MODERN IMMERSION 
 
 
 SCRIPTURE BAPTISM 
 
 ' 0? THE 
 
 fgirtvlsRSiTT] 
 
 &IFJ 
 
 BY WILLIAM THORN, 
 fi 
 
 AUTHOR OF « LECTURES ON THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH,' &c. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY HOLDSWORTH AND BALL, 
 
 18, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YAKD. 
 
 18:31. 
 
3X811 
 
 / 
 
 BOBBINS AND WHEELER, PRINTERS. 
 
TO 
 
 THE REV. JOHN GRIFFIN, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT CHURCH AND CONGREGATION, 
 
 PORTSEA, AND SENIOR MEMBER OF THE 
 
 'HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION;' 
 AND TO ALL 
 
 THE OTHER MINISTERS AND GENTLEMEN 
 
 COMPOSING THAT RESPECTABLE BODY; 
 
 THE FOLLOWING TREATISE, 
 ENTITLED 
 
 'MODERN IMMERSION NOT SCRIPTURE BAPTISM,' 
 
 IS INSCRIBED 
 
 BY THEIR VERY OBEDIENT 
 
 HUMBLE SERVANT, 
 
 WILLIAM THORN. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. 
 
 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 I. Respecting religious controversies in general. 
 
 II. Respecting the Baptist controversy in particular. 
 
 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE STATED. 
 
 PART FIRST. — A statement, examination, and refuta- 
 tion, of the arguments employed in support of the exclu- 
 sive system of immersion-baptism. p age 
 A summary of the Baptists' arguments - -42 
 A few preparatory and explanatory remarks - ib. 
 
 Sect. I. — The natural conclusions of common readers. 
 The remarks of the Baptists on this head - 47 
 
 1. But most common readers decide against them - 48 
 
 2. Theirjudgment depends on the words of the learned 49 
 
 3. If their decisions are valid, learning is useless - 51 
 
 4. The doctrines of scripture plainer than ceremonies 53 
 
 5. Our positions accord with divine benevolence - 54 
 
 6. Human testimonies condemned and referred to - 55 
 
 7. Reference to the Old Test, necessary and proper 56 
 
 8. Gospel precepts harmonize with our views - 57 
 
 Sect. II. — The concessions of numerous Pedobaptists. 
 The reasonings of the Baptists on this point - 58 
 
 1. Several postulates on arguments ad hominem - 59 
 
 2. The quotations themselves subject to correction 60 
 
 3. The B. regard these writers as strangely inconsistent 61 
 
 4. They renounce the principle of such evidence - 63 
 
Tl ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. 
 
 5. The concessions in accordance with sprinkling - M 
 
 6. Pedobapti-t writers not honestly treated - - (>:> 
 
 7. Sueh a mode of reasoning very objectionable - 67 
 
 8. The Baptist! make them concede too much 
 
 9. Open communionists concede the validity of spr. (> ( .) 
 
 10. Close communionists strangely inconsi-u nt - 70 
 
 11. When in our citations differ from theirs - - 7 C 2 
 Sect. III.— The history of the Christian Church. 
 The arguments of the Baptists on this subject - 7 1 
 
 1. They do not know how baptism was administered ib. 
 
 do not follow the ancient modes - - 75 
 
 3. disclaim all historical evidence - - 77 
 
 1. Antiquity favours pouring as well as dipping - 80 
 
 5. Baptismal regeneration, kc. old as dipping - 82 
 
 6. The concessions of Pedobaptists accounted for 83 
 
 7. Instances of aspersion baptism in early times - 84 
 
 8. Why dipping was first introduced - - - 86 
 
 9. The Greek church opposed to the Baptists - 89 
 1 0. The Church of England no rule for their guidance 93 
 
 Sect. IV. — The meaning of the Greek word baptizo. 
 
 The sentiments of the Baptists on its import - 95 
 
 They make this the hinge of the debate - - 97 
 
 1 . The primary sense of words examined - - 98 
 
 2. Baptizo might not be used in its primary sense 99 
 
 3. Dipping not the primary meaning of it - - 100 
 
 4. Bapto never used for Christian baptism - - 109 
 
 5. Lexicographers on the word baptize - - 103 
 
 6. Baptists translation of it in Greek w i - 104 
 
 7. Different applications of the word - 106 
 8» More extended translations of it - - - 107 
 9. Other passages in Greek authors - - - 108 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. vii 
 
 Page 
 
 10. Deductions, and Mr. Booth's assumptions - 109 
 
 11. The sense of it in the Sept. and Apocrypha - 111 
 
 12. The texts where it occurs examined - - 1 13 
 
 13. Inferences from these expositions - - - 119 
 
 14. Baptizo synonymous with tabid and tingo - 120 
 
 15. The sense of the term in the New Testament - 122 
 
 16. The verb translated by the word to plunge - 126 
 
 17. Objections respecting cheo and r/iantizo answered 128 
 
 18. The Cyro-Chaldaic translation of baptize - 129 
 
 19. Vague terms employed for dipping - - 130 
 
 20. These terms examined and proved defective - 132 
 
 21. This topic further illustrated - 134 
 
 22. The folly of such phraseology exposed - - 136 
 
 23. Conclusions from the above enquiry - - 137 
 
 Sect. V.— The import of four Greek prepositions. 
 The prepositions, and arguments founded on them 1 39 
 
 1. The Baptists make them express too much - ib. 
 
 2. Total submersion not proved by them - - 140 
 
 3. Nor immersion in any degree - - - 1 42 
 
 4. Schleusner's definitions of them - 143 
 
 5. Their various translations in the English Bible 144 
 
 6. Several passages rendered on B. principles - 145 
 
 7. The versatile character of them established - 146 
 
 8. Conclusions, with Cox and Robinson's remarks- 149 
 
 Sect. VI. — The circumstances of the first N. T. baptisms. 
 Baptists' inference from bapt. in Jordan and Enon 1 50 
 
 1. This a departure from positive precepts, &c. - 151 
 
 2. John's baptism not a Christian rite - - ib. 
 
 3. No proof of his dipping into Jordan - - 153 
 
 4. No proof of immersion in Enon - - - 154 
 6. Great waters very unsuitable for dipping - - 160 
 
VU1 ANALYSIS OF THE W< 
 
 ?m 
 
 Sect. VII. — ( 'trim* allusions to scripture bapt 
 
 1. Of the Hebrews 111 th> I! • .; Bm - - -163 
 
 2. Of Noah ami his family in the ark - - 164 
 
 3. The sufferings of Christ and hisdi.-ciple* - - 165 
 
 4. Thf virtual sufferings of Ix'lievers in Chrilt - 168 
 Sect. VIII. — The immutable nature of 'script lure prcced 
 
 Declaration of the BaptifltB on this head - 1 s.i 
 
 1. They know not the original mode of baptism - IS 1 
 Their assertions on a definitive mode considered 1 86 
 God the only judge how plain to render it - 187 
 
 Has granted a latitude in other ins'.itutions - 188 
 
 The Lord's Supper not minutely modified - 100 
 The conjectures of the Baptists considered - ib. 
 
 3. They omit many positive institutions 
 
 4. They do many things not commanded - - 19J 
 
 5. Their vindication of these things examined - 1 95 
 
 6. Deductions from the preceding remarks - - 198 
 PART SECOND. — A variety of circumstantial evidence, 
 
 proving that pouring or sprinkling is the only proper 
 
 mode of scripture baptism. 
 A particular view of the question in debate - 199 
 Circumstantial evidence alone available - - 200 
 
 Summary of the subsequent arguments - - 202 
 
 Sect. I. — The contradictions and difficulties of the Baptists. 
 Reasons for adducing them in this plac - 203 
 
 1. Contradictions resperting the word baptize - 204 
 Affirm it means only and always to dip - - ib. 
 Admit it signifies other modes of action 
 
 2. Their various unsupported contrivances - - 207 
 
 For John's dipping his converts with decency - ib. 
 For baptizing the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. IX 
 
 Page 
 
 And for the Jailor and family at midnight - 209 
 
 3. Their polemical tact and manccuvrings - - 210 
 
 Resting on human authority and condemning it - ib. 
 Contend against inference and yet infer - - 211 
 
 Prove too much, and therefore nothing - - 213 
 
 Views of the figurative use of the verb baptize - 214 
 When the element descends, they talk of quantity 215 
 Specimens of inconclusive arguments - - ib. 
 
 Lay great stress on the solemnity of dipping - 217 
 Differ among themselves as to the design of bapt. 218 
 Their arguments on the arrangement of words refut. 220 
 Their literal interpretation of scripture examined 221 
 The administrator, subject, &c. of bapt. no*defin. 223 
 Their mode of reasoning very incongruous - 225 
 
 Sect. II. — The frequent application of the word baptize. 
 Circumstances, not terms, must settle the dispute 226 
 Often, however, used for pouring as the action - 227 
 
 1. By Greek writers in general - ib. 
 
 2. In the Septuagint and Apocrypha - - - 231 
 
 3. In the New Testament ... - 236 
 
 4. Objections stated and answered - - 241 
 Bapto and rhantizo used for different actions - ib. 
 There is no certainty in language - ib. 
 Pouring or sprinkling not proveable - - 242 
 
 Sect. III. — The mode of baptism among the Jews. 
 
 Ceremonies, called baptism, common among them 243 
 
 1. Robinson's classification of Jewish washings - 245 
 
 2. Sprinkling synonymous with cleansing, &c. - ib. 
 
 3. Sprinkling a part, a total purification - •- 246 
 
 4. Most purifications for partial defilement - 248 
 
 5. Purifications instit. where dipping was impossible l 2V.) 
 
X ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. 
 
 Various texts cited by Hobinson for clipping 
 
 7. Jewish purifications, personal and ministerial - '2.5 1 
 
 Personal purifications not baptism - - 252 
 
 Ministerial purifications always by sprinklin. 
 
 - Moses' washing Aaron, &c. no exception - 25 4 
 
 9. Gospel baptism analogous to legal anointing - 256 
 
 10. Solomon's brazen sea not to bathe in - - 257 
 
 11. Heathen sprinkling the same as Jewish baptism - 258 
 
 12. Spoils of war cleansed by sprinkling - - 260 
 I J. Personal baptisms in the days of Christ - - 262 
 
 14. This further illustrated from John ii. 6. - - 264 
 
 15. And also from M ark vii. 1-9. - 265 
 
 16. Joseph us on the washing of the Essens - - 266 
 
 17. Objection to this reasoning answered - - 268 
 
 18. Deductions from the preceding remarks - - 270 
 
 Sect. IV. — Several instances of scripture baptism. 
 
 1 . Baptism administered on conviction - - 272 
 
 2. The people were not prepared for dipping - 274 
 
 3. Difficulties in case they had second suits - - ib. 
 
 4. If they had not, the difficulties increased - 275 
 
 5. Different expressions on river and city baptisms - 276 
 
 6. No instance of refusing to baptize - 277 
 
 7. The Ethiopian Eunuch only affused - - 279 
 The Greek terms indefinite here • ib. 
 The place unfavourable for dipping - - 280 
 The water without a name - -281 
 
 Going into the water not baptizing • - ib. 
 
 No proof that they went into the water at all - 282 
 
 M ust have gone to the water for affusion - - ib. 
 
 A dipping would have been very indelicate - 283 
 
 8. The blessed Redeemer not immersed - - 284 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. XI 
 
 Page 
 
 The terms will not prove immersion - - 281 
 
 Nor his coming up out of the water - - 285 
 
 There is evidence that he was afiused, &c. let; - U>. 
 
 9. Cornelius and his family only affused - - 288 
 
 10. The Samaritans, Paul, and the Jailor - - 290 
 
 1 1 . Deductions from the preceding narratives - - 293 
 
 Sect- V. — The numbers baptized by John and the apostles. 
 
 1. The baptism of the multitudes by John - - 294 
 John alone baptized his converts - 295 
 Baptized the population in six months - - 296 
 May be supposed to have dipped 2,000,000 - ib. 
 This is impracticable ----- 298 
 Could not have dipped a tenth of them - - 299 
 All could have been affused with ease - - 300 
 Baptized according to some known scheme - 301 
 No new specification of baptism given him - ib. 
 John's baptism being from heaven no objection - 302 
 The present practice of John's disciples - - 303 
 
 2. Of the 3,000 at Jerusalem - - - -304 
 The time very limited, five or six hours - - 305 
 The twelve disciples could not have done it - ib. 
 If more engaged, more places of baptisms - 306 
 There must have been examining them - - 307 
 There are difficulties as to dress, &c. &c. - - 308 
 
 3. Numerous baptisms subsequently administered - 317 
 
 4. Mr. Booth's solution of the difficulty considered 319 
 
 Sect. VI. — The baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 1 . The baptism of the Spirit and of water conjoined 321 
 
 2. The promises of the Old Testament examined - 323 
 
 3. The representations of the Old Testament - 324 
 
 4. The mode of his coming in the New Testament 325 
 
XII ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. 
 
 Page 
 
 The baptism of the Spirit, by pouring, conceded 326 
 
 6. Jewish and spiritual consecration analogous - 327 
 
 7. The baptism of the Spirit an anointing - - ib. 
 
 8. The objection, founded on Acts ii. '2, aiiimind 328 
 
 Sect. VIII. — The numerous difficulties all- nding immers. 
 
 1. Positive laws yield to moral obligations - - 332 
 
 2. The dread of most to be plunged under water - 334 
 
 3. The case of aged and sickly converts - - 337 
 
 4. Dipping liable to great indelicacy - 338 
 4.*Destroys all devotion in the baptized - - 346 
 
 5. Difficulties affecting the minister - 348 
 
 6. Obstacles arising from climate and manners - 350 
 
 7. Seldom know when baptism is entire - - 351 
 
 8. An objection to this reasoning answered - - 354 
 
 S ect . VIII. — Du nger of dipp ing in ma ny cas( s . 
 
 Several cures said to have arisen from dipping - 357 
 
 1. But they are incidental and fortuitous - - 359 
 
 2. Bathing recommended by physicians considered 360 
 
 3. Accidents do not arise from want of skill or faith 362 
 I. Should not sacrifice truth through fear of conseq. 364 
 
 5. Cases of accidents kept very secret - 365 
 
 6. Dangers of dipping illustrated - 366 
 Dangers are often apprehended - ib. 
 Dangers of temporary influence - 369 
 Dangers fatal in their consequence - - - 371 
 
 7. Several inferences and observations - - - 373 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 1 . Remarks on the mode of the investigation - 376 
 
 Recapitulation of the evidence employed - 
 .:. Deductions from the whole enquiry - -380 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 IN submitting the following Discussion to the religious 
 public — (the substance of which the author delivered to his 
 congregation May 11, 1828) — it may be proper to make 
 the subsequent prefatory remarks, in addition to those 
 which will be found in the introductory observations. 
 
 I. It appears to the author, after all that has been pub- 
 lished on the ' mode of baptism,' that a treatise like the 
 present was desirable and requisite. On this conviction, 
 as well as in compliance with the advice of several pious 
 and intelligent friends, who either heard the sermons from 
 the pulpit, or have since perused the enlarged manuscript 
 copy, he now sends the work into the world. Nor can 
 the Antipedobaptists, who have so recently mooted the 
 controversy, by the publication or re-printing of books on 
 this topic, complain of the appearance of his volume at the 
 present time. 
 
 II. What he has written on this subject is done to the 
 best of his ability. The controversy has long and devoutly 
 engaged his attention — almost every work of importance, 
 on both sides of the question, has been carefully read, and 
 some of them repeatedly — the arguments in them have 
 been maturely weighed — and what was deemed material 
 
 B 
 
I1T ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 to i! . in (ho ensuing disserta- 
 
 tion. — He begs, however, to observe, that though he hai 
 
 mad' able use of the writings of i ' iptist 
 
 brethren, he sh ill not deem himself involved io tl • 
 
 measure by any thing they may have advance d contrary to 
 his own opinions. 
 
 III. In the composition of this treatise, he has aimed more 
 cially at three tilings : — Brevity, without which a work 
 
 of this nature will seldom be read by the busy— Per 
 cuity, without which it could not be understood by the 
 multitude — Conviction, without which all his labour would 
 be lost. Large, abstruse, or expensive publications, 
 do little general good or harm to any opinion. It may be 
 proper to observe, also, that, from an unvarying effort at 
 condensation of matter, amusing episodes and flowers of 
 rhetoric are necessarily excluded. This omission, however, 
 to the patient and studious enquirer after truth, will be 
 rather a commendation of the volume than otherwise. 
 
 IV. The circumstances which first induced the author 
 to investigate the mode of baptism so extensively were the 
 following : — A few years ago, he resided in another part of 
 the country. In his neighbourhood lived a very res; 
 able and excellent Baptist minister; and, at a village des- 
 titute of dissenting worship, not far from his residence, a 
 home-missionary, of t!ie Independent denomination, com- 
 menced his labours. The good Baptist, and some of his 
 
 le, became rather uneasy at having a Pedobaptist 
 
 BO near them. A kind of outcry was raised — 
 
 books and letters, dissuasive of infant sprinkling, were sent 
 
 him — a paper war was threatened. The missionary, having 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. XV 
 
 little time for such controversial pursuits, solicited the author 
 to become his champion. To this he consented, and, con- 
 sequently, requested the Baptist minister that, if he was 
 resolved to debate the subject, to send him his epistles. He 
 at first declined; but, about a week after, his servant 
 arrived with a long letter respecting ' The Mode of Baptism/ 
 in the form of interrogations. In answer to this, eight elabo- 
 rate letters were successively returned, with a request that 
 they might be corrected. No reply, however, was sent to 
 any one of them. This induced a still further investigation ; 
 and hence were collected the materials which compose the 
 ensuing treatise. 
 
 V. To aid the judgment of the reader, a list of Baptist 
 writers, cited or alluded to in the subsequent pages, with 
 the titles and editions of their publications, is here sub- 
 joined : — 
 
 Anderson, W. ' Intr. &c. to Taylor's B. Just.' Loud. 1818. 
 
