that, "except except they be baptized, they eat not;" while SCALIGER does not intimate that dipping prevailed, except among "the more superstitious part. This pretence, therefore, and what he has adduced to support it, prove nothing, unless it be the straits to which he is driven, in attempting to defend his Anabaptist principles.

It is also said by the Evangelist (Mark vii. 4) that "there be many other things which the Jews have received to hold, as the washing, or (Banlisuus) baptisms, of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and of tables."-If it is likely that, in washing, they immersed their small cups, is it at all likely that they immersed their pots and kettles, their brazen vessels and their tables? Do we find this the most convenient method of washing such articles? And especially should we, if, after the Jewish custom, we reclined at our meals,* and, of consequence, were obliged to construct our tables much larger than they are at present? Accordingly Pool determines, in view of the word baptism in this verse, that "it does not always denote immersion, but sometimes washing only, or even sprinkling.”+

The Jews derived this custom of frequently baptizing their domestick utensils, not from the law of Moses, but "the traditions of their elders." (See v. 5.) Hence Mr. JUDSON'S references to the law of Moses, to prove that these baptisms were uniformly immersions, are perfectly irrelevant.

Our blessed Redeemer, in view of his approaching sufferings, repeatedly spoke of a baptism that awaited him. "I have a baptism to be baptized with." (Luke xii. 50.) How was he baptized? Neither, I apprehend, by being immersed in suffering, nor by having poured on him the vials of Divine wrath. There is no necessity of giving to this passage any figurative interpretation; and a figurative interpretation should never be given without manifest necessity. "The body of the blessed Jesus was truly and literally baptized. He was wet and washed with his own. fears, and sweat, and blood, when in the garden, when scourged, and when nailed to the cross. This was the baptism." And in this sense the passage furnishes decisive proof, that baptism may be performed otherwise than by immersion.

"Which leaned on his breast at supper." (John xxi. 20.) ↑ Synopsis in loc.

To the instances here adduced what will Mr. J. reply? It certainly is incumbent on him-it is incumbent on all who consider immersion essential to baptism, to show that in each of them immersion is clearly implied. Should only one escape-should only one instance be found of a lite ral baptism where there was no immersion, the whole Anabaptist theory would be overthrown.

Mr. J. has offered but one remark directly bearing on the point now before us, which has not been sufficiently examined already. He observes, speaking of Bankw—“ In figurative applications, this word, like all others, is probably used with some freedom. But should a few instances of this kind be found, would they be sufficient to invalidate the force of evidence resulting from the proper and general use of the word? What law will bind the subject, if he is at liberty to depart from the proper and general interpretation of the principal term, and affix to it a signification which is drawn from some rare figurative application?" (P. 4.)-In answer to these inquiries, it will be sufficient to propose two or three others. In what way shall the literal signification of a word be ascertained, if persons are allowed to pronounce every signification figurative, which does not precisely square with their pre-conceived opinions? Is not this the manner in which the Socinian clears himself of the divinity of Christ? Is not this the very course which the heretick and schismatick have uniformly followed? And admitting the propriety of this course, will it be possible, at this day, to establish any one doctrine of revealed religion?

We have now fully examined the Greek word ßantikw. We have considered its etymology, adduced respectable authorities, and traced it in its general use. And we invariably arrive at the same conclusion-it cannot uniformly signify immersion. This conclusion places another on an immoveable basis-immersion cannot be essential to Christian baptism.

SECTION III.

Proof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism.

a

4. "THE circumstances attending the instances of bap tism recorded in the New Testament, plainly indicate" some other mode besides "immersion."Mr. J. adduces these circumstances, to show that immersion is essential. "John baptized in the river Jordan, and in Enon, because there was much water there. Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water." (P. 9.)-Strange! that in examining "the circumstances attending the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament," he should notice but one single instance in which baptism is allowed to be a Christian ordinance! Why did he not consider the baptism of the three thousand, of Paul, of Cornelius, and the jailer, and show that the circumstances attending these plainly indicated immersion ?-Let, us, however, follow him, and examine the baptism of John. That this great reformer and prophet baptized at Jordan and Enon, is no conclusive evidence that he practised immersion. The convenience of those multitudes which constantly thronged him, made it necessary that he should reside in the vi cinity of "much water."-Many circumstances of his baptism seem inconsistent with immersion, and render it nearly certain that he practised some other mode. He baptized "in the wilderness," as well as at Jordan. (Matth. iii. 1.) He baptized with water, as well as in it. (Mark i. 8.) He baptized in the open fields, where there were no accommo. dations for a change of apparel. And above all-he bap tized vast multitudes in a short space of time. None have computed his ministry to be more than a year and an half. In this period, he baptized "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan." (Matth. iii. 5.) He baptized, on the smallest estimate we have ever yet seen, 500,000 persons. In order to immerse these in one year and an half, allowing only a minute for the immersion of each, he must have been constantly in the water every day, for more than fifteen hours. Is it credible that he should do this? Especially is it, since we are assured that he

