shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire. The same preposition is used when it is said that John was baptizing in the wilderness; and also when it is said, he was baptizing in Enon, a town. But every one sees that it would be ridiculous to speak of immersing or plunging people in a wilderness, or in a town. It is plain therefore that the preposition has nothing to do with the mode, but only designates, either the element, as, with water, with fire; or the place, as in the wilderness, in Enon, at or nearJordan.

From the numbers that flocked to John's Baptism, it is thought he must have performed the service in a very expeditious and summary way. It is said (Mark i. 5.) that "there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him." A judicious writer has computed that if one tenth part of this population were baptized by immersion, allowing three minutes to each individual; the Baptist must have stood eight hours in the water per day for three years, to have accomplished the work!

The Baptism of Christ is much relied upon to prove immersion, because it is said that he went up straightway out of the water. (Matt. iii. 16.) But the preposition ano, here rendered out of, in its ordinary and proper meaning, signifies from; and, as I conceive, should be so rendered here. The Baptism of Christ therefore, affords no evidence of immersion.

Much reliance has been placed also on the passage, (John iii. 23.) "And John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." The original is, noα údara, many waters, or many springs or streams of water. And this would be necessary for the accommodation of the multitudes that flocked to John's Baptism. Suppose some person, 100 years hence, should read the history of a Methodist camp-meeting, who did not know what mode of Baptism they practised; and should find it stated that they had selected such a place because there was much water there-because there were many springs or streams of water convenient; and should also read that