 Birt, Isaiah, * Defence of Scripture Baptism.' Plym. n. d. 
 
 ,, ,, ' Strictures on Mr. Mend'sPamphlet.'Ib. 1797. 
 
 „ „ ' Vindication of the Baptists.' Bristol, 1793. 
 
 Birt, J. ' A Letter to Dr. Ralph Wardlaw.' Lond. 1825. 
 
 Booth, A. ' Pedobaptism Examined,' 2 vols. lb. 1787. 
 
 „ „ * Defence of Pedobaptism Examined.' lb. 1792. 
 
 „ „ ' An Apology for the Baptists.' lb. 1813. 
 
 Burt, Job, ' A Treatise on Baptism.' lb. 1732. 
 
 Butterworth, J. ' Conference Weighed.' Coventry, 1784. 
 
 „ ' Vindication of Ditto.' lb. 1785. 
 
 Cox, Dr. ■ Reply to Ewing, Dwight, &c.' Lond. 183 \. 
 
 Countryman, ' On the Cand. of P. Edwards.' lb. 1795. 
 
 D' An vers, H. * Treatise on Baptism.' lb. 1675. 
 
XVt ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 \ > If. I Innoc. and Truth Yincl.' Lond. 1676. 
 
 „ n < A Sec. Reply fa M of theTr. 
 
 ,, „ 'A Rejoinder to Wlllfl'fl Vindiciai.' lb. 
 
 • \ Third feffr.' 1070. 
 
 Dore, J. * Pref. to Antip. and Fein. Com. Consis. lb. 1795. 
 
 ,, „ * Sermons on Baptism.' lb. I 
 
 Evans, Dr. J. &c. ' lectures on Baptism.' lb. I 
 
 Fellows, J. ' Hymns on Believers' Bapt.' Birming. 1773. 
 
 Foot, W. ■ A Prae. Disc, concern. Bapt.' Warmin. 1820. 
 
 Gale, Dr. J. * Reflections on Wall's Hist.' Lond. 1820. 
 
 Gibbs, G. * Baptism of Believers by Immersion.' lb. lfV2<J. 
 
 Gill, Dr.* Ser. and Tracts,' 4to. v. 2. p. 196-533. 1773. 
 
 ,, ,, ' Testimonies of Ancient Writers.' lb. 
 
 „ ,, ' Infant Bapt. a Part and Pillar of Popery.' lb. 
 
 „ ,, * Infant Baptism an Innovation.' lb. 
 
 „ ,, * Baptism a Divine Commandment.' lb. 
 
 ,, „ ' The Ancient Mode of Bapt. by Immers.' lb. 
 
 n „ < A Defence of Ditto.' lb. 
 
 Hall, Robt. ' Essential Difference, kc' Lond. 1823. 
 
 Jenkins, Dr. J. * Inconsist. of Inf. Sprink.' Wre\. I 
 
 „ „ ' Calm Rep. to De Courcy's Rej.' lb. 1778. 
 
 „ ., ' A Defence of the Baptists.' Lond. 1795. 
 
 Reach, Benj. ' An Answer to Mr. .las. Owen.' lb. 1690. 
 
 Kinghorn, J. ■ A Reply to Mr. P. Edwards.' Nor, 1796. 
 
 Maclean, A.* Miscellaneous Wo. It Edin. 1811. 
 
 „ „ ■ Letters addressed to J. Glass.' lb. 
 
 ,, ' On Chi mmwif lb. 
 
 „ ., * Defence of Believers' Baptism.' lb. 
 
 „ ,, • Strii Mr. Carter's Remarks.' lb. 
 
 ,, ,, ' I/etter to a ('• lent.' lb. 
 
 Newman, Dr. W. ■ Tin- Perpetuity of Haj)t.' Lond. 1820. 
 
 „ „ * Baptismal Immersion.' lb. 1819. 
 
: 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. XVII 
 
 Paice, Henry, ' Infant Baptism Considered.' Lond. 1796. 
 IVnnv,S. ■ The Script. Doct. of Chris. Bap. Birm. 1794. 
 Rees, D. ' Inf. Bapt. no Instit. of Christ.' Lond. 1734. 
 Robinson, R. ' The History of Baptism.' lb. 1790. 
 
 Kyland, Dr. J. ' Candid Statements.' lb. 1827. 
 
 Stennett, J. ' Answer to Mr. Russen.' lb. 1704. 
 
 „ „ Dr. S. ' Answer to Addington.' lb. 1775. 
 
 VI. Should the inquisitive reader desire to examine the 
 Pedobaptist side of the question more fully than the fol- 
 lowing concise dissertation will enable him, the subsequent 
 authors, whose names shall be merely mentioned, and some 
 of whose observations are hereafter referred to, and often 
 without a specific acknowledgment, will afford him ample 
 
 and convincing 
 
 arguments. 
 
 
 
 Addington 
 
 Edwards 
 
 Miller 
 
 Tyreman 
 
 Baxter 
 
 Evans 
 
 Munro 
 
 Urwick 
 
 Boston 
 
 Ewing 
 
 Osgood 
 
 Walker 
 
 Bostwick 
 
 Fleming 
 
 Pirie 
 
 Wall 
 
 Bradbury 
 
 Hammond 
 
 Russen 
 
 Wardlaw 
 
 Brekell 
 
 Henry 
 
 Taylor 
 
 Williams 
 
 De Courcy 
 
 Isaac 
 
 Towgood 
 
 Wills 
 
 VII. The author, as far as he knows, has fairly and 
 fully stated all the material objections and arguments of his 
 opponents, correctly cited their publications, and, in every 
 respect, openly and candidly opposed their system, and 
 zealously laboured to maintain his own. Nor has he, in any 
 instance, adopted a species of reasoning or polemical dis- 
 cussion, of which the Baptists have not afl'orded numerous 
 and striking precedents. Hence they cannot justly com- 
 plain of the manner observed in conducting this contro- 
 ls 3 
 
IVIll ADVIRl 
 
 versy. Since the c!- red I'roin 
 
 the pulpit, the work ,tbly enbi 
 
 with such critical and other remark 
 
 suited to a promiscuous assembly ; though the style of a 
 public address has been preserved throughout. 
 
 VIII. He has also been very particular in giving his 
 authorities for all the material passages collected from hif 
 opponents, and arranged in the ensuing pages. This method 
 he deems of considerable utility in all controversial publi- 
 cations ; and as a matter of course in the present enquiry. 
 
 ill the more important points in dispute, the sentiments 
 of several writers have been collated, for the purpose of 
 showing that they are not the opinions of some isolated and 
 unaccredited authority. 
 
 IX. He begs to request the courteous reader that he 
 will peruse the work all through with attention and can- 
 dour ; or, to use the words of Mr. Maclean, ' that he will 
 1 not satisfy himself with carping at occasional inadverten- 
 1 cies, but candidly consider the scope and force of the argu- 
 ' ments ; and especially the scriptures adduced in support of 
 1 tfaem. 1 To throw aside a book on account of a few real 
 or fancied discrepancies, or to condemn all the arguments, 
 because of some trifling mistake or illogical deduction, is 
 incompatible with the candour we profess to exercise while 
 •eeJking after truth in spiritual matters. Nor would it be 
 
 -tent with an earnest desire to obtain correct and 
 ample information on a religious subject of acknowledged 
 difficulty, for a person to decline the perusal of a volume 
 because certain parts of it may *p| vhat tediou-.— - 
 
 which, in discussions of this kind, ire often unavoidable. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. XIX 
 
 X. As the ultimate object of the following treatise is the 
 maintenance of what the writer most conscientiously con- 
 siders to be the truth and the revealed will of God, he pre- 
 sumes no pious, judicious, or candid individual will charge 
 him with improper motives in making it public. Should 
 any person discover any material errors in facts or argu- 
 ments, of which he is not aware, and respectfully announce 
 them to the author, they shall be frankly and publicly re- 
 nounced. As for empty declamation, unsupported assertions, 
 and mortified ridicule, they will meet with no reply from 
 the author. 
 
 XI. The writer, however, will not dissemble his reluct- 
 ance in publishing the ensuing pages ; not from any mis- 
 givings as to the goodness of his cause or the force of his 
 evidence ; but from a fear of paining the minds, and for- 
 feiting the friendship of many good people among his op- 
 ponents. He regards the Baptists, on the whole, as a body 
 of believers equalled by few, and surpassed by none, in 
 many of the brightest excellencies of Christianity. But, as 
 he can peruse their polemical writings, some of which are 
 quite as highly spiced as his own, without losing a particle 
 of his great esteem and affection for them, he would fain 
 anticipate a like indulgence on their part. From the pious, 
 candid, and intelligent, his expectations are sanguine ; but, 
 if even disappointed, his regard for what he considers the 
 mind of Christ, must ever be the preponderating influence 
 in the scale of his operations. 
 
 XII. The writer cannot close these prefatory remarks 
 without expressing his great obligations to those ministers 
 and friends who have favoured him with the loan of books 
 
XX ADVKRTWEMRIfT. 
 
 to facilitate hit enquiries, with mon? to aid hia 
 
 judgment, tod \\ith the exertion of their influence to pro- 
 
 B the sale of this publication. He returns them his 
 
 ill thank-, end i the wurk, as cora- 
 
 Bd, will meet their entire approbation. With much 
 
 diffidence, he now commits it to the blessing of God ami 
 
 the candour of the Christian public. 
 
MODERN IMMERSION 
 
 NO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 
 'V op th:^ 
 
 ACCORDING to o^^CafiuxoMfwfement, we pur- 
 pose directing your attention to the long-agitated subject of 
 Christian baptism : and have selected the following text as 
 the basis of our future observations :— 
 
 Matt. iii. 11 — ' I, indeed, baptize you with wider unto re- 
 
 * pentance ; but he that cometh after me is mightier than 
 1 I, whose shves I am not worthy, to bear : he shall bap- 
 
 * tize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire' 
 
 But, before we proceed to the more immediate discussion 
 of the topic in hand, it will be requisite to make a few 
 
 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 FIRST. RESPECTING RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES IN GENERAL. 
 
 i. It is proper and requisite that all who profess any dis- 
 tinctive or generally controverted tenets in religion, should 
 be fully convinced that they are certainly scriptural and 
 obligatory on them. To embrace any doctrine merely be- 
 cause our fathers believed it, or because it happens to be 
 
current, or to practice any ceremonies because they are 
 
 !}>ous or common, i- 
 of those who are com to l Prove all 
 
 1 dllDgS, and to hold fast that w 
 
 ii. The usual apathy of religious professors in the pre- 
 ecting the great doctrines and duties oi 
 gospel, is a source of d to most persons duly in- 
 
 -ted in the welfare of the church ; and w hen placed in 
 comparison with the enquiry and information of believers 
 m former times, makes them mourn over the indifference 
 of the age in which they live. 
 
 Ill, To ascertain ' the mind of the Spirit,' in many cases, 
 is a matter of considerable difficulty — requiring all the re- 
 search, judgment, and assistance, divine and human, which 
 can be given or obtained. Every on presumes 
 
 that his views of religion are clear and correct, and is often 
 surprised that any person should attempt to overturn his 
 irrefragable positions ; but he forgets that, after all, he may 
 1) • mistaken, and that truth may be found on the other side 
 of the debate. 
 
 iv. A large portion of the professing population subsu- 
 tute sincerity of motives for the investigation of truth — 
 supposing that mere good intentions are as acceptable to 
 God as correct principles. But, while sincerity is essential 
 to vital devotion, it> separation from revealed truth would 
 be destructive; of Christianity — otherwi.-e every false reli- 
 gion would be as good as that of the u r — 
 for aught we know, being equally 
 
 v. Multitudes make a wide anil improper distinction 
 between what they deno 1 and non-essential 
 
 truth. When any scriptural doctrine or duty i 
 them, they coolly reply, ' Perhaps it is true, but not requi- 
 
23 
 
 ' cite to salvation.' Some things are confessedly more im- 
 portant than others ; but * All scripture is given by inspi- 
 1 ration of God ;' therefore, purposely lo overlook or under- 
 value any revealed truth, however trivial in our esteem, 
 and not to practice any sacred duty, however small it may 
 appear to us, are unworthy of a Christian, and criminal in 
 the sight of Christ — as it indirectly charges him with com- 
 manding what is not necessary to be done. 
 
 vi. There are many weak persons who imagine, or pre- 
 tend to believe, that the sense which ' poor plain people* 
 put on the sacred scriptures, must be the true one, because 
 their minds are not imbued with the sophistry of the schools, 
 nor perverted by the delusions of philosophy, and because 
 the Bible was written for the poor, and, of course, adapted 
 to their comprehension. That there are many passages 
 which plain people may interpret aright, is not to be ques- 
 tioned ; but that there are numerous texts which they can- 
 not comprehend without the assistance of others, must 
 surely be admitted. If the poor are not polluted by learn- 
 ing, they are equally depraved by nature and more blinded 
 by ignorance. If the objection were universally true, know- 
 ledge would be an evil ; at least, it would be of no advan- 
 tage — the ancient schools of the prophets must have been 
 superfluous — and the religious seminaries of the present day 
 might be immediately abolished. Hut this doctrine is only 
 adduced to favour a system which is upheld by ignorance 
 rather than wusdom. 
 
 vii. There is also an evil, common among most persua- 
 sions, consisting in a forcible resistance of the convictions 
 produced by opposing truth. Many tell us they will never 
 alter their sentiments — they are immovably fixed, and will 
 inviolably maintain their former opinions. Sometimes they 
 
24 
 arge, not only the most frivolent argon -upport of 
 
 their notions, but o be Anita irre- 
 
 levant to , n shut th | any 
 
 observations which tend to impeach the their 
 
 creed or the beaut? of their worship — arrogantly presum- 
 that nothing convincing or worth their attention can be 
 aawagainst it. Thus errors are perpetuated by o 
 and men remain in the dark through wilfully shunning the 
 light. By this method, Protestant churches retain their 
 errors — Popery fo~ luperstitions — and Paganism 
 
 continues to dominate in the world. 
 
 vm. Some go even farther than this, and pretend to be 
 confirmed in their notions, whether right or wrong, by every 
 thing brought against them. And, as this is done by per- 
 sons professing the most opposite sentiments, some of them 
 can either not understand what they read, or must wilfully 
 brave the evidence they cannot impugn. There may be 
 cases when a feeble or injudicious advocate gives vigour to 
 an opponent's belief ; but these do not often occur ; and 
 particularly in respect of the ignorant and inexperienced, 
 who are chiefly the first to take the other side of 81 
 aoch question. Let us be candid, and receive the truth, 
 and implicitly follow its guidance. To be firm and reso- 
 lute only, is tho character of a mule or a pugilist ; but to 
 be conscientious and stable, is the duty of every Christian. 
 
 ix. Many people remain ignorant of various doctrines 
 and duties of scripture through a foolish, and, it may be 
 added, a sinful aversion to what the\ religious 
 
 controversy. You have only to propose to them an expla- 
 nation of certain points, about which various opinions are 
 held by the professing community, and they immediately 
 divert the conversation, or solicit your silence, as they can- 
 
25 
 
 not disturb their tranquil souls by such debated subjt 
 They forget, if they ever knew, that they hardly cherish 
 a religious idea which has not been a matter of grave dis- 
 pute. This conduct is based on self-conceit or mental in- 
 dolence. Taking as unquestionably true their own con- 
 struction of scripture, or relying on the dogmas q£ some 
 first instructor, they hold their darling opinions with the 
 firmest grasp ; nor will they subject them for a moment to 
 the ordeal of a reasonable scrutiny ; while multitudes plead 
 an aversion to controversy, lest it should cause them the 
 trouble of reading and thinking. It is true that moderation 
 in our enquiries is requisite, and that polemical discussions 
 have sometimes been conducted with asperity and rancour. 
 But the evil above referred to exists irrespective of religious 
 restlessness and theological rage. To prefer mental quiet- 
 ude to a rectified judgment is unworthy of the Christian 
 professor. Paul ' preached the gospel with much conten- 
 ' tion ;' and Jude exhorts believers * earnestly to contend 
 1 for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.' 
 
 x. There are others who, being unaccustomed to inves- 
 tigate truth for themselves, and perceiving such a diversity 
 of opinions about religion, think it next to impossible. to 
 ascertain what is right from what is wrong; and that, conse- 
 quently, it is useless for them to attempt the enquiry. 
 1 Such mighty champions,' say they, * have appeared in 
 1 defence of every religious notion, and have brought such 
 1 plausible arguments in support of it, that we are bewil- 
 ' dered with the diversity of their creeds, and must con- 
 ' diode that the truth cannot be discovered.' This reasoning 
 is more plausible than solid. You are to examine the scrip- 
 tures with attention and prayer, and, after availing your- 
 ea of the best helps in your possession or power, are to 
 
. tl.at opinion which appear- | .nant with the 
 
 ( 
 
 worship, and action-, to ( Jhl ndi- 
 
 vidual responsibility involve- the duty of a pen* 
 quiry — nor is truth so difficult of ao 
 candid, and devotional mind as many suppose. At 
 rate, you are to deliberate maturely, and lorn 
 judgment your minds and means will enable you. The 
 -pint of the objection tends to confound truth and error, 
 sin, and holiness — applies to the most lucid, as well M the 
 
 . dictates of inspiration — and wotdd lea v. 
 people of God in never-ending and irremediable p. 
 The Christian's duty is, with an unprejudiced mind, to in- 
 nate the holy oracles, and works illustrative of them — 
 and, after having sought the truth to die utmost of his 
 ability, he may expect either light or mercy — to look for it 
 on any other terms, would be folly and presumption. 
 