"did no miracle?" (John x. 41.) Is it credible, then, that in ordinary cases John baptized by immersion ?*

Mr. J. has also noticed the circumstances of the eunuch's baptism. Suppose we at once grant that the eunuch was immersed. This would be merely granting that immersion is baptism-a point which we neither need, nor wish, to call in question. We, however, see no reason to suppose that the eunuch was immersed. No circumstance indicates it, except it is said that both he and Philip went down into, or (is) to, the water; and afterwards came up out of, or (ix) from it. (Acts viii. 38.) And these they might, and probably would have done, had the eunuch been sprinkled.†

The baptism of the three thousand next claims our attention. The scriptures afford us not a single incident that would lead to the conclusion that this multitude were immersed. On the contrary, they furnish many circumstances which indicate the necessity of some other mode. The occasion was unexpected; the multitude were principally strangers, and had made no previous preparation for a change of garments; they were in Jerusalem, "twenty miles from Jordan and Enon;" no publick baths had been engaged, or could be, as the whole city was violently opposed to the Christians; no mention is made of their leaving the place, not even the house where they were assembled; and above all-the time was short. The apostles came together at "the third hour," or nine o'clock. Besides the discourse of which we have an epitome in the Acts, it is said they "testified and exhorted with many other words." (Acts ii. 40.) Three thousand were awakened, convinced, converted, professed their faith in Christ, and concluded to be baptized, All these transactions could not possibly have passed in less than four hours. Five hours now remained; and three thousand were to be baptized by twelve men, Could they be immersed? Bating the time which must unavoidably elapse in repairing to the water, and making the necessary preparations; were each of the apostles to be constantly employed, but a trifle more than a minute could be allotted for the immersion of cach.-In order to avoid these difficulties, Mr. J. observes,

See CHAPLIN on the Sacraments, pp. 111-118.

+ See HENRY's Commentary on the place.

in the first place, it is not recorded that the three thousand "were baptized the same day, but that they were added to the disciples." (P. 7.) It is recorded that "they who gladly received, the word were baptized." (Acts ii. 41.) And were any added to the disciples who did not "gladly receive the word?" If not, none were added to the disci ples who were not baptized.-He farther suggests, that, were they all baptized the same day, it would not be impossible for the twelve, assisted by the seventy, and perhaps by the hundred and twenty, to administer the ordinance by immersion. (P. 7.) Were, then, the whole hundred and twenty, females as well as males, officially qualified to administer baptism ?—The whole chapter makes it evident, that none were employed in this matter but the twelve apostles. When Peter lifted up his voice and preached, it is said he stood up "with the eleven." (Acts ii. 14.) And when the multitude" were pricked in their heart," they sought for direction "to Peter, and the rest of the apostles." (V. 37.*) There cannot, therefore, remain a doubt, that the three thousand were baptized the same day they believed, and by the hands of the twelve apostles. They were undoubtedly baptized in the house where they first assembled, and probably by affusion or sprinkling.t

He

In the baptism of Paul, nothing looks like immersion, but every circumstance appears against it. He had been three days in Damascus, "without sight, and neither ate nor drank." (Acts ix. 9.) Ananias comes in, and salutes him as a Christian brother. Immediately he rises up, and receives the ordinance of baptism. And after baptism, "when he had received meat, he was strengthened.' does not repair to a river or a bath, or even leave the room; nor is it likely that in his weak state he was able to leave it; but there he rises up, and is baptized. With the precise mode of Paul's baptism we do not pretend to be acquainted; but we do suppose it almost demonstrably certain, that he was not immersed.

The instance of Cornelius and his family is equally convincing. They believed, on the preaching of Peter; the

*Compare Acts i. 26, with ii. 1.

+ WITSIUS' Econ. of Cov. vol. iii. p. 392. 215-219; and Dr. J. SCOTT, in Acts ii. 41.

See also ii. 42, 43.

See also REED's Apology, PR1