they had received and baptized a large number of converts: if he should hence conclude that they were Baptists, and practised immersion, would he not form a wrong conclusion?

6. I will next notice what, it seems to me, might be called a Scripture definition of the mode of Baptism. In Acts i. 5. we read, "For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." How this Baptism was effected we learn, Acts iii. 16-18. "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams and on my servants, and on my handmaidens will I pour out, in those days, of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." Here Baptism was evidently by pouring.

The next case we notice is that of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. How could this vast multitude be immersed by the apostles, in a few hours, as we must suppose, in the afternoon of the day? It was the third hour, or nine o'clock, when Peter began his speech: and we cannot suppose that he and the other apostles finished their speaking, giving instruction, hearing the confessions of the people, &c., before noon. Suppose all the apostles to be engaged in baptizing for five hours; it would require that each one should baptize fifty each hour, that is, nearly one every minute. This would be a laborious business and I believe no man could perform it in the ordinary way of immersion. But where did they procure the water necessary, and the suitable places, for baptizing so many? At that season, water was very scarce at Jerusalem. The brook Kedron, which is the only stream of any conse quence near, it is said, is dry at that season-Pentecost being near the last of March. Where did they all find the necessary changes of raiment? Many of them were strangers from all the adjacent country, who had come up to attend the feast. I must think that Baptism on the day of Pentecost, was performed in a very expeditious and summary way, and cannot suppose that it was by immersion.

The next case we notice is that of Philip and the Eunuch, Acts viii. 38, 39. "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," &c. What water they found on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is called desert, we know not; but probably

only some small streamlet or spring; as travellers give us no account of any considerable stream in that direction. But if they met with a fountain sufficient for immersion, I wonder that there is nothing said about the change of raiment that is necessary.-But it is said that they both went down, s ro idwp, into the water; and came up, ɛx out of the water. This they might do, without his being immersed, as I have said before. But if this form of expression proves that one was immersed, it proves that both were; for it says that they both went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch. If then it proves any thing, it proves too much for none, I suppose, would admit that both were immersed. But it is not necessary to suppose that they went into the water at all. The preposition ʊs, here used, is as indefinite, and has as many meanings, as the preposition v, in the former case. It is very often ren

dered, to, unto, at, &c.. and the preposition ɛx, very commonly means from. We may therefore, with equal propriety say, they went down both to the water, and came up from it. There is therefore no proof of immersion here.

The next case we consider, is the Baptism of Paul. (Acts ix. 18.) I think it would be difficult for any one to read the original, in view of the circumstances of the case, and believe that Paul was immersed. He had been blind for three days, and had neither eaten nor drunk, from his great distress of mind. He must therefore have become very feeble. But when Ananias had come and laid hands upon him, and prayed, it is said, "Immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received his sight forthwith, and arose, (avaoras, rising, or having arisen,) was baptized." Here is nothing like going to a fountain, having change of raiment, or the like; but it seems plainly intimated that he received the ordinance on the spot, either standing on his feet, or sitting up in his bed, if he had been lying, which is probable. Afterwards he received meat and was strengthened. If immersion had been the mode, is it not likely he would have received meat first, while preparation was being made?

We next notice the Baptism of Cornelius and his family. (Acts x. 47.) And here the expression, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized; which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we," plainly intimates that water was to be brought in a vessel; and could not with any propriety be used, if the person was to be taken to some fountain or pool to be dipped.

The next is the jailer and his household, (Acts xvi. 33.) And here it seems next to impossible to conceive how they could have been immersed in the dead hour of the night, and within the enclosure of the prison: for we cannot suppose they went out to a stream or fountain. The jailer's house was no doubt a part of the prison building; and he brought them out of the dungeon in which they had been confined, into his own house; and having washed their stripes, was straightway, (apaxpnua immediately,) baptized, he, and all his.

The two passages, Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, are often referred to as proving immersion. One 66 says, we are buried with him by Baptism into death;"-the other, "buried with him in Baptism." The language here is evidently figurative; and it is believed by some of the best commentators that there is no reference whatever to the mode of Baptism. But if the burial by Baptism be understood to mean a literal immersion in water; why not take the death as literal also? Buried, i. e. immersed, by Baptism, into or unto death-and then it would be an immersion like that of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. But it would be difficult to find any similarity between Baptism in any form, and the burial of Christ; whose body was laid in a tomb, in a niche in the side of the wall, and not covered, or buried, in the common sense of that term, at all.

7. I have now gone over the principal cases that touch upon the mode, both in the Baptism of John, and the practice of the apostles: and we have found no place in which immersion is certainly proved; but we have found several, in which it seems improbable, not to say, impossible, that it should have been practised. Can it be then, that so great stress is laid upon the mode, in the New Testament, that nothing is Baptism but an entire immersion of the body in water?—that so large a portion of the Christian world has honestly adopted an error upon this subject, that actually unchurches them, and throws them out of God's visible kingdom on earth? I cannot think so.

I have heard the following plan proposed; and I would recommend any one to try it. Let him make four columns on a piece of paper; at the head of the first, put certainly by immersion; at the head of the second, probably by immersion; of the third, probably not by immersion; of the fourth, certainly not by immersion. Then let him take his Concordance, and, beginning at the first of Matthew, look for every place in which the word baptize, Baptism, &c. occur in the New Testament; and after

carefully examining the passage, let him set it down under the head to which he may think it belongs. When he has gone through in this way, he will then see how the majority of cases stand, and how the weight of Scripture evidence preponderates. This trial will of course be the fairer, and more correct, if he be acquainted with the original, and use the Greek Concordance, and the Greek Testament instead of the English. For there are a number of places, as we have already seen, in which the original word baptize, is rendered wash. These passages, of course, the mere English reader must overlook. The Greek scholar will also know better the force of the original language, and the indefinite character of those Greek prepositions rendered into, and out of, upon which so great stress is laid in deciding this question. Let any one, I say, pursue this course candidly and fairly; and I believe the result will be, that, under the fourth head, certainly not by immersion, he will put down several cases: under the third, probably not by immersion, a goodly number: under the second head, probably by immersion, he may perhaps put down a few: but under the first head, certainly by immersion, he will not be able to put down a single case. He would find however that the word is often used without any allusion to the mode whatever.

I have heard of this case being proposed to a Baptist minister: suppose there had been a law in Judea, making it a capital crime, for one man to immerse another in water and suppose that John the Baptist had been taken up and brought to trial, under this law, for immersing our Saviour; and that you had been one of the jury in the case. And let it be allowed that all the evidence to be adduced to prove the fact, was the simple statement as we have it in the New Testament by the different evangelists, corroborated by other cases of Baptism mentioned. Now, what would have been your verdict in such a case, on a trial for life and death? The Baptist preacher took a day for consideration: and his answer finally was,-"If I were a Presbyterian as you are, I suppose I should acquit him; out being a Baptist, I should condemn him." I believe it would be hard for an impartial judge to make out a verdict of guilty, in such a case. The evidence would not be sustained as sufficient in a court of law.