 SECONDLY. RESPECTING* THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVIR-N IN 
 PARTICULAR. 
 
 rhe question at issue between us and our 1, 
 •cted Baptist brethren embrace two thing- : — first, the 
 
 proper subject-, and, secondly, the proper mode <>f hap- 
 . Not that these are necessarily or always connec 
 e our opponents tell us that the Antipedob 
 
 Holland, Fra; .Iniinister this rite by poiirin. 
 
 sprinkling, and the Pedobapti>K of the established Greek 
 
 church, by immersion. 1 But, in this country, it i- generally 
 d, that those who reject infant I 
 
 practice of dipping. — \jj^( yvjtl^'^ 
 
 n. T '.-Id subject of Christian baptism, having 
 
 I RobiMOQ, p. 604, 647; Booth, v. ii. p. 479. 
 
27 
 
 long engaged the attention and talents of many great and 
 good men of different denominations, and having, as in most 
 other cases, become more extensive and perplexing, by re- 
 peated discussion, our presuming to adduce every argu- 
 ment in maintenance of our system, or to meet every 
 objection of our antagonists, would be unjustifiable. To 
 present you with the principal reasons on which our prac- 
 tice is founded, and to refute the material evidence of our 
 opponents, are all we can propose, especially within the 
 contracted limits of these discourses. 
 
 m. We have no controversy with our opponents res- 
 pecting the perpetuity of this ceremony in the Christian 
 church — nor about the element to be employed — nor the 
 form of words to be repeated — nor the personal benefit to 
 be derived from the operation. We mutually reject, as su- 
 perstitious and sinful, the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion — the use of sponsers — and the sign of the cross. The 
 qualifications of the candidate, and the mode of applying 
 the water, being the only grounds of difference between us. 
 
 iv. As it would be impossible* at present, to do any 
 thing like justice to the whole matters of debate between 
 us, we must confine our enquiries to one branch of it — 
 and shall select the Mode of Christian baptism as the ex- 
 clusive topic of discussion. And though some may imagine 
 this an immaterial section of the controversy, the following 
 observations will prove it to be of very considerable, if not 
 of paramount, importance. 
 
 1. It has been clearly proved, by a very competent 
 judge, that where the mode of baptism has been dipping, 
 though the subjects have been children, there have never 
 been any sects of Antipedobaptists, or societies of people 
 
■ the baptism of adn I U. WepneOMt, 
 
 therefore, that if ire could be brought to aocotd in the 
 
 nature of the mode, If! should not Ion. 
 the age or character of the suly 
 
 2. It is tfafl only question of personal concern to an\ 
 who are capable of reasoning on the subject. Those who 
 
 rown to years of maturity without having been ! q>- 
 L, in fact or in opinion, can experience no more diffi- 
 culty as to their fitness for the reception of this ordin 
 among the Pedobaptists than among their opponer, 
 seeing both parties require the like qualifications of adults 
 approaching this sacrament. 
 
 3. Ignorant persons are far more impressed, and much 
 oftener converted to the Baptist denomination by the ex- 
 pressions ■ going down into the water, and coming up out 
 
 • of the water,' than with any passages descriptive of the 
 moral fitness of adults for the reception of this rite ; and 
 this is more dwelt upon by our opponents in their public 
 addresses, than the spiritual qualifications of a grown-up 
 candidate. ' Persons/ says Dr. Wall, ' that have any 
 k scruples about their baptism, do not near so much que>- 
 4 tion the validity of their baptism, for that it v. d in 
 
 • infancy, as they do for that they were not dipped into the 
 
 • watt i.' Indeed, our opponents admit, that ' it is p 
 
 4 generally known, that they are as tenacious of the one as 
 1 of the other, and that he niibt be strangely ignorant of 
 'their principles who asserts the contrary." 
 
 4. Our Haptist brethren indeed tell us, 'That it is for 
 possession of faith they contend, and for the evid< 
 
 Wall, v. HI. p. 180. * ibid, p. l.».) ; Dore's Pref. p. 19. 
 
 jnntrynnn, p. 31. 
 
29 
 
 c of that possession ; l that where the thing signified is not, 
 1 the sign is a nullity ; ' that none can be proper subjects of 
 ' baptism, till they are in a state of salvation ; s that it is 
 
 * appointed expressly and exclusively for those, who have 
 4 been regenerated and brought into the covenant of grace 
 ' by the previous operation of the Holy Spirit upon their 
 1 hearts. We know,' say they, ' of no discipleship to 
 ' Christ, upon New Testament principles, that is not 
 
 * founded in a real conversion to God. Baptism is founded 
 
 * upon a work of grace on the heart, without which the 
 ' ordinance is of no value whatever.'* But plain facts 
 are point blank against them. For if any person, without 
 genuine piety, or professing the creed of a Socinian, had 
 been baptized by submersion — such a person, on being 
 really converted to God, and fully embracing the senti- 
 ments held by the Baptist denomination, is not dipped 
 afresh, either to preserve his membership in their churches, 
 or to enter their communion. Though our opponents are 
 as fully convinced of his having been orginally immersed 
 in an unregenerate state, and of his subsequent conversion 
 to God, as of their own existence, they do not reiterate 
 this sacrament upon him. Consequently, with them, the 
 possession of true piety and correct sentiments is not neces- 
 sary to render dipping valid ; nor is the sign without 
 virtue, or esteemed a nullity, though the thing signified 
 were unquestionably wanting ; and people may be dis- 
 ciples of Christ, and be regarded as proper subjects of 
 baptism among our brethren, when they are not in a state 
 of salvation, nor brought into the covenant of grace, nor 
 really converted to God. But, had the holiest man in the 
 
 1 Cox, p. 113. I Keach, p. 34. 3 J. Stennet, p. 48. 
 
 * Gibbs, p. 32, 13!>. 
 
 c 5 
 
m 
 
 l been baptized by pouring or sprinkling, he must, ill 
 
 •II, old or young, submit to in entire dipptn| 
 ould I)*' deemed baptized by our opponents, or admit- 
 
 .'<> theii tocii ty. Hnuv, it is not the cheieotei oj 
 person, but the method of the administration, which I 
 
 baptism valid among them. In fact, if dippm. 
 
 i under water, in the adorable names of ti 
 Trinity, be Christian baptism, and if there be only one 
 baptism, both of which our brethren strenuously maintain,' 
 then infants, (who are surely as fit subjects for beptiH 
 unconverted adults or Socinians,) thus dipped, are really 
 and avowedly baptized ; and must not be dipped again, 
 unless the administrator is willing to submit to the re- 
 nounced, and, by him, detested, appellation of Anaba; 
 or re-baptizer.* Nor is our argument met or mitigated, by 
 Dg the Baptists merely require a profession of faith to 
 render this ordinance valid. For, first, this is not the fact 
 — they mostly look for something more — and, secondly, 
 it appears that the profession of a Pelagian, Antinomian. 
 Arian, or Socinian, is deemed suflicient to give validity to 
 a baptism which, in time, becomes introductory to com- 
 munion with a church of Calvinistic Trinitan 
 
 5. If the matters at issue between us and our esteemed 
 brethren present any difficulties to the generality i 
 they are, as hinted above, ehielly respecting the mode : and 
 if Pedobaptists have slighted either branch of the euutro- 
 >, it is this — i on^ijuently, should the mode be settled 
 to your satisfaction, the dispute, as far as you are conccr 
 would be soon and easily brought to a close. We beg, also, 
 to observe, that should we be again called upon to acK 
 
 > Dore'i Pref. p. 19 ; Jenkio's C K. p. 12. note «. 
 * Booth, rol. li. p. *J7; and Apology, p. 362. 
 
31 
 
 you in defence of our principles on baptism, the qualifica- 
 tions of the candidates shall be the topic of discussion. 
 
 v. To some the entire subject may appear too trivial to 
 command the consideration you are requested to give 
 even a portion of it. But, let it be observed, 
 
 1 . That this, having become a party question, frequently 
 agitated by our differing brethren, the neglect for which 
 many plead, would expose what we deem to be the truth 
 and the existence of our denomination to imminent danger. 
 
 2. That the due administration of a sacrament insti- 
 tuted by Christ to be of perpetual and universal obligation 
 in his kingdom, and to be done in the names of the sacred 
 Trinity, can never be a topic unworthy of our most serious 
 attention. The pains taken by Paul to ensure a proper 
 observance of the Lord's Supper in the church at Corinth, 
 (1 Cor. xi. 20-34,) lead us to infer, that this sister institu- 
 tion, as far as prescribed, should be scrupulously regarded ; 
 and, 
 
 3. That it is calculated to relieve the minds of many 
 good people from a considerable oppression. Immersion is 
 frequently pronounced a heavy cross by our opponents — it 
 is felt to be such by many that submit to it — while some, 
 who fancy it obligatory on them, cannot, through delicacy 
 or dread of consequences, comply with the dictates of their 
 own opinion. The result is, that many imagine themselves 
 living in the neglect of a religious duty, and are often per- 
 plexed in their minds about it. Now, if in the course of 
 this investigation we can prove, that this dipping is not a 
 duty — is not Christian baptism — we shall thereby remove 
 a burden from the spirits of such pious, though mistaken, 
 people— an object worthy, at least, of a strenuous attempt. 
 
 vi. From a long and diligent investigation of this contro- 
 
nluced, at first, by the opposition of certain Bap- 
 
 tO ;i home missionary in another | country, 
 
 the ] iicirs himself folly icquainted with the m 
 
 of the case, and perfectly informed of what his oppoot 
 have said, or, indeed can say, in support of their prar 
 So much research has 0000 made by their advocates and 
 apologist! ; so much learning and ingenuity li 
 brought to operate on their side of the question, and that 
 
 NMM of the best and greatest divines in their denomi- 
 nations, that they must now despair of adding any thing 
 new anil relevant in maintenance of their system. The 
 biographer of the Rev. Abraham Booth observes, and not 
 without reason, ' that his performance [published about 
 4 forty years since] may almost, without an hyperbole, be 
 
 d to have exhausted this controversy on the Baptist side 
 1 of the question ; and the simple enquirer after truth, who 
 • i- not convinced by Mr. Booth's volumes, can hardly be 
 
 peded to yield his judgment to anything that man 
 
 ; say upon this long-contested point.' ' That our op- 
 ponent- have said many things which appear plausible, 
 and BOOM that wear the semblance of solid argument, 
 caOOOt be denied. But as truth can never contra. 
 
 i. and, as by pronouncing ourselves to be right, we 
 them to be WKHlg, WO are obliged to 
 ado, that they have not a Single valid reason in de- 
 fence of their practi.- 
 
 vn. You DO aware that this is the first QJM 
 union a- pastor and people that your attention has been thus 
 
 .ally directed to the subject of bap- \ ul, had it 
 
 notb. *'dly, though conscientious!) , descanted QpOQ 
 
 ;>laci — had not several poor members of this and 
 > Booth's MU. Worki. t. i. p. 40. 
 
other Pedobaptist churches in the neighbourhood, been 
 recently immersed — and had not some of our uneducated 
 hearers been a little perplexed by the solemn and reiterated 
 assertions on the other side of the question, we most as- 
 suredly should have permitted the controversy to have slept 
 in peace. But as it is, the duty we owe to this church and 
 congregation, and to what we deem the will of our divine 
 iVlaster, and the respect due to the wishes of several intelli- 
 gent hearers, forbid our longer silence. We shall, however, 
 conduct this debate with as much tenderness and delicacy 
 towards our opposing brethren, as the nature of the sub- 
 ject will fairly allow — disclaiming every thing like personal 
 hostility to any individual, especially to our Baptist friends 
 in this city, for whom we feel and shall ever cherish a cor- 
 dial affection. 
 
 vin. There are several grounds pointed out by our op- 
 ponents as foundations of their mode of baptism, which may 
 be briefly noticed here, though the principal of them will 
 be more carefully examined in the sequel. Those which 
 are merely colloquial, and of no material weight in the scale 
 of the argument, will be simply mentioned and probably 
 recur no more. 
 
 1 . Our opponents sometimes urge their point on the pre- 
 sumption, that almost every person is of their opinion, but 
 that the majority of them are afraid or ashamed publicly 
 and actually to avow it. * The Pedobaptist churches,' says 
 Dr. Cox, ' contain vast numbers of theoretic Baptists, who 
 ' have discernment enough to appreciate the force of evi- 
 ' dence, but not piety enough to pursue the path of duty.' ' 
 Now, without the production of proof, the declaration is far 
 from ingenuous. Besides, if such were the fact, does it not 
 
 i Reply, p. 6. 
 
follow thai, if immersion be requisite, the delicate and dm 
 
 tul Son of God has, without an\ ostensible reason, in-h- 
 
 d i Bacnmeal in his church for the modest female and 
 
 rest, among others, which shod lings 
 
 and impairs his health. This, few unprejudiced people will 
 believe. As a counterpoise, however, to the doctor's assump- 
 tion, he should have recollected that multitudes of people, 
 denominated Baptists, object to immersion, and pi 
 peraion, or pouring. This is the case with the B 
 Holland, 1 in France," and in parts of America, &c.^ He 
 would do well, also, to enquire whether the Baptist con- 
 gregations do not contain vast numbers of real Pedobap- 
 . who, notwithstanding all they hear about dipping in 
 obedience to a divine command, are still for affusing infants. 
 On what principle has the Rev. Dr. open communion, but 
 to embrace Independents, who have either not discernment 
 enough to appreciate the force of his evidence in favour of 
 plunging, or not piety enough to pursue, what he tei 
 the path of duty I 
 
 2. Though a little remarkable, it is as frequently urged 
 on the other hand, that they are certainly right, because 
 their denomination is comparatively small, and because the 
 multitude is mostly in error. But this is no more an argu- 
 ment for a Baptist than it is for a Socinian, Swedenborgian, 
 or the disciples of Joanna Southcott — each of whom might 
 plead the like argument in support of his views with equal 
 justice and success.* 
 
 3. Our opponents tell us, that desiring to live quiet and 
 peaceable lives, they are mostly respondents in this contro- 
 versy,* and seem to infer something favourable to then 
 
 • Rob. p. 504, 547. 2 Adams's Ml. World Disp. v. ii. p. f». 3 lb. f, 
 
 * Booth, rol. HI. p. 202-20-4. 5 Butt. Conf. p. 3; Kyi. p. 7; QUI, p. 117. 
 
35 
 
 cause from this circumstance. They would have us believe 
 that all their researches among ancient and heathen authors 
 from the philological nature of the works published 
 against them. This, however, if true, by no means bespeaks 
 the purity of their system. The Church of Rome was vio- 
 lently attacked at the reformation ; but their defensive posi- 
 tion said nothing in their favour. Besides, the assertion is 
 not correct. One instance, among many, will show that 
 the Baptists can attack their differing brethren. Dr. Gale's 
 learned and elaborate reply, as he calls it, to Dr. Wall, on 
 the mode of baptism, was entirely uncalled for — as the 
 vicar of Shoreham believed in dipping as much as the pas- 
 tor of Paul's Alley Meeting-house. 1 But they do not say 
 how often they obtrude the subject in many of their pulpits, 
 and dogmatically inculcate their notions in the private cir- 
 cles of their respective neighbourhoods. 
 
 4. They sometimes contend that they are right, because 
 there have been, and still are, so many great and good men 
 of their persuasion. The premises are cheerfully conceded ; 
 but, the inference is entirely gratuitous; because men of 
 equal piety, learning, and laborious research, in far greater 
 numbers, are against them. Further, how many great and 
 good men have there been in the Romish church ; but this 
 is no proof that their system is pure. They also expatiate 
 with delightful satisfaction, on the converts they have re- 
 ceived from other denominations, and exhibit their persons 
 ;is vouchers for the divinity of their cause. But may not 
 Pedobaptists boast of conquests in return, equal in number 
 and intelligence ( However, neither side derives any argu- 
 ment for its verity from such additions, any more than Soci- 
 nians might do, who are never the less unscriptural be- 
 
 l Wall, v. Hi. p. -S. 
 
w Trinitarian- hmte into their dogmas. It would 
 
 ■ mally invalid to their evidence, were they to ima-. 
 
 that because Jehovah is rendering the ministry of the Bap- 
 
 ..'iv luouearful in contorting sinners, and edifying the 
 
 ••hurch, that he therefore approves of their immersion ; since 
 
 this species of reasoning would apply with equal truth to 
 all other Christian denominations, though diflering as widely 
 the Baptists as the Baptists do from thein. 
 
 5. You will also often hear immersion advocated in 
 opposition to pouring; or sprinkling, because oft! 
 
 unity of the service. Here the premises are denied. 
 But, had they been true, no argument could have been 
 fairly founded on the fact, that would not have equall) 
 applied to a Romish mass or an impious tragedy. A cere- 
 mony may be very solemn and yet very unscriptural ; or 
 be very simple, and yet all that God requires or appro\ 
 
 6. Some of them contend, that their mode of baptism i- 
 Wished by the Greek verb, baptizo; 'the primary or 
 
 ' principal meaning of which being to immerse, plunge, or 
 1 dip' — these definitions of it, in many lexicons, preceding 
 the terms to wa-h. wet, tinge, and the like. 1 But this order 
 I argument at all, since the last definition of a word, in 
 certain circumstances, exhibits its meaning as fully BE 
 former, and becomes primary in its place according u 
 connexion in an author. The arrangement is also arbit. 
 and vane- in different lexicon-, as may be discovered I 
 C Ui aory comparison of them. The case of the verbs tubal 
 and tingo, synonymous with b a ptizo and each other, I 
 hereafter noticed, will fully elucidate this sentiment. 
 
 g but the defence of a desperate cause could influence 
 people to place any such dependence on the mere 
 
 ' Coi, p. 42, 123. 
 
37 
 
 position of words in a dictionary — much less to make it, as 
 some have done, a principal support of a party question. 
 
 7. Among other arguments employed, to induce persons 
 previously baptized by affusion to submit to immersion, is 
 the venality of being twice baptized. Dr. Ryland, in his 
 Candid Statements, frequently preached, has the following 
 sentence : ' If infant baptism was really valid, yet surely the 
 ' error of its being done a second time, can hardly appear a 
 1 very heinous mistake — since he is not about to devote 
 ' himself to another, but to God in Christ.' ' Consequently, 
 there is no very heinous evil in Anabaptism, though re- 
 nounced by Mr. Booth with the greatest detestation ; * 
 and were we to baptize by aspersion those who have been 
 previously dipped, it would not be a very heinous mistake. 
 8. Our brethren also fancy a very solid proof in favour 
 of their system flowing from the abuse of this ordinance 
 among a prominent sect in this country. This perversion, 
 if we are not greatly mistaken, gave being to their system, 
 and now supplies materials for its continuance. But let it 
 be remembered, that such a desecration, as above referred 
 to, is not inseparable from the baptism of children by as- 
 persion, and is not often applied to Protestant Dissenters. 
 Further, we enquire whether the dipping of adults is not 
 liable to an equally pernicious perversion ? Look at many 
 around you, who, while enjoying the privileges and foster- 
 ing the hopes of a Christian, are little better than immersed 
 Antinomians or infidels. Moreover, would our opponents 
 submit the truth and tendency of their respective doctrines 
 and ceremonies to the decision of the use which ignorance, 
 superstition, and impiety may make of them ? No, alas ! 
 they would justly reply, ' The best things are most abused ; 
 
 I Ryland, p. 11. n - Booth, vol. ii. p. 97- 
 
nor are the verity and divinity of our opinions and [ 
 tisesat all impeached through their misapplication by l< 
 libertines, or deists.' Such, in principle is our msw< 
 the objection. 
 
 i\. They frequently express their astonishment, that a 
 doctrine so plain and positive in m ripture. as haj)tismal im- 
 mersion, should ever be doubted. They think we must be 
 tute of common sense not to see it, and void of com- 
 mon honesty not to avow it. To demonstrate the astonish- 
 ing perspicuity and overwhelming force of the argument 
 BUp port of their system, some of them very gravely declare, 
 that they were absolutely converted against their will, and 
 that they never would have been Baptists, if they could have 
 helped it ! They also tell us, in explicit terms, that ' we have 
 4 not a word to say for infant sprinkling' l — that our system 
 is maintained ' by the blindness, prejudice, and, perhaps, 
 1 the perverseness of men — and that people ought to di- 
 ' tangle themselves from the ensnaring influence of our e 
 
 * nexion.'* Mr. Anderson adds, with much satisfaction, 
 
 • that the Baptists are right, cannot reasonably l)e doubte. 
 1 le means we lose the right exercise of our reasoning p< 
 even to question the validity of their scheme. But, pro- 
 bably, we shall be able to make it appear, that all th 
 
 d on a little too much confidence in the perfection of 
 their own optical powers and logical faculty rely- 
 
 that cannot be so very glaring, which some of the most holy 
 and intelligent ministers of Christ, seeking and praying for 
 instruction, cannot perceive.' In fact, if escapes th 
 ation of more than nineteen, out of twenty, of our OOUBI 
 
 . A respectable and moderate writer, among our oppo- 
 
 ' Bootb, vol. H. p. 488. « Maclran vol. iii. p. 127. I Intro*!, p. 18. 
 
 * See Bootb, vol. iii. p. 182. 
 
39 
 
 nents makes the following assertion : — ' The Baptists main- 
 1 tain distinct societies for no other reason than to preserve 
 " the purity of the baptismal ordinance; and, if a Baptist 
 1 ministry be not supported, the scriptural baptism must, 
 * without a miracle, be lost.' l This evinces the uncommon 
 stress laid on their administration of this ceremony, and the 
 dissimilarity of their mode and subject to those of all other 
 churches in the world, as will be further shown in its place. 
 
 x. Mr. Booth remarks, that, ' were one of our oppo- 
 ' nents to publish a history of his own practice, in regard to 
 ' [the mode of] baptism, he must either use language dif- 
 4 ferent from that of inspiration, or expose himself to a 
 ' violent suspicion of having deserted the cause he once 
 ' espoused.' 2 But this is not fairly stating the case. Had a 
 person, of Pedobaptist principles, initiated the people into 
 the profession of Christianity at the time, in the country, 
 and under the circumstances mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment, would not his recital have been similar to that given 
 in the original language of inspiration ? We unhesitatingly 
 answer in the affirmative. Let us, in turn, propose a cor- 
 respondent enquiry to our brethren. Were one of our oppo- 
 nents to publish a history of his own practice, in regard to 
 the subjects of baptism, must he not either use language dif- 
 ferent from that of inspiration respecting this matter ; or 
 expose himself to a violent suspicion of having departed 
 from the original institution — and that, too, in cases appa- 
 rently unaffected by time, place, or circumstances ? We 
 reply yes, most assuredly — as their missionary reports bear 
 ample witness. 
 
 xi. The zeal displayed by our Baptist brethren in pro- 
 selyting people to their opinions and practice, is founded 
 
 « Foot, p. 122, 138. « Booth, vol. i. p. 288. 
 
10 
 
 on a principle of nction which all consistent persons HM 
 commend. But the mode oi itiou tl not alv. 
 
 Sable. Many ministers and members of their commu- 
 nion art- in the habit of seizing upon young and ine 
 rienced converts of other denominations during their inci- 
 pient state of Christian knowledge and feeling, when easiU 
 1 tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of 
 4 doctrine ;' and, by bold and positive assertions, appeal- 
 to their fears, and promises to their compliant 1 * — get num- 
 bers of them under water ami into their churches, 1>< ; 
 they are capable of weighing the evidence adduced on either 
 side of the question. * Some have made it essential to sal- 
 4 vation ;' ' and, of course, have pleaded, that no one can go 
 to heaven, except through the baptismal font. This is a 
 method of edifying their cause which symbolizes too much 
 with worldly policy; and being a scheme they would not 
 applaud in us, they cannot expect us to praise it in them. 
 Pedobaptists, however, may take the hint, and better guard 
 their people against the intrusive attacks of their vigilant 
 opponents. 
 
 xii. From the irritable manner of many of our oppo- 
 nents, when we approach the baptismal controversy, one 
 might almost conclude, that the doctrine itself was a leg 
 mate monopoly of their communion. To preach on our 
 side of the subject, or otherwise to advocate our 
 the sacrament, is frequently regarded as an obtrusive inva- 
 sion of their prerogative, and a declaration of hostility 
 against their persons. The topic is regarded with so much 
 irment, that their eholer aw akes whenever their dating 
 i.e is but gently touched by the hand of a A 
 
 Baptist, who occasionally attended an Independent chapel, 
 i Evans, &c. p. 196. 
 
41 
 
 flew into a violent passion, declaring himself grossly in- 
 sulted by the minister's advocating his own views of the 
 doctrine — forgetting that the like is often done by Baptist 
 preachers before Independent contributors, and with at least 
 equal zeal and strength of expression. Whether this feeling 
 arises from fear or excessive self-confidence, may be gene- 
 rally gathered from circumstances. The topic, however, is 
 common property, and all have a right to give their judg- 
 ment concerning it. We can reason and keep our temper — 
 for our's is not the hostility of an adversary, but a fair and 
 ingenuous investigation of truth— to the obtaining of which, 
 let us implore the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE, 
 
 Having made the above preliminary observations, we 
 shall now proceed to discuss the following subject : — 
 
 WHETHER THE PROPER AND SCRIPTURAL MODE OF ADMINIS- 
 TERING THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM IN THIS AGE 
 AND COUNTRY, CONSISTS IN APPLYING THE WATER TO THE 
 PERSON IN THE FORM OF POURING OR SPRINKLING ; OR IN 
 APPLYING THE PERSON TO THE WATER IN THE FORM OF A 
 TOTAL SUBMERSION ? 
 
 This latter method is invariably practised by the Anti- 
 pedobaptists in this nation, and is considered absolutely 
 essential to a valid performance of this Christian ceremony. 
 In their confession of faith, published in 1677, they declare 
 that ' immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is neces- 
 4 sary to the due administration of this ordinance.' We, on 
 the contrary, are of opinion that it is not ; and further, that 
 
 d 5 
 
42 
 
 enon, merely immersed io H d al 
 
 all; while tho.-e on whom the baptismal element ll pOU 
 or sprinkled (no matter which) arc duly and scripturally 
 
 dzed. This view of the case we shall endeavour to i 
 hlish in as simple and concise a manner as the subject will 
 fairly admit. 
 
 In prosecuting this enquiry, we shall, Tint, date, exa- 
 mine, and confute the arguments of our opponents in sup- 
 port of their exclusive practice ; and, Secondly, ice § 
 adduce a variety of circumstantial evidence to prove that 
 ours is the only proper mode of Christian baptism. 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 WE SHALL STATE, EXAMINE, AND CONFUTE THE AH< 
 
 OF THE BAPTISTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXCLUSIVE SYS- 
 TEM OF IMMERSION BAPTISM. 
 
 These arguments may be arranged in the following order: — 
 
 i. The natural conclusions of common readers. 
 
 II. The concessions of numerous Pedobapit 
 
 III. The history of the Christian, church. 
 iv. The meaning of the Greek verb bu/> 
 
 v. The import of four Greek preposition*. 
 
 ri. The circumstances of the first N. T. baptisms. 
 
 vn. Several allusions to this script uk i 
 
 viii. The immutable nature of scripture precede* 
 
 This arrangement, it is presumed, will do pei 
 to the cause of our opponents, as it eml> 
 all their; iddooed in defence of their scheme. A 
 
 observations, however, must precede th< 
 diate consideration of them. 
 
m V 
 
 i. To render many of our future observation? intelligible 
 and pertinent, it will be requisite to bear in mind that 
 opponents deny in toto the validity of affusion and asper- 
 sion baptism — whether administered to infants or adults— 
 and, consequently, pronounce every denomination of Chris- 
 tians, besides themselves, unbaptized. The ultimate aim of 
 all their publications on this topic is the establishment of 
 this proposition. Pedobaptists, in general, have conceded 
 the validity of dipping, either as one species of baptism, or 
 as an admissible substitute for the primitive practice ; at the 
 same time contending, that pouring or sprinkling, was an 
 apostolical method ; or is now perfectly consonant with the 
 will of the Institutor. We believe, however, and shall at- 
 tempt to prove, that modern immersion is no Christian bap- 
 tism at all, and that pouring or sprinkling is exclusively 
 right. A frequent recurrence to this statement will aid you 
 in understanding and applying the ensuing remarks. 
 
 ii. Our esteemed brethren, would fain make us believe 
 that their practice is supported by positive precepts and the 
 plainest examples. This, however, we deny ; and contend 
 that it is upheld only by conjecture and supposition — and 
 defended only by vague statements and illegitimate deduc- 
 tions. It is represented to the world, by its panegyrists, as 
 beauteous in form, and invulnerable to the boldest attacks ; 
 while, in truth, it charms but few, and when touched by 
 the wand of demonstration, crumbles into dust. * I do not 
 1 remember,' says Mr. Elliot, in his 4 Dipping not Baptizing,' 
 ' it is any where said that the person baptised was covered 
 ' with water, or put under it; and, had this been the case, 
 * I hardly think the scripture would have been entirely silent 
 ' about it, but in some place or other it would have been ex- 
 1 pressly mentioned ; especially if it be a circumstance of such 
 
44 
 4 mi| appose and contend for. 1 Tin 
 
 whc. f immersion vesta on perhaps and possibility; 
 
 ami. should we be able to adduce a mucfa higher i 
 
 probability against them, their cause, in th n of 
 
 all candid judges, must be lost. For, as an opposing writer 
 justly remarks, ' if in favour of a proposition, not within the 
 1 limits of the strict sciences, a person should adduce a high 
 1 probability, he would be thought to establish his eonclu- 
 ii." 
 
 j 1 1. In defending their mode, our opponents incessantly 
 evade the principle of fair argumentation ; and constantly 
 rapport their notions of baptism by a species of reasoning 
 inapplicable to every similar investigation. They pronounce, 
 with unqualified assurance, the divine right of dipping ; and 
 behind the impregnable battlements of an unyielding posi- 
 tivity, are proof against every assault of rational investi- 
 gation and indubitable facts. In other ceremonial matters, 
 positive institutions are modelled or omitted to suit their 
 country and age ; but, in this, one iota must not be abated 
 from their fancied form of apostolical order, though decs 
 and health implore it with melting supplications. We feel 
 no need of this inconsistent and ever-shifting method to 
 maintain our cause. Fair, candid, and straight-forward 
 interpretation of scripture, is all we desire — is all oi 
 demands. 
 
 iv. The particular ground on which the more intelligent 
 of our brethren erect their dipping hypothesis, is altogether 
 contracted and sandy. The supposed primary meaning of 
 •neric verb, and of four Greek variable preposi- 
 tion-, are the chief, if not entire, basis of their sy- 
 
 itedly assert, and as will be hereafier verified. 
 > Anderson, p. II. Step. ly. 
 
45 
 
 We say the primary meaning, for they admit that the terms 
 in question, are applied to other actions beside immersing. 
 We say the supposed primary meaning ; for they have not 
 proved that the act of dipping is an inherent, original, and 
 essential property of the words in dispute — as will also be 
 established in our future observations. Now, we contend 
 that these abstract terms can never settle the question. They 
 tolerate both an application of the element to the object, 
 and of the object to the element — admit of either dipping 
 or sprinkling — but confine the rite to neither. The apos- 
 tolical practice can only be gathered from circumstances, 
 antecedent, collateral, and immediately following. This 
 view of the case, we purpose not to overlook in any part 
 of the discussion ; believing it the only one which is truly 
 legitimate, or properly calculated to bring this long litigated 
 topic to a fair and amicable issue. 
 
 v. It will also be found that Baptists, especially in con- 
 versation, take a very contracted and partial view of the 
 scripture testimonies respecting this topic. They collect a 
 few isolated texts apparently in their favour, and dwell upon 
 them continually — at the same time passing over, either 
 purposely or ignorantly, a hundred others which form a 
 part of the evidence to be examined by the candid enquirer. 
 John's baptizing in Jordan and Enon — our Lord's coming 
 up out of the water after baptism — Philip and the Eunuch 
 going down into the water and coming up out of it — Paul's 
 expression, ' buried with him by baptism into death,' and 
 the like — are repeatedly adduced with all the exultation of 
 a most signal triumph. Hut they forget to tell us how John 
 baptized in the wilderness where Christ took up his abode— 
 or how he performed the ceremony in the open air on vast 
 multitudes of men and women, so as to consult decency and 
 health — or how the three thousand were baptized in the city 
 
lli 
 
 of .!« noon of tin' day of Pentecost — or 
 
 baptized by the Holy Qbott— ?oi how spriak- 
 
 ling Ondcc the law bed Qated baptism — or how 
 
 baptism symbolizes with the cnn lhxion of Christ. 
 them look at the subject in all its parts and bearing*, and 
 then argue — hut not before. 
 
 vi. It i- sometimes, indeed, amusing, though mortifying, 
 to debate with many of our opponents — for, say what you 
 will, they are sure to be always victorious. If you adduce 
 analogical illustrations, they pronounce them far-fetched 
 and irrellative — if you contemplate the subject in detail, and 
 purine its various ramifications, they call it a childish split- 
 ting of hairs, and unworthy of so grand a theme — if you 
 puzzle them by the production of facts and demonstrations 
 they assure you that the plainest evidence may be perplexed 
 and mystified by a subtle and disingenuous disputant — if 
 you prove, that it was not likely that a system, so liable to 
 affect the modesty and health of many pious people, should 
 have been instituted by Christ, as a constant and universal 
 sacrament in the church, they redden, and declare you are 
 ridiculing a ceremony of divine appointment, and there- 
 fore ought not to be reasoned with any longer — if they feel 
 at a loss for reason or argument to establish any position in 
 favour of their scheme, founded on some particular passage, 
 recourse is immediately had to what we very naturally db 
 the erroneous expositions of certain Pedobaptista, w | 
 opinions are of no greater weight in our judgment than 
 their own — and if, perchance, they are for a moment foiled 
 m debate, they arise with renewed vigour, encouragingthem- 
 selves in the delightful thought, that greater men and w 
 
 ll maintain, and, they doubt not, can defend, their 
 practice. — Hut, we mu-t hasten to investigate the first par- 
 ticular 1 in our arrangement, viz : — 
 
47 
 
 SECTION FIRST. 
 
 THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS OF COMMON READERS. 
 
 It is a common and favourite topic with our respected 
 opponents, that the mode of baptism should be understood 
 in the sense in which plain readers of the New Testament 
 regard it — and that the scriptures would be sadly defective 
 in amplitude and simplicity, if such persons could not, by 
 this means alone, arrive at a correct and satisfactory con- 
 clusion about it. ' The round-about logic-labour, 1 says Mr. 
 Booth, ' which the ploughman has to perform, if he would 
 4 not pin his faith on the sleeve of the learned, is incredible. 
 1 On this plan of proceeding, a plain unlettered man, with 
 ' the New Testament only in his hands, though sincerely 
 ' desirous of learning from his Lord what baptism is, and 
 ' to whom it belongs, is not furnished with sufficient docu- 
 ' ments to form a conclusion. No. He must study the 
 ' records of Moses, and well understand the covenant made 
 ' with Abraham. He must study the antiquated rite of 
 ' circumcision. He must know to whom it belonged, and 
 1 the reasons why. Then he must compare it with baptism 
 1 in this, that, and the other particular — after which, he must 
 * draw a genuine inference, respecting the point in hand, 
 ' &c.' ' This notion is constantly reiterated by the disci- 
 ples of this sagacious instructor. ' Read,' say our reverend 
 brethren, to their obsequious auditories, i read only the New 
 Testament, and then decide for yourselves. You need no 
 exposition of men on this subject. You are as competent 
 judges of its nature as the most learned and laborious re- 
 
 rchers into the holy oracles. In this way multitudes 
 have been convinced that we are exclusively right — and 
 
 » Booth, vol. ii. p. 42, 4<. 44. See also vol. iii. p. 197, 368. Gibbs, 
 
48 
 
 main of them have thus become B ilM( their 
 
 will.' With this idea, the raw Unlettered ' ploughman,' 
 iancies himself as fully qualified for an umpire of the busi- 
 ness as bis teacher ; and with all the ain and assurance that 
 ignorance ever engendered, declare- himself 
 betters, not only in this, but, by ' a genuine inference' in all 
 all other religious matters. We must, boi amUM tin- 
 
 position. 
 
 I. This assertion of our opponent's makes nothing for 
 their cause, but induces a result quite the rever-e. It i- 
 plain beyond dispute, that if the judgment of the popu! 
 i> formed by simply reading the New Testament in the 
 vernacular tongue, their position is untenable; since a vast 
 majority of common readers decides against their prac: 
 by adopting a contrary one — nor is it fair to charge them 
 with acting inconsistently with their creed, till unquestion- 
 able evidence of the fact be produced. If they are pre- 
 viously biassed in favour of either system, as most of them 
 undoubtedly are, it becomes very difficult, perhaps impos- 
 sible, justly to say how they would have determined, if left 
 entirely to themselves. Had all plain people, without b* 
 prejudiced either way, pronounced immersion baptism 
 only agreeable to the word of God, there might haw 
 been some plea for the assertion; but, as the c 
 -tand-, there is certainly none. The truth is, that by 
 merely reading the scriptures, the commonalty seldom form 
 
 'led judgment in this or similar matters. They are | 
 catechised by their private instructors, into the meaning ol 
 the word baptize, and then, attaching the communicated 
 notion to the term, believe and act accord; 
 not be asked, whether it arises solely from a simple and 
 unbiassed perusal of the scriptures, that the hearers of Hap- 
 
49 
 
 tist ministers, and the children of Baptist members, almost 
 wholly and exclusively become Baptists ? If they are not 
 prejudiced by the expository lectures of their respective 
 teachers, how happens this phenomenon in the religious 
 world ? Of what value, then, is all this parade about the 
 natural conclusions of common readers in favour of dip- 
 ping? Nor is one at a loss to account for the prevalence 
 of our opponent's principles and practice among those who, 
 though really intelligent and pious, exclusively attend their 
 ministry, or read only their publications on this subject — 
 much less are we surprized that ' the illiterate ploughman/ 
 the obsequious negroes of the West Indies, and the ardent 
 youths, newly awakened — who only read their pamphlets, 
 only hear their declamations, and often witness the important 
 position of those that undergo the ceremony — should long 
 to be equally religious, equally submissive, and equally sig- 
 nalized among their neighbours. An opposite result would 
 be far more mysterious and insoluble. From such a posi- 
 tive and reiterated statement of doctrines, thousands are 
 fully convinced, not only that immersion is proper, but that 
 the heresies of Socinus and Mahomet are right. He must 
 be a stranger to the church and the world, who is not fully 
 convinced, that the generality of people read their Bibles 
 with the spectacles of their teacher, and understand them 
 in the sense which his sagacity or ignorance dictates. The 
 merit or demerit of such conduct we must leave to the um- 
 pirage and correction of our opponents. 
 
 II. It is manifest to the weakest capacity, that the con- 
 elusions of common English readers are founded entirely 
 on the terms and phrases adopted by the translators of the 
 sacred writings. This sentiment is, in fact, conceded even by 
 the last-cited author. ' Let but the word baplizontes^ says 
 
50 
 
 be fairly translated into plain English, [namely, to 
 ! immerse,] as the other words of the sacred statute arc : and 
 
 most illiterate person, if he can read his own lanin. 
 • may find both the qualifications for baptism, and the pn 
 4 mode of administration, expressly contained in the law it- 
 
 ..' ' Now, on this principle, if in one country, as at 
 Serampore,* the original word baptizo is rendered to dip, 
 in another to pour, and in a third to sprinkle, the plain illi- 
 terate ploughmen of those respective places would conclude 
 accordingly, and dip, pour, or sprinkle, in conformity to 
 the letter of their dilVerent Bibles. In like manner, if the 
 prepositions, we shall subsequently investigate, in connexion 
 with the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch, were rendered 
 to and from the water, instead of into and out of the water, 
 .is they fairly might be — would they not conclude, that the 
 baptized probably never went into the element at all to re- 
 ceive this rite ? The translators of the authorized English 
 version of our Bible were evidently biassed in favour of im- 
 mersion through their long association with the Romish 
 church — ' the ancient practice of which,' Messrs. Birt and 
 Dore tell us, ■ was to dip ;' s or, in consequence of their ve- 
 
 ,;ion for the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, in 
 whose time immersion, with various other unscriptural rites 
 o( baptism, was practised in many cases as, at least, a pre- 
 fatory part of the ceremony ; and they consequently gave 
 the verb and prepositions the sense which accorded with, 
 what we presume to designate, their mistaken sentiment-. 
 Of similar perversions, our opponents loudly complain in 
 other notorious instances.* To those who would object to 
 .ination of the original language of scripture for 
 
 " Booth, vol. iii. p. 197. * Conp. Mag. March, 1830. 
 
 I Birt's Vind. p. 21 ; Dore'i Pref. p. 17. « Booth, vol. iii. p. 261. 
 
51 
 
 illustrating the subject before us, we would reply, in the lan- 
 guage of Dr. Pye Smith — * It would seem superfluous to 
 * express a caution against arguing from any translation of 
 ' the scriptures, as if it were the original ; but, it must be con- 
 1 fessed, that not only unlearned Christians, but some men 
 1 of respectable education, have fallen into this egregious 
 ' error. 1 '—-It will be rendered apparent, that the most 
 generally appropriate translation of the word baptize, as 
 religiously employed in the New Testament, is to sanctify, 
 consecrate, purify, initiate, or some other term of an 
 equally indefinite sense. Supposing, then, the verb had 
 been thus rendered, in the narratives of scripture-baptism, 
 would the illiterate ploughman, in that case, arrive at 
 the invariable conclusion, that it means always and only to 
 dip or immerse the whole body ? Certainly not— espe- 
 cially if the prepositions were translated in harmony with 
 such a general import of the verb. Hence it is evident, that 
 the opinions of the illiterate depend on the words employed 
 by the learned ; and this argument in favour of dipping 
 amounts to nothing. 
 
 III. If the decision of common readers be correct in one 
 instance, why not in all? or who is to arbitrate as to the 
 subjects precisely within the range of their unaided com- 
 prehension 1 And if every thing in theology be really so 
 plain to the judgment of the ploughman and mechanic, as 
 to render their decisions a criterion of biblical truth, on 
 what pretence of necessity or advantage are all their lec- 
 tures on divinity, or commentaries on the scriptures, or of 
 what utility are all their volumes and pamphlets so indus- 
 triously circulated on the baptismal controversy, or why 
 do they support colleges and educate men to explain the 
 
 1 .Messiah, v. i. p. 57, 
 
H 
 
 round that tin? word of liod is so r< 
 plain to tlu- lower classes of our countrymen, all thi- I). 
 making, academical tui ion, and oral instruction, gC 
 nothing — in fact, they do mischief — for as the learned and 
 
 : uit mostly see things in a different light, on the | 
 sumption that the hitter are good judges, the former must 
 he hail ones. The truth is. that ignorance places a per-on 
 in a state of mental dependence on the knowledge and in- 
 tegrity of his intelligent fellow-creatur I our 
 opponents judiciously remarks, ' an illiterate man deter- 
 1 mines on the matter from the testimony of others, whom, 
 4 by his condition, he is obliged to trust.' ' And if this be 
 the case in the present day, how much more must it have 
 been in former and feudal times, when a Bible would I 
 cost the poor man the entire proceeds of fifteen years' labour * 
 — when barons and bishops could not, with few exceptions, 
 write their names' 1 — and when an ability to read, as la 
 in the sixteenth century, conferred on the greatest culprits 
 pardon, or, in law phraseology, the benefit of clergy I 4 Hut 
 
 i admitting the mental competency of the poor for 
 eliciting the mind of the Spirit with unerring precision, it 
 must be conceded, that the time usually and necessarily 
 imed in providing for their temporal wants, and the 
 latitude of mind generally induced by their muscular avo- 
 cati< ' entirely prevent their solving the difficulties 
 
 found in the scriptures ; among which, that involving the 
 mode of baptism, is certainly not the least. It should be 
 farther remarked, that this capability of comprehending the 
 
 « to of baptism, is not confined by our ml 
 
 i of certain specific attainments in know 1. 
 
 .p. 5. a Town ley'i Bib. A 
 
 3 Root. Hun. Ch. V. vol. 1. p. 214, uole r. « Kalme'« Sk. of Man, v. i. p. It. 
 
53 
 
 Any illiterate person, who can read the New Testament, 
 or, which amounts to the same thing, who has ears to hear 
 another read it, is perfectly qualified to form an unerring 
 conclusion. Nor is piety requisite. An individual, seriously 
 desirous of knowing the primitive practice, whatever be his 
 motives, is, with the New Testament in his hand, a com- 
 petent umpire in this controversy. Hence the poor illiterate 
 Pedobaptist is every way as good a judge in this cause as 
 Mr. Booth, or any of his colleagues or successors, however 
 great their literary attainments, or deep their piety toward 
 God! 
 
 IV. While every thing really fundamental in faith and 
 morals may be easily gathered from revelation by pious, 
 intelligent, and attentive readers in common life, the modes, 
 customs, and ceremonies, to which constant allusion is made 
 in the Old and New Testaments, must be matters of doubt, 
 and frequently of inexplicable difficulty, to such persons. 
 The Greek or Jew, who lived in the times and places in 
 which the scriptures were composed, understood the re- 
 ferences to rites and manners daily practised before his 
 eyes, much more easily than the abstract doctrines of in- 
 spiration. But plain, uneducated Englishmen, whose cli- 
 mate and customs are widely different from those of the 
 east two or three thousand years ago, can comprehend the 
 doctrines best. Indeed, without the assistance derived from 
 early or contemporary writings, and the later researches of 
 the enterprising and observant traveller — even ministers 
 themselves must remain exceedingly ignorant of many ex- 
 pressions found in the holy oracles. Nor are our opponents 
 backward in availing themselves of such auxiliaries, and 
 that to the greatest extent, of which Dr. Gill's Exposition 
 of the Bible affords us remarkable and splendid illustrations. 
 
 e5 
 
EienC6 Taylor's ' Fr | i Cahnet's Diction:-. 
 
 iih r'> 4 ( Hwei relJUUi OH Various Passages of Scripture/ and 
 Burder'l ' Oriental < Bhed more light over many 
 
 ;re portions of inspiration, respecting ancient rites and 
 mi; -. than all the erudite conjectures i>t ool- 
 
 man in Europe. How absurd, therefore, is it to talk of ike 
 untutored ploughman construing the difficulties of the 
 cred volume with all the unerring judgment of infallibility. 
 V. To reply, as some of our respected opponents have 
 done,' that this obscurity of scripture, respecting the defini- 
 forms of positive institutions, would, if true, greatly 
 impeach the wisdom and benevolence of its author — is an 
 objection void of the smallest weight, and made only amid>t 
 the desperate perplexities of an untenable, though darling, 
 position. That there are inexplicable difficulties to illin 
 minds, palpable facts have placed beyond the possibility of 
 rational debate. And those who would presumptuously ar- 
 raign the wisdom and benevolence of God, for not making 
 hi- word otherwise, must contend with heaven, and mar- 
 shal their notions against the knowledge of the Omnipotent . 
 They might as justly reason, that Jehovah ought to have 
 imparted human skill and information alike to every youth 
 without parental or other tuition — or, that the superior 
 bounties of providence should have been afforded equally 
 to mankind, though thousands exert greater energies of 
 mind and body than others, to secure them. How would 
 tor have rebuked the Son of God for speaking in 
 parables, that his audieiu . might not perceive, and 
 
 . might not understand the mysteries of the k 
 'dom!' (MAKKiv. 11, 1'2.) Has not the Saviour, 
 blish pel ministry for instructing the ignorant— and 
 
 ' Burt, p 18 ; Booth, vol. i. p. 84, 86, 105, M. 
 
55 
 
 afforded them minds capable of being thus educated in the 
 revealed will of their Maker ? And has he not thereby 
 perfectly justified his procedure against the charge of want- 
 ing wisdom and benevolence in denying the idle and ig- 
 norant every advantage ailorded to the industrious and cul- 
 tivated portions of his rational creatures ? 
 
 VI. When our opponents condemn as extraneous and 
 improper any reference to human authorities, for elucidating 
 the import of the Greek word baptize, or to the customs 
 of the country in which the scriptures were written, for at- 
 testing the analogy of our proceedings with the intention of 
 the sacred writers l — they display a very considerable de- 
 gree of ignorance, or destitution of candour. They must 
 know, one would suppose, that this is the only method by 
 which, under certain provisoes to be hereafter mentioned, 
 all ancient and foreign writers can be fairly understood — 
 and this is a principle adopted by all the compositors of 
 lexicons designed to explain the New Testament. The 
 slightest inspection of the valuable works of Parkhurst. 
 Schleusner, and others, will evince ihe truth of our observa- 
 tion. They also involve in their censure some of the most 
 eminent and holy men of their own denomination, '* who 
 have adopted this plan in hope of supporting their interest. 
 Even these very objectors eagerly refer to writers Heathen 
 or Christian, Popish or Protestant, whenever they discover 
 the least plausible hint or argument in maintenance of their 
 sentiments. A fair and rational investigation of the subject, 
 is all we require, and the use of those legitimate means in 
 our defence which our esteemed brethren employ in theirs, 
 and in conducting and determining all similar enquiries. 
 To deny us these, betrays a feeling which they can best 
 
 Booth, vol. ii. p. 42-44; vol. iii. p. 197, 2 Apology, p. 400-415. 
 
explain. In fact, as one of their recent writers observes, 
 * every competent and impartial judge will admit, that the 
 4 true signification of a Greek word must be determined by 
 1 its current use among Greek authors, ("specially when that 
 Off tin* word is supported by the universal consent of 
 4 the most distinguished scholiasts and grammarians/ 1 
 
 VII. There are some of our opponents who even object 
 to any reference to the Old Testament, for illustrating the 
 topic under discussion. They would make us believe, that 
 ( 'hristianity is totally different from Judaism, and forms a 
 new and distinct religion in the world, and that to go back 
 to the ancient dispensations, in order to understand a Chris- 
 tian rite, is ' unnecessary, presumptuous,' * and ridiculous— 
 and yet our reverend brethren, who are truly ministers of 
 the gospel, frequently select texts from Moses and the pro- 
 phets, and preach the gospel from them. They often refer 
 to those writings to explain or confirm the sayings of Christ 
 and his apostles — and laboriously investigate the Old Te 
 ment for the sake of enforcing the New. They, in fact, M 
 frequently direct our attention to the institutions of the Old 
 Testament, in supporting their views of baptism, as do the 
 Pedobaptists themselves. Mr. Booth, whose sentin.. 
 00 this head have been previously cited, 8 stands foremost 
 in adducing this species of referential argumentation. 4 Such 
 allusions are proper and requisite. For how is the epistle to 
 the Hebrews to be understood without a knowledge of the 
 Levitical economy ? And how many other portions of the 
 new covenant are inexplicable without a reference to the 
 prophecies of the old ? Did the apostles never explain their 
 doctrines, and duties, by an appeal to the script t 
 
 <'»<•, p.M ; Oill, p.J23. s Booth, v.ii.p.4:?; Dorr, p. 11 ; Gibbf, p. 228. 
 3 Page AT. « Apology, p. 400-415, ficc &c. 
 
57 
 
 of truth, before any part of the gospels or epistles were 
 written ? In 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, the apostle says, ' Purge out 
 
 * therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump — 
 ' therefore let us keep the feast — not with old leaven, neither 
 
 * with the leaven of malice and wickedness — but with the 
 1 unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.' ' Who,' says 
 a learned author, * can adequately understand this reference 
 ' unless he have some acquaintance with the pains taken by 
 ' the Jews to cleanse their houses from leaven 1 And how 
 1 many things are there in Christianity, on which a plain 
 
 * unlettered man needs almost perpetual assistance V ' And, 
 if it be an allowed practice in other matters, with what pro- 
 priety could Mr. Dore assume, as in the place before quoted, 
 that, ' in this case we have nothing to do with the Old 
 1 Testament — as baptism is an ordinance, not of Moses, 
 1 but of Christ.' Are our Baptist friends afraid of the light 
 which the law and the prophets shed over this Christian 
 ceremony ? If not, why make the objection ? 
 
 VIII. But, as the position we are combatting, strikes at 
 the root of all ministerial expository labours, it may be 
 proper to enquire whether the illiterate ploughman would 
 be the person selected by our opponents to lecture on the 
 Song of Solomon — to unfold the mysteries of the Apoca- 
 lypse—to establish the fulfilment of ancient prophecy — or 
 to explain the numerous metaphorical expressions of the 
 sacred writings? To reply, that the doctrine of baptism 
 is of simpler solution, is also begging the question. Be- 
 sides, the instructions of the pulpit are enforced by the 
 strongest commands and the clearest examples in the word 
 of God. When Christ gave his final commission to the 
 apostles, he bade them teach all nations. (Matt, xxviii. 20.) 
 
 i Taylor's Facts and Evidences, lett. ii. p. 2. 
 
When he arose from the dead, he expounded the scrip* 
 to h - in their way to Emmaus. ( Likf. xxiv. c 27.) 
 
 Paul went into thi« synagogue at Thossalonica, and reasoned 
 the audience out of the script i ng and alledg- 
 
 ingthat Christ must neciU have suffered. (AcTSXvii. 3,4.) 
 In tl.r same manner he instructed his hearers, in his own 
 hired toQtt at Rome. (Acts xxviii. 23.) Hut, if the un- 
 learned, who so often wrest all the scriptures to their de- 
 struction, (2 Peter iii. 16,) are such competent judges in 
 determining the precise import of inspiration, all these com- 
 mands and examples are entirely nugatory. In a word, if 
 cur opponents were, in all cases, to act consistently with 
 the objection we have now considered, they would, as be- 
 fore hinted, demolish their colleges, burn their theological 
 Ixjoks, the Bible excepted, and set aside the ministry among 
 them. And, till this be done, we may fairly conclude that 
 this pillar of their scheme, is a mere subterfuge, and is little 
 better than a reed shaken with the wind, and broken by 
 the slightest touch of the feeblest antagonist. 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 THE CONCESSIONS OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. 
 
 Mr. Booth, following the example of Messrs. D'Anvers 
 and Keach, as if conscious that his cause was defective in 
 argument, and required another species of prop to pfM 
 it from falling, has collected and arranged a formidable li-t 
 of extracts from different writers of various Pedobaptist de- 
 nominations, and founded various reflexions and hypoth< 
 upon them, in order to prove that, in the opinion of his op- 
 ponents, he and his brethren are exclusively right, and that 
 
59 \£>* 
 
 v»x 
 
 Christians ought always and only to dip all they baptize.' 
 This was certainly an ingenious thought, calculated to puz- 
 zle his weaker antagonists, and to encourage his ardent 
 abettors. The work is the result of immense reading, and 
 is executed with considerable ability. Out of this col- 
 lation, several minor publications have been made; and 
 few Baptist ministers address their congregations on the 
 subject in debate, without retailing a long catalogue of these 
 quotations, and laying a ponderous stress upon them. A 
 few observations, however, will show that our opponents 
 have gained little in appearance, and nothing in reality, from 
 this mode of aggression. 
 
 I. This species of argumentation not being always, and 
 in all respects, improper, the following postulates should be 
 duly considered, in order to forma correct judgment of 
 this kind of quotation. 
 
 i. The obnoxious citations to which we allude, differ 
 materially from such as are made for the purpose of exhibit- 
 ing the objections to be combatted by a writer, or merely 
 for determining the precise line of concord and contention 
 between the opposing parties. The latter are absolutely 
 necessary to all polemical discussions — the former, however 
 congenial to our minds, are not so. 
 
 n. The quotations themselves must be founded in argu- 
 ment and capable of moral demonstration ; and not the 
 mere opinion or dogma of the authors — for otherwise they 
 are of no real validity, and become subject to examination 
 and correction as much as the sentiment they are adduced 
 to corroborate. 
 
 in. The doctrine to be established, should be capable of 
 decisive proof without these citations — since, if it were not, 
 
 i Booth, vol. i. p. 44 by. 
 
, might be naturally raised, that the ignorance or 
 
 inailvcrtcncy of in opponent, i> the chief foundation of this 
 .•wil hypod 
 
 iv. Theft quotations can only be adduced, with any 
 
 thm^ r like equity or effect, against such as make them, and 
 
 are thereby liable to a retort— or against those who, 
 
 . acknowledge their validity — others are not aJfeotM 
 
 by them, being left entirely Tree and unshackled to enter 
 
 the arena of disputation. 
 
 \. They should, in all cases be extracted from those 
 IfOrke io which the writers avowedly treat on the contro- 
 • u subject, and wherein they expre Ives with 
 
 Cantion — fully conscious, from the past agitation of the 
 question, of the use or abuse which may be made of them, 
 and never from apparently careless or incidental ezj 
 
 vi. Properly to serve the cause of the person who cite- 
 them, they should only and entirely maintain the point im- 
 mediately to be established — neither more nor less — since, 
 if this be not tin case, they are no fair support of this de- 
 ligD — and retailing them is calculated to excite considerable 
 misapprehensions in the mind of the unwary reader. 
 
 \ it. The quotations should not directly and fully advo- 
 the ultimate object of the person that makes them — 
 sine*; ;hc\ arc then to be regarded no longei 
 of Opponents, but the Opinions Of friends — an indirect ad- 
 >t certain data or principle-, from which the point 
 -tie can be deduced, being the only legitimate cvici. 
 of this nature. As lew, it i- presumed, mil these 
 
 postulates, it remains that Mr. Booth's citations shoui. 
 brought to the test — and which we shall therefor 
 
 II. Now, the i fl collected by Mr. Booth, being 
 
61 
 
 merely the opinions of the Pedobaptist referred to, are as 
 subject to examination and correction, as the assertions of 
 the Baptists themselves. Suppose between ninety and a 
 hundred of Mr. Booth's own denomination had inadver- 
 tently admitted that the ancient mode of performing the 
 ceremony in question was by pouring or sprinkling — and, 
 suppose these concessions had been collated and urged by 
 us, as an unquestionable proof, that in the opinion of the 
 Baptists, our practice was scriptural and exclusively valid — 
 would not this reverend gentleman, and his more wary breth- 
 ren, have replied, ' we rely no more on the opinions and 
 dogmas of our blundering and inconsistent fraternity, when 
 contradicting our own particular sentiments, than of those 
 in any other communion V For, as Dr. Gale justly observes, 
 ' however great and honourable the patrons of a mistake 
 1 may be, they are but men, and the authority of Christ, and 
 
 * the respect and obedience we owe to his commands, should 
 
 * counterbalance all other considerations.' ' ' For you must 
 ' know,' says Mr. Keach, ' that men, though ministers, are 
 ' not your rule of faith, but God's word.'* Had the Pedo- 
 baptists brought arguments to show that immersion was 
 not only the ancient mode of baptism, but that it was proper 
 and necessary now, the case would have been materially 
 different — for then their remarks would have been entitled 
 to a consideration which their mere opinions by no means 
 merit. But this they have not done, and could not honestly 
 do — and if they had, we must have regarded them as 
 genuine Antipedobaptists in principle, though not in prac- 
 tice—and the idea of concession would have been out of the 
 question. 3 
 
 III. Our opponents, however, with their sentiments on 
 
 1 Gale, p. 178. - Keach, Pref. p. 13. 3 See Booth, vol. iii. p. 68. 
 
 F 
 
tin- subject, must regard the writers they cite with so much 
 lidence, and on whose concessions so much stress is 
 laid, as exceedingly weak or as absolute hypocrites— believ- 
 ing one thing to be a divine obligation, and practising the 
 wry reverse — deeming immersion -baptism exclusively scrip- 
 tural and proper, and yet sprinkling or affusing their con- 
 verts. Of what real value, therefore, can the sayings of such 
 persons be in the esteem of our brethren ? The authors re- 
 ferred to are not said indirectly to surrender certain posi- 
 v, hieh, by deduction, are the pillars of the immersion 
 >eheme, but openly and directly to pronounce this method 
 only scriptural and right. Such certainly is the impression 
 intended to be made on the mind of the persons perusing 
 Mr. Booth's volumes. The divines, whose writings are 
 cited, either baptized by pouring or sprinkling, or they did 
 not. If they did, and yet pronounce dipping only valid or 
 divine, according to our opponents' notions of positive in- 
 stitutes, they were undoubtedly a weak and rebellious body 
 of men, contradicting and condemning their own constant 
 and deliberate practice — and surely their evidence cannot 
 be of any very great value in the esteem of our Baptist 
 brethren. If, on the other hand, they performed this rite by 
 immersion, we must view them as genuine Antipedobap 
 and their conceding declarations as the assertions ol 
 
 u'onists. On the former supposition, which we are taught 
 to receive as correct, Mr. Booth makes the following ob- 
 
 uion : — ' Now, is it not strange — strange to astonish- 
 
 ' ment— that so many eminent men should thus agree in 
 
 nony to immersion as the apostolic example, 
 
 1 when it ifl notorious that their own practice was very dil - 
 
 ,. n t — just so the Papists.' l Moreover, these supposed 
 
 > Booth, rot. i. p. 225. See alio vol. ill. p. 68. 
 
63 
 
 advocates for dipping were not only erroneous in sprinkling 
 while they considered immersion only apostolic and proper, 
 but they were so very ignorant of this plain and positive 
 right, or so refractory in their conduct towards their Lord 
 and Master, as to sprinkle unconscious babes instead of be- 
 lieving adults. They must, in the judgment of our oppo- 
 nents, have been excessively imbecile in intellect, or uncom- 
 monly perverse in their proceedings — rendering the clear 
 and immutable commands of Christ altogether nugatory — 
 and yet these are the persons whose dogmas are collected 
 with so much diligence, and disseminated with so much 
 zeal, as the imperishable basis and impregnable bulwarks of 
 their beloved system ! 
 
 IV. Nor is this reasoning without analogy in the works 
 of our respected opponents. Dr. Williams, having cited a 
 passage in support of his practice from Mr. Elliott, a 
 Menonite Baptist, who pleads for adult baptism by pour- 
 ing or sprinkling only, 1 Mr. Booth makes the following re- 
 ply : — 4 So extremely fond of concession is Dr. W. that he 
 4 classes a number of persons under the character of Anti- 
 * pedobaptists, who professedly differ as much from us, as 
 ' they do from himself in respect of the subject ; and ought, 
 1 therefore, on both sides, to be left out of the question.' 2 — 
 Or, to simplify the sentence, * it is not proper to receive con- 
 cessions on the Baptist controversy from those who, both 
 in mode and subject, do not perfectly agree with the party 
 opposed.' Now, if this be valid argumentation in the es- 
 teem of our brethren, then all Mr. Booth's quotations from 
 the Quakers, whom he denominates his 4 impartial friends,' 
 stand for nothing, since these good people, by differing as 
 much from us as from Mr. Booth, in denying the propriety 
 
 1 Antipedobaptism Exam. vol. ii. p. 119-135. * Booth, vol. iii. p. 63. 
 
n 
 
 tt-r- baptism alt :\u\ thus rendering th 
 
 u-ous in our mutual opinion, 4 ought, therefore, to l>e left 
 
 1 out of the question ;' and as most, it not all, the Pedo- 
 
 btpdsti cited by Mr. Booth in defence of dipping, differed, 
 
 at least, in opinion as much from ns in respect of the mode 
 (if their concessions are worth our opponents a straw) 
 they did from Mr. Booth, in regard of the Bubjeotj of bap- 
 tism, * they ought, on both sides, to be left out of the qi 
 'tion,' as incompetent umpires of this debate. But, perhaps. 
 the most inconsistent part of the business is the enli 
 of Jeremy Taylor on their side of the qestion. The bishop, 
 though deeming the Baptists' deceived," to show what might 
 be said for a bad cause, adduced a few arguments in their 
 favour; but which to himself appeared sophistical, and such 
 as no person of judgment or penetration would accredit : 
 and yet his lordship is referred to and republished 3 as mak- 
 ing concessions of vast importance to the Baptist argument. 
 In fact, if the method of Dr. Williams were objectionable 
 in the smallest degree, Mr. Booth's is a hundred t. 
 more so. 
 
 V. It will be made perfectly apparent, in the course of 
 our future observations, that, in conformity to an equitable 
 interpretation of the holy oracles, and in accordance with 
 the universal practice of our opponents in all other theological 
 discussions, persons might believe that to dip is one, or even 
 the primary, meaning of the word baptize, or that immersion 
 \\ a- originally enjoined and practised in the Christian church, 
 and yet be still honest and consistent Pedobaptists — perform- 
 ing the rite by aspersion. This, in many cases, is undoubt- 
 edly the fact. Various divines, who administer the rite in 
 tion in the manner observed by ourselves, do mp] 
 » P. 40. » See Hammond's Six Queries. 3 By Mr. Anderson. 
 
65 
 
 that dipping constituted, at least, a part of the primitive 
 mode ; but that the precise manner of applying the element 
 to the object, is no more fixed and immutable than the cir- 
 cumstantials of the Lord's supper; first celebrated by a dozen 
 males only, on a Thursday evening, in an upper room, in a 
 reclining posture, and with unleavened bread — or than the 
 tokens of friendship and hospitality, consisting in a kiss of 
 charity and washing one another's feet — or than the mode 
 of recovering the sick, by anointing him with oil, and pray- 
 ing over him in the name of the Lord. If our opponents 
 conceive that all Pedobaptists, who have unwittingly con- 
 ceded that the ancient mode was partly or wholly by im- 
 mersion, are consequently favourable to dipping in the pre- 
 sent age and country, and that, after such acknowledg- 
 ments, they have nothing left in defence of their own prac- 
 tice, they will be greatly deceiving themselves, and boasting 
 of company which, upon a little explanation, will en- 
 tirely forsake them. 
 
 VI. But we have no hesitation in saying, that such fatal 
 concessions, as our opponents pretend to adduce, have never 
 been made by Pedobaptists, and that the authors referred 
 to have been very unfairly treated. A superficial examin- 
 ation of the case will show, that many of the quotations 
 are exceedingly partial and distorted — the truth is but 
 partly told— extracts are improperly made — and a stress is 
 laid on words and phrases which the original writers never 
 intended. The impression designed to be made on the 
 reader evidently is, ' that immersion was only and always 
 the original practice, and as such should be invariably 
 adopted now — that the word baptize means only and al- 
 ways to dip — and that in this sense we are constantly to 
 construe it in the present day.' For, though Mr. Booth 
 
 f 5 
 
06 
 
 prefaced his citations with a couple of provisional 
 .-.Inch necessity obliged him to write, ami which 
 are soon forgotten by common readers of his numerous ex- 
 tracts — the design was to make them believe that the author 
 sanctioned his practice. Indeed, nothing less than this, on 
 the plan of his volumes, would answer his purpose. But 
 where have such concessions been made ? Let our oppo- 
 nents produce them, if they are able. It is absurd to imag- 
 ine such to be attainable. Pedobaptists readily admit, that 
 the word baptize is sometimes employed for dipping, sink- 
 ing, and drowning, as well as for washing, pouring, or 
 sprinkling ; but this is consonant with their views of asper- 
 baptism. They have erroneously conceded, that the 
 apostles sometimes baptized by dipping the person partially 
 or wholly — but does this prove, that they thought such a 
 method requisite now and in this country ? Where is tht 
 Protestant Pedobaptist who has deliberately said that pour- 
 ing or sprinkling of children or adults is not a real and valid 
 baptism ? In fact, to suppose that they have intentionally 
 advocated a system in books, which they condemm 
 practice, is preposterous. Mr. Booth is forced to admit tin 
 truth of our observations. He says, ' many of the folio* 
 1 quotations are to be considered as concessions of I 
 1 learned authors — no inconsiderable part [indeed all] of 
 ' the:n asserting, notwithstanding what they here say, that 
 1 the word baptism signifies pouring and sprinkling as well 
 
 * immersion.' ' Again, * though these numerous and learned 
 1 authors have expressed themselves in the following man- 
 1 ner, many [why not say all ?] of them insist upon 
 
 * highly probable, that the apostles did sometimes adm.. 
 
 -m by pouring or sprinkling.'*' And yet theft 
 
 » Booth, vol. i. p. 44. - Ibid, vol.i. p 191. 
 
67 
 
 the authorities adduced as directly supporting the cause of 
 dipping exclusively ! 
 
 VII. Mr. Booth's mode of maintaining his cause by 
 direct concession, is not only very suspicious, but very ex- 
 ceptionable ; and, employed against himself, respecting his 
 doctrines and discipline, would be deemed very uncharit- 
 able. Suppose the followers of Faustus Socinus, or of 
 John Agricola, were to ransack the writings of our Antipe- 
 dobaptist brethren of various denominations, and to cull a 
 line here, a sentence there, and a paragraph elsewhere, and 
 to lay an emphasis on words and expressions not originally 
 emphatic, to make the public believe that ' these numerous 
 * and learned authors' were direct and avowed abettors of 
 Socinianism or Antinomianism, or conceded the verity of 
 these heresies — would not some one of our opponents arise 
 with indignation and repel the iniquitous insinuations, by 
 saying — ' Gentlemen, this is really too bad. You know 
 perfectly well, that the authors you have cited, never enter- 
 tained your sentiments, and that their conduct and compo- 
 sitions, honestly construed, prove my assertion. Even though 
 their words may be capable of a construction, by an inge- 
 nious antagonist, favourable to your practice, their genuine 
 opinions were certainly against it. You impose on your 
 credulous readers by such glaring perversions of other men's 
 works. Though they have incautiously stat'ed their doc- 
 trines, and inadvertently offered a handle to their wily ad- 
 versaries, it is impossible to suppose they were favourable to 
 your heretical notions — and your cause must be sadly des- 
 titute of fair and solid argument and yourselves of integrity, 
 before you would enlist them under your standard as ad- 
 vocates of your unscriptural interest. ' What our opponents 
 would reply to the Socinian or Antinomian, with a slight 
 
dification, we may say to them. Such modt^ i 
 may puzzle the weak and, perhaps, convince the ignorant, 
 hut they must be viewed with suspicion by the serious ami 
 intelligent. Those who could support their scheme by just 
 and honourable means, would never have recourse to one 
 so exceptionable and subject to such suspicions. It is, in 
 fact, liable to perpetual and unlimited perversion. Writers, 
 with feeble arguments, are always anxious to obtain the 
 countenance of others as a guarantee with the public that 
 their opinions are valid. It is on this principle that the fa- 
 thers, reformers, and orthodox authorities of the church 
 have recently been marshalled in maintenance of the he- 
 terodox notions of universal restoration and the sinful cha- 
 racter of the human nature of the Son of God. 
 
 VIII. One of our principal objections to Mr. BoothV 
 volumes, consists in his effort to persuade us that the cita- 
 tions made, directly concede the whole point at issue be- 
 H us; or that their authors are ostensible advocates of 
 immersion, while adopting a contrary mode of baptism. 
 No j>erson can peruse his work, and those of his humble 
 imitators, nor hear his pages detailed in the pulpits of our 
 Baptist brethren, without feeling this to be the entire drift 
 of the argument. Against indirect acknowledgments, 
 specified in our seventh postulate, and applied according 
 to the fourth, no fair objection can be taken. And, on th»> 
 principle of indirect concession, we may ask with confi- 
 dence, if our opponents have not surrendered every pillar 
 and ground of their exclusive scheme of dipping 
 
 not admitted that the word baptize, which they pro- 
 nounce the principal subject of contention, is often em- 
 ployed to express an action in which the element is applied 
 to the object in the form of staining, pouring, or sprinkling ? 
 
69 
 
 — Have they not told us it signifies to bury, and that this 
 act consists in casting earth upon the corpse ? — that it means 
 to overwhelm, which is done by the superincumbence of 
 some oppressive weight ? — Have they not conceded, that 
 the real waters of Jordan nor the imaginary Hoods of Enon, 
 were necessary for baptism, since a bath or pool, three feet 
 deep, would have been equally convenient i — that going 
 down into the water up to the neck is not baptism, nor any 
 proof of its administration ? — that to be dipped is to take 
 up the cross, being sometimes attended with indecorum and 
 danger ? — and that when Paul speaks of being ' buried in 
 baptism,' he had no reference to any such act as an English 
 interment ? — all which will be shown in the sequel, with 
 much more, to the same effect. Now this is indirect con- 
 cession, established by indisputable facts, and found amidst 
 the guarded expressions of their polemical volumes. 
 
 IX. But there is another concession made by our oppo- 
 nents perfectly in character with the preceding, and an in- 
 direct surrender of those principles on which their exclusive 
 system of immersion is founded. By adopting the plan of 
 open communion, they practically concede the validity of 
 our baptism, as respects both the mode and the subject. As 
 they profess to act only from plain examples or apostolical 
 precepts, and as they can find neither in the New Testa- 
 ment for receiving persons to the Lord's table after Chris- 
 tian baptism was instituted, who, in the judgment of the 
 first Christians, were not baptized, we must take it for 
 granted, notwithstanding all their evasions on this subject, 
 that they consider Pedobaptists really baptized — for, dip- 
 ping them a hundred times over, would not introduce them 
 to another religious association or privilege. Nor is this 
 species of reasoning without precedent in the works of our 
 
70 
 
 opponents. — ' I mu>t confess in\>.HV >ays Mr. Burt. 
 1 eeedingly mistaken, if all coiniminions in England do not 
 1 acknowledge immersion to be the true mode, since they 
 4 will udmit any orderly communicant of our's to partake 
 4 with them at the Lord's table, without calling in (paction 
 1 the validity of their baptism — though they would fain per- 
 v suade us that their's is baptism too.' ' That is, admi- 
 to the Lord's table is deemed a test of being duly baptized 
 in thejudgment of those who admit them. The scheme of re- 
 ceiving unbaptized persons to the sacramental table of those 
 who continually talk of nothing but divine precepts and 
 apostolical examples, simply on the ground that they consi- 
 der themselves baptized, is, at least, a great inconsistency, 
 and was evidently formed ulterior to such a reception, for 
 the purpose of increasing their party. This principle is cal- 
 culated to subvert all church order, and tends to annihilate 
 the authority of the minister — since any person, fancying 
 himself converted, without giving any real proofs of it, must 
 be received as a Christian, merely because he imagines him- 
 self one ; or, if a person were sprinkled with sand, as the 
 Jew , mentioned by Mr. Booth, if he thought it sufficient 
 baptism, he must be accepted. According to this scheme, 
 the qualiiication of the candidate rests with himself, and not 
 as Dr. Gill asserts ■ solely in the breast of the administra- 
 1 tor.' ' Now, as we cannot suppose this inconsistency in 
 our opponents, we are constrained to believe in their mcntr.l 
 as well as practical admission of the validity of infant 
 sprinkling. 
 
 X. But, while vindicating the consistency of our oppo- 
 nents in one respect, we are constrained to expose their in- 
 congruity in another. The majority of the Antipedobaptists 
 » Trwtlse, p. J.» * Gill's Body of Dlv. vol. Hi. b. 3. c. 1. 
 
71 
 
 UN) advocates lor strict communion ; and consequently 
 will suffer no Pedobaptist to sit down with them at the 
 Lord's table, because, in their opinion, he has not been 
 baptized. In this they act in harmony with their own scheme 
 of interpreting the sacred volume in respect of positive in- 
 stitutions — seeing, as said before, they can find no preced- 
 ent in the New Testament for admitting people to this sa- 
 crament who, in the judgment of the apostles, were not 
 scripturally baptized. These very persons, however, will 
 admit Pedobaptists into their pulpits and listen with delight 
 to their discourses — will cordially unite with them in prayer 
 and singing the praises of God. But can they find any pre- 
 cedent for such a practice? Did the apostles adopt or 
 sanction such a procedure ? Will our brethren point out an 
 instance in which the first and inspired ministers of Christ 
 tolerated persons, whom they deemed unbaptized, to preach 
 in their churches, or to lead the devotional services of their 
 solemn assemblies ? However other denominations might 
 act in this matter, our opponents, on their principles, are, as 
 Mr. Booth asserts, • strangely inconsistent,' l * because to a 
 ' positive precept, or an apostolic example, the votaries of 
 1 this innovation do not pretend.' ■ There are cases in which 
 Baptists will sit down at the Lord's table in our churches, 
 while they would not suffer a Pedobaptist to sit down with 
 them at the sacrament in their's. In some congregations of 
 our respected opponents, there are two distinct churches 
 under the same pastor, and two distinct communions in 
 which the Lord's Supper is administered alternately — and 
 this, of course, is apostolic ! Our Baptist brethren say, ' we 
 will hear with you — we will pray and sing with you, and 
 the like — but you must eat by yourselves.' 
 
 > Apology, p. 354. > Booth, vol. ii. p. 014. 
 
72 
 
 XI. As it it possible that -n- present, nut much 
 
 initiated into the m\sterie- of polemical discussions, after 
 
 oing to our future ohsi-rvations and frequent refer 
 to the works of our opponent-, may suppose that, whi;< 
 nouncing Mr. Booth's principle of quotation, we have adup- 
 
 the same in maintaining our cause ; we beg, there! 
 to make a few remarks, to show that the cases are widely 
 different, and that the preceding postulates fully sanction 
 our procedure, while they condemn the conduct of Mr. 
 Booth and his numerous imitators. 
 
 I. The citations made from the works of our Baptist 
 brethren, are designed to state their objections, erroneous 
 reasonings, and grounds for immersion — wherein we agree 
 and differ — what are their views of certain data of evidi 
 —and how far their indirect testimony corroborates our 
 sentiments. 
 
 ii. The quotations, relevant to our ultimate object, are 
 such as rest on a firm and unyielding foundation — and the 
 sentiments are capable of a clear establishment, entirely ir- 
 of the author's, from whose writings they are 
 taken — or arguments, rather than mere opinions, are the 
 substance of our references. 
 
 in. Our positions, also, shall be capable of standing 
 alone, disjointed from every collateral proof derived from 
 the writings of our opponents — so that if every quotation 
 from their volumes were expunged, our arguments would 
 be left as entire and as tenable as with them. 
 
 iv. Such passages, only, are taken from Baptist publi- 
 cations, as appear to be the approved declarations of the 
 whole body — and not the dogmas of a small part of their 
 communion — and, from the force of which, some might 
 shield themselves by the peculiarity of their baptismal sen- 
 timents. 
 
73 
 
 v. Our extracts are made almost exclusively from the 
 works composed expressly in maintenance of their bap- 
 tismal principles — and which evidently bear the characters 
 of care and caution, and display a consciousness of the use 
 or abuse an opponent may make of them. 
 
 vi. The authors are fairly and fully cited — no sense is 
 attached to their remarks discordant with their deliberate 
 intention ; and they are applied to the support of proposi- 
 tions, for the upholding of which they are honestly calcu- 
 lated — nothing like the perversion of a writer will be dis- 
 covered in any of our evidence ad hominem. 
 
 vn. If any thing like concession be urged, it will be of 
 data, or principles of reasoning, or the indirect surrender of 
 certain points ; from yielding up which, the ulterior object 
 of our investigation may be inferred, and not the direct con- 
 cession of the whole point at issue between us. 
 
 These regulations, being properly observed, no just pa- 
 rallel can be fairly drawn between the method adopted by 
 Mr. Booth, his predecessors, or copyists, and that observed 
 in this dissertation. They will be found, by every judicious 
 and candid observer, as different as darkness and day — as 
 deception and ingenuousness. Even if our professed prin- 
 ciples of quotation were inadvertently transgressed, our oppo- 
 nents, who in general look to Mr. Booth as the champion 
 of their cause, would have little reason to complain. In fact, 
 were we to cancel all concession on both sides, and to argue 
 the question uninfluenced by preceding controversy, we feel 
 confident as to the result — or, admitting them from each 
 party in all their original evidence, our hopes of success 
 would be equally sanguine. 
 
SECTION THIRD* 
 
 TBI HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren assure us, that the plain. 
 most ample evidence is derivable from ecclesiastical history 
 that dipping was the universal mode of administering bap- 
 tism in ancient times. 1 A triumphant reference is made to 
 the Greek church, in which trine immersion is practised ; and 
 to the rubric of the Church of England, which enjoins dip- 
 ping as well as sprinkling. The validity of these allu- 
 
 hall now proceed to examine. 
 I. We would enquire, if our opponents are agreed among 
 themselves, or have formed individual opinions, respecting 
 the precise manner in which this rite was performed in the 
 primitive churches, immediately succeeding the apostolic 
 era ? Let them answer, if they can, the following questions : 
 — Were the people dipped only, or also sprinkled ? — Were 
 they naked or dressed ? — Was single or trine immersion 
 practised ? — Was the ceremony administered in natural re- 
 
 •irs of water or in artificial baptistries? — If in fonts, 
 how were they constructed ? — Who officiated on the occa- 
 sion — an ordained minister or acting deacons? — Let them 
 also say, whether in the first two or three centuries after the 
 italic age, the mode of baptism was the same at all times 
 and in all places ? — If not, which portion of Christendom 
 
 rved incorrupt the original institution ? — And on what 
 age of the period in question do they fix, as affording tht* 
 purest model for the imitation of the present generation ? — 
 llefore historical evidence can be pleaded with any dqg 
 of propriety, it is but fair to inform us, what history is meant, 
 and what it teaches. This being settled, and, ot 
 
 J. Stcnnclt, p. 125-170; Rylaud, p. f. 
 
75 
 
 conceded by us as indubitable truth, it is requisite that thosi 
 who maintain their cause from the example of the ancient 
 churches, should establish a precise conformity to the model 
 they adduce — else their decisions must be vague and arbi- 
 trary. But the difficulty of this kind of argument will be 
 seen from a remark of Augustine, who lived in the fourth 
 century. He says, ' that, in his time, ceremonies were grown 
 4 to such a number, that the estate of Christian people was 
 'in worse case, concerning this matter, than were the Jews; 
 4 and he counselled that such yoke and burden should be 
 4 taken away.' ' It is further evident, if Mosheim's observ- 
 ation be correct. He tells us that ' there was such a variety 
 4 in the ritual of the primitive churches, as to render it very 
 ' difficult to give such an account of the worship, manner, 
 1 and institutions of the ancient Christians, as will agree with 
 4 what was practised in all those countries where the gospel 
 4 flourished.' 2 Add to these testimonies that of Mr. Gibbs, 
 who says, * we know that the spirit which, in very early 
 1 times, introduced innovation and will-worship, is gratify- 
 ' ing to the depraved principles of human nature ; and from 
 ' this course has arisen that mass of error which has beclouded 
 * the moral hemisphere of Europe. During the second cen- 
 4 tury, a variety of doctrines and ceremonies were introduced 
 4 into the Christian worship by certain of the fathers, who 
 4 claimed a personal acquaintance with the apostles, or with 
 4 those who had been their intimate associates.' 3 
 
 II. But, to prove that our opponents are as much at va- 
 riance with the ecclesiastical modes of baptism, as with apos- 
 tolical precedents, we will refer to a few particulars men- 
 tioned by Mr. Robinson, their own apologist and historian. 
 
 1 Pref. to the Book of Com. Prayers. 2 Ecc. Hist. Cent. I. pt. 2 c. 4. sec. 4. 
 3 P. 254, 326. 
 
76 
 He telk us, k then won no baptistriei within the olnMbM 
 
 'till the sixth century ' — when envted without, they w 
 4 generally dedicated to St. John the Baptist' — They \ 
 
 igOD buildings with cupola roofs, resembling the dome 
 
 * ofl cathedral, adjacent to the church, but no part of it. 
 4 All the middle part of this building was one large hall, 
 k capable of containing a great multitude of people. — The 
 ' sides were parted off, and divided into rooms, and, insome, 
 4 rooms were added outside, in the fashion of cloisters. In 
 4 the middle of the great hall was an octagon bath, which, 
 4 strictly speaking, was the baptistry, and from which the 
 4 whole building was denominated.' — In Tertullian's time, 
 
 * the candidates for baptism made a profession of faith twice, 
 4 —once in the church, before the congregation, and then 
 4 again when they came to the water. 4 — The primitive Chris- 
 4 tians were baptized naked 6 — or had only something wrap- 
 4 round the middle 6 — were rubbed all over with oil, and 
 4 turned their face towards the east. 7 — The men were bap- 
 ' tized apart from the women. s — The Gretk church bap- 
 4 tized by trine immersion, or three dippings 9 — and, after 
 4 the immersion, water was poured on the head." — Then 
 4 were catechists to instruct the catechumens previous to 
 1 baptism, and deaconesses to assist in baptizing fema! 
 
 * — The water was blessed and exorcised, and the candi- 
 
 * dates abstained from certain kinds of food forty days pre- 
 4 viously." — They also baptized children. 1 ' — In the Romish 
 ' church, the boys were placed on the right hand of the 
 k presbyter and the girls on the left. In the administration. 
 4 then' were cro-.-ings, prayers, burning of incense, singing. 
 
 i Hiit. p. 58. * P. 69. » P. 60. * P. 68. » P. 8ft. 
 'P.8B. • P. 60. » P. 63. »<> P. 104. See Booth, roi. i. p. : 
 U P. 64. » P. 65. » 3 P. 246. 
 
77 
 
 4 blessings, torches at midnight, exorcisms, and exorcised 
 'salt was given to the children.' — The administrator, if a 
 4 pontiff, wore wax or oil-skin drawers and a surplice, and, 
 * if a deacon, he took off his shoes. 9 ' — Much more might be 
 cited of a similar character — but this is enough to maintain 
 our position. Where now, we ask, is the conformity between 
 the practice of the ancients and that of our opponents ? 
 Where shall we find such baptistries as those just men- 
 tioned ? Where shall we hear the double confession of faith 
 common in the time of Tertullian ? Who among our breth- 
 ren are baptized naked ? Where is trine immersion prac- 
 tised ? When are children baptized by our opponents ? 
 When do they exorcise the water and dress in wax or oil- 
 skin drawers ? — To reply that, though all these things were 
 mere circumstances and the superstitious devices of the age, 
 yet that dipping was scriptural and apostolic, is a mere sub- 
 terfuge and begging the question — for why might not that 
 be a mere circumstance as much as pouring, or the confes- 
 sions, or driving the evil spirit out of the water, or baptizing 
 children, or a treble immersion ? Let our brethren establish 
 a perfect agreement between their mode of baptism and that 
 of the early Christians, subsequent to the first century, and 
 we will allow them all the advantage they can fairly derive 
 from antiquity. Till this be done, their reference to the 
 fathers amounts to just nothing at all. 
 
 III. If historical evidence may be considered a correct 
 criterion of the scriptural mode of baptism, there can be no 
 just reason for withholding a reliance on its decisions re- 
 specting the proper qualifications of the candidates. Now, 
 will our opponents submit the issue of the controversy; 
 about the proper subjects of this rite, to the practice of 
 
 i p. 77. 2 P. 79. 
 
 g5 
 
7S 
 
 antiquity.' M dly not. When pressed, Or, more 
 
 oonecdj oppressed, with the testimonies of the fathers in 
 
 favour of infant baptism, they endeavour to extricate them- 
 selves from the difficulty, by assuring us, that they phu 
 dependence whatever on the practice of the itolic 
 
 churches. The following declarations of several of their 
 best writers will demonstrate their views on this sub] 
 —Mr. Dore — 'What is not commanded by Christ, or pra< - 
 4 tised by his apostles, is virtually forbidden as will-worship; 
 1 and they who introduce or practise it, do not in tin 
 4 spect, at least, hold the head.' l —Dr. Gale—' Though I 
 1 have a great respect for the primitive fathers, and all 
 1 learned men, yet their loose expositions and misapplies - 
 
 * tons of scripture, are not to be endured.' * — ' We should 
 ' have no other rule of faith, or judge of controversies, be- 
 
 * side the sacred word of God — for, if once we admit of any 
 
 * other, we directly give up our cause, and expose ourselves 
 4 to all the impositions and inconveniences which are the 
 4 inseparable attendants of Popery.' 3 —' If Mr. Wall should 
 4 be able to make out his assertion, that the whole church, 
 ' after the apostles' time, did allow of affusion, we may 
 4 nevertheless think ourselves obliged to understand it as an 
 1 ancient corruption — for error should not be privileged by 
 4 age.' ; — Dr. (Jill — 4 We, who are called Anabaptist 
 
 1 Protectants, and the Bible is our religion, and we r. 
 1 all pretended apostolical tradition, and every thing that 
 1 goes under that name, not found in the Bible, as the rule 
 1 of our faith and practice.' *— ' There never was such a set 
 4 of impure wretches, under the Christian name, so unsound 
 4 in principle and so bad in practice, as were in the apOSl 
 'days, and in the ages succeeding, called the purest 
 1 it f. P . i<j. j i>. I®. i p. ia». < P. 170. 5 P. ai'j. 
 
79 
 
 * of Christianity. ' ' — Dr. Stentielt — ' We cannot know any 
 1 thing about the precise nature of positive institutes, their 
 
 * true design, the proper subjects of them, or the right mode 
 
 * of their administration, further than the scriptures teach.' * 
 — The primitive fathers were, it is true, pious men ; but 
 ' they were most of them very weak, injudicious, and cre- 
 4 dulous— miserable interpreters of scripture, and very ill in- 
 ' formed as to many transactions before their own times.' 3 — 
 Mr. Gibbs — ' Can any consistent Dissenter imagine that 
 4 the great Founder of Christianity, who condemned the 
 ' effects of tradition on the minds of the Jews, in turning 
 1 them from the commandments of God, would himself au- 
 1 thorise this method of instruction under the gospel dis- 
 1 pensation, and thus prepare the way for the subversion of 
 1 his own system ? — The nature and consequences of tra- 
 4 ditionary instruction, are arguments against its having 
 4 originated with any inspired instructor.' 4 — Mr. J. Stennett 
 — ' The pouring of the water only on the head of the per- 
 4 son to be baptized, which Mr. Russen affirms to have been 
 ' the practice of some of the primitive martyrs, confessors, 
 4 and goodly bishops after the apostles, is no rule to us, un- 
 ' less we could be sure these good men were infallible.' 6 — 
 Even Mr. Robinson, the historian, declares, that ' the fa- 
 1 thers are miserable evidence of the truth of facts, as 
 
 * well as incompetent judges of right.' 6 — On these re- 
 marks no comment is necessary — especially after reading 
 the following extract from Mr. Ivimifs Appendix to Dr. 
 Gill's Heply, &c. — ' Admitting infant baptism to have ex- 
 4 isted, not only in the first century after the apostles, but 
 
 1 P. 337. - Part 1, p. 11. Mb. p. 241, 242. 
 
 4 P. 32.'., 835. Sec also p. 218. ■ P. 138. 
 
 e P. 4i). See also J. Stennett, p. 97; and Kyland, p. 2, 21. 
 
m 
 
 1 in the time of the apostles, unless it could I .11011- 
 
 * -trated that it was practised by the epoetin ti, 
 ' tliere could be no evidence produced that h I part 
 
 4 of the " mystery" of Antechrist, which, even then, had 
 4 u begin to work," and the influence of which, even u the 
 4 life-time of the Apostle John, had been widely diffused.' ' 
 — For our Baptist friends to appeal to history after th 
 preposterous — and Mr. Robinson's volume, at this rate, is 
 only fit for waste-paper ! 
 
 IV. But, the assertion that antiquity is in favour of dip- 
 ping, any more than of sprinkling, is entirely without founda- 
 tion. The pra ct ice of the early ages after the apostles, as 
 far as hitherto developed, stands in direct opposition to this 
 dogma. Any one has only to read Robinson's History of 
 Baptism, and he will presently discover the difficult] 
 writer labours under, the shifts and contrivances lie is obliged 
 to make, and, as pronounced by competent authority, the 
 Inversions he sometimes displays, in order to present any 
 thing like a precedent for the practice of his fraternity. In 
 fact, he has indirectly established our view of the cam II >r. 
 justly considering carved work and pictures of baptism , 1 1 
 at the time, the surest criterion of ancient modes and n 
 monies, he has been at considerable pains and expense to 
 procure engravings of several of them — and, what is very 
 remarkable, all the sculpture and paintings of the gre;< 
 antiquity, represent'the baptized (not as drawn in the irontis- 
 piece of his volume — but) as painted in the enamelled win- 
 dow of the Baptist academy, at Bristol, standing up to the 
 knees or middle in water, while the ofiiciating minister p 
 a little of the element on his head. 11 Let a; im- 
 
 iily peruse Walker's Doctrine of Baptifl rV 
 
 ' P. 48. » Rob. p. 68, 82, 83, 107, 3 P. 7 1 
 
81 
 
 Letters to a Baptist Deacon, 1 and, the ninth chapter of Wall's 
 History * — and he will not hesitate to conclude that dipping 
 was not the only, if ever the ordinary, method adopted by 
 the churches after the first century. The narratives and mon- 
 uments of antiquity, render it plain that when adults were 
 proselyted to Christianity, if they were immersed at all, 
 they immersed themselves, by walking into the water to a 
 certain depth — after which, the minister approached, and 
 poured water out of his hand, or some kind of vessel, on 
 their heads. This twofold mode is still practised in the 
 Greek and Abyssinian churches ! — the first, as a preparatory 
 rite, and the second, as baptism itself. The former, indi- 
 cative of putting off the old man, and the latter, of putting 
 on the new — and answering to the bathing under the law, 
 where the ceremonially unclean washed himself in or with 
 water, and was afterwards aifused or sprinkled by the priest, 
 and pronounced sanctified. While we are on this topic, it 
 may not be unimportant to remark, that our opponents have 
 adopted a mode of baptism diverse from all other churches 
 under the sun. This, indeed, is admitted by Mr. Foot, in 
 a passage previously cited. In fact, if Mr. Robinson's his- 
 tory can at all be relied on, and, if the testimony of compe- 
 tent judges may be received, pouring or sprinkling is a part, 
 if not the whole, of baptism throughout the churches of 
 Christendom. Even the Syrian churches, and those of 
 St. Thomas, in Ceylon, and the East Indies, who appear 
 to have lived separate from all other Christians since 
 the days of the apostles, have no other fonts for baptism, 
 than small basons capable of containing about a quart or 
 two of water each. 
 
 i Lett. 1, p. 48; Lett. 3, p. 7<:. " Vol. ii. p. ?.',. 
 
 3 Hot), p. B, 104; Taylor's Lett. 1, p. 1U-2(J. 
 
82 
 
 V. Afil t a careful examination of what the ad'.. 
 t»f immersion have adduced from primitive history 10 WTO- 
 port of their system, it appears that they have completely 
 faded in making out a clear and substantial case. The 
 lowing facts comprehend the substance of their researches : — 
 
 i. No clear case of immersion is given us from the I 
 and Latin writers, till they mention the immersion of in- 
 fants. Consequently, our opponents can derive no historical 
 0fMa»ce in support of immersion, which is not equally rele- 
 vant to infant baptism. The citations of Mr. Joseph Sten- 
 nett and others, from the works ascribed to Barnabas and 
 Hennas, 1 who lived in the first century, are not only de- 
 fective, but totally invalid — as may be seen by referring to 
 Dr. Mosheim's account of those publications. 8 
 
 ii. The advocates of dipping, have given us no authentic- 
 proof of immersion baptism having been adopted till about 
 the close of the second century, when, as Mr. Gibbs assures 
 us, * numerous ceremonies,' of human invention, ' had in- 
 * undated the church/ 3 till the notion of baptismal regenera- 
 tion had become pretty general, when fasting preceded the 
 ordinance, which consisted in trine immersion, and was ac- 
 companied by the use of sponsors, oil, spittle, crossings. 
 exorcisms, and other rites, since designated Popish. 4 So 
 that our antagonists have no better authority from primitive 
 history for a single dipping, than for these superstitious ap- 
 jHiidages. 
 
 in. They have adduced no Latin work of the second 
 century wherein the word baptize is rendered, mergo, im- 
 tk rgo, submergo, demergo, or any other which unequivo- 
 cally means to dip, or plunge under water in the ceremony. 
 
 ' I'. 142, 143. *Ecc. Hist. Ont. I. pt. 2, c. 2, »ec 21. 
 
 B«i p. 320-336. « Set GUI, p. ."331 - 
 
83 
 
 and as the act of baptism, — in the passages cited, it being 
 generally translated by tin go, and sometimes by lavo and 
 abluo. In their extracts from the Greek authors of this 
 period, we find the original words and phraseology of 
 scripture employed to express this rite — and, when others 
 are used, they are so indefinite as to leave the mode quite 
 indeterminate. 
 
 iv. Assuming that our opponents have brought forward 
 all the available evidence from primitive history in favour 
 of their scheme — and that our positions harmonize with 
 the character of their citations, which we believe to be the 
 fact, it may be inquired, what tenable argument can they 
 derive in support of immersion from the post-apostolic gene- 
 ration of believers ? To argue, that people were dipped, 
 after the church of Christ was inundated with human in- 
 ventions, after this very sacrament had confessedly lost its 
 original simplicity, and had become clogged and clouded 
 with numerous superstitious appendages, will go for no- 
 thing with any intelligent person— especially with those who 
 declare that ' they reject all pretended apostolical tradi- 
 ' tion, and every thing that goes under that name'— who 
 say * the loose expositions and misapplications of scrip- 
 4 ture, by the fathers, are not to be endured' — and who aver 
 that ' they cannot know any thing about the precise na- 
 1 ture of positive institutions, their tnie design, the proper 
 1 subjects of them, or the right mode of their administration, 
 4 further than the scriptures teach.' 
 
 VI. Here, perhaps, some man will say, How comes it 
 to pass that so many critics and commentators have held that 
 immersion was the primitive mode of baptism — was com- 
 mon in the post-apostolic ages — and became so prevalent in 
 subsequent periods ? That many great and good men of 
 
84 
 
 • denominations have made this concession, it would be 
 disingenuous to deny — though not to the extent and in the 
 unqualified manner onr Opponents would make us believe. 
 To account for this sentiment, we have only to recur to the 
 early introduction of dipping — the dark ages in which it 
 originated — the veneration in which the authors of it v. 
 held by their successors — the uncommon stress laid on tra- 
 dition — and the credulity of mankind, in considering that 
 divine which has antiquity on its side. One generation has 
 believed its predecessor ; the error became ramified as the 
 gospel extended, and took a firmer hold on the minds of the 
 people the longer they cherished it — so that even now many 
 good men believe that to have been practised by the apos- 
 tles, which evidently did not take place till ' weak, inju- 
 1 dicious, and credulous interpretators of scripture' perverted 
 the right ways of the Lord. Nor is the case of immersion 
 alone in this predicament. Other notions are equally preva- 
 lent in the Christian world, which had no better origin. — 
 As we remarked before, antiquity equally remote may be 
 pleaded for baptismal regeneration, three orders of officers 
 in the church, and various other things, which are deemed 
 unscriptural by our opponents ; though held by as many 
 writers and people as have ever conceded the apostolic 
 mode of baptism to have been only dipping. 
 
 VII. Though it is said the usual mode of baptism in 
 after times was by immersion and affusion conjoined, yet 
 there does not appear to have been any uniformity of ope- 
 ration. Comparatively, little is said by the fathers on this 
 subject — but still enough to show that pouring and sprink- 
 ling simply, were valid administrations — and, for aught we 
 know, a mere immersion might have occasionally been 
 deemed sufficient. Though we lay just as little stress on the 
 
85 
 
 practice of the ancients in this matter, as our opponents do 
 in another branch of this controversy ; yet to meet their as- 
 sertions, we shall make a few extracts from Walker's Doc- 
 trine of Baptisms — a work every way entitled to your consi- 
 deration and confidence. He tells us that, ' in the first century 
 
 * after the apostles, a person sick on his journey, where water 
 1 was not attainable, was baptized by an aspersion of sand ; 
 ' and that, though the pastor at Alexandria expressed his 
 
 * disapprobation of the element, he sanctioned the mode. — 
 ' In the same age, Tertullian speaks of baptism by sprink- 
 
 * ling as a known and valid method. — In the next century, 
 1 we read of prisoners baptized in a gaol, which, being done 
 
 * by stealth, was evidently administered by perfusion. — An- 
 
 * other person is recorded as having been baptized in his 
 ' bed, which, we presume, was not done by dipping. — St. 
 ' Lawrence baptized several persons with water out of a 
 ' pitcher. — Lactantius calls Christ's baptism a perfusion. — 
 'In the year 313, the council of Neocesarea recognizes 
 4 clinical baptism as valid ; though it condemns deferring the 
 1 reception of this sacrament till the season of sickness and 
 
 * approaching death. — Athanasius speaks of baptism per- 
 
 * formed by sprinkling — as does the council of Laodicea in 
 
 * the year 364. — So also does Gregory Nazianzen, about 
 ' 370. — Twenty years after, Aurelius Prudentius calls the 
 4 baptismal element the holy dew.' ' — In the following centu- 
 ries, pouring and sprinkling are often mentioned as Christian 
 baptism; and the terms, perfusion and aspersion, are fre- 
 quently employed to express this Christian ceremony — as a 
 reference to the above authority will sufficiently prove. — 
 Further, Josephus, who was born only four years after our 
 Lord's crucifixion, and who must have been well acquainted 
 
 I P. 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 105, 106, 106, 110, 111, 112, 114. 
 
 II 
 
m 
 
 with the customs of the Hebrew ( Christians, and I 
 
 their ceremonies perform sy, rails John's baptisni 
 
 Bhihg and purification. 1 ' Now, as a Jew and a j>: 
 
 QUSt have understood the manner in which Moses washed 
 and purified the priests, and how the priests washed and 
 purified the people — which was always and only by sprink- 
 ling—ami in no oth could he, with any degree of 
 propriety, have employed those terms. — For our opponent- 
 \. the history of the Christian church is exclusively in 
 their favour, and ' that no trace of any other mode [than 
 • immersion] occurs till the middle of the third century,' 8 is 
 contravening the most palpable evidence — besides exhibit- 
 ing a great inconsistency, in fleeing from scripture evidence, 
 and resting for support on a rejected foundation. 
 
 VIII. Our Baptist brethren have toiled a good deal to 
 a-certain when and why sprinkling was introduced as a sub- 
 stitute for immersion. Several dates have been fixed on, 
 and various reasons assigned for this perplexing mutation. 
 The enquiry, however, is founded on the assumption, that 
 dipping was the original mode ; but which ought to have 
 been first satisfactorily established — a task, though fre- 
 quently and zealously attempted, has not yet been accom- 
 [t is manifest, from all we know of the temper of 
 tnd the religious notions of mankind gene- 
 that sprinkling or pouring was not likely to have been 
 substituted for a total immersion. The corruptions of m 
 
 in doing things more largely and ceremo- 
 niously than previously instituted among the simple rituals 
 wished by ( Jhrist or his like-minded disciples. The 
 aintatice with primitive manners, places this position in 
 est lighti The fathers were for doing things eli 
 
 Ant. b. is, c. 15, sec. 2. ierson, p. 33. 
 
87 
 ually, with all the parade and significant pomp imaginable 
 — and not for abridging the act or design of any original 
 appointment. With them, as Dr. Campbell justly remark-. 
 ' things always advance from less to greater.' ' — I! is easily 
 perceivable how dipping a person entirely under water once 
 or thrice, with all the concomitant affair of dressing and 
 undressing, blessing the water, applying salt, oil, and spittle, 
 with the exhibition of torches, processions, and the like, 
 so pleasing to semi -barbarous minds, should take preced- 
 ence or the place of pouring a little on the head — but not 
 how sprinkling should supersede immersion, except in the 
 case of the sickly, the bed-ridden, and the delicate. 
 
 When the early fathers, whom our opponents describe 
 as ' weak, injudicious and credulous, miserable interpreters 
 ' of scripture, and incompetent judges of right,' read of 
 
 * being born of water and buried with Christ in baptism,' 
 they thought it necessary to transform this sacrament into 
 something like water bringing forth a saint, and a funeral 
 procession with a subsequent interment, and, to complete 
 the representation, a resurrection to a new and spiritual life. 
 These ' miserable interpreters of scripture,' like the first 
 English Baptists, as Mr. Robinson remarks, 2 misunderstood 
 the import of the texts, and instituted a rite in accordance 
 with their own ignorance. This is one of the most plausible 
 reasons to be assigned for the augmentation of a ceremonv 
 originally simple and easy. With them, as remarked be! 
 
 all was enlargement, ostentatious, and imposing — to abridge 
 or simplify a scripture institution, was not the order of their 
 day, nor in consonance with their notions. — Or, probably, 
 they reasoned in the following manner : — ; If the Christian 
 
 * purification be a cleansing, the more general and coin" 
 
 ) Lecture on Ecc. Hist. Lect. IJ. f B 
 
H 
 
 4 tin' better — therefore, a total washing, or even the putting 
 •lie >ubject under water, mu.M be mote complete and 
 I e' ' than Sprinkling, pouring, or shedding it upon 
 the candidate tor this ordinance. — Or, finally, the early 
 ( Christians, perceiving that the purifications of the later .Jew- 
 was. as our opponents contend, by a total washing or im- 
 mersion, thought it improper to be outdone in the extent of 
 their lustrations, and were consequently dipped themselves 
 — this would be the case with those especially ' who flocked 
 ' to the church from the polluted embraces of heathenism ; 
 4 and thus dipping continued during those ages when, and 
 1 because, externals made nearly the whole of religion ; and 
 * still continues in the Greek church, there is reason to fear, 
 ' from a similar cause.* * 
 
 Can our opponents point out any other ceremony preva- 
 lent in the primitive churches, to which ignorance and su- 
 perstition did not make many additions — in the performance 
 of which, there was not a great deal more parade and os- 
 tentation — and to the design of which, they did not ascribe 
 an unscriptural importance i In this very sacrament, we 
 have the most decided proofs of our position. Our oppo- 
 nents believe, if their practice speak truth, that only one 
 immersion was commanded — whereas, in many of the 
 oriental churches — Mr. Robinson being judge — there were 
 three, with a subsequent pouring. There was, also, the 
 addition of oil, exorcism, consecrating the water, particular 
 Matt, and so forth, almost without end. We have, 
 therefore, no hesitation in saying, that dipping was prefixed 
 to affusion or substituted for it ' in the second and third 
 tnries, when a flood of superstitious ceremonies,' then 
 ied improvements, ' inundated the church;' 3 and that 
 
 I Antlped. Exam. toI. ii. p. 187. ■ lb. 188. 3 See Gibbs, p. 215. 
 
aspersion was revived in the western world vvitli the n 
 ation of knowledge and the reformation of religion. Our 
 brethren will establish the contrary, if it be practicable . 
 
 IX. The great stress laid on the immersions of the Greek 
 church, seems to be founded on the erroneous supposition, 
 that this extensive communion is composed entirely of the 
 descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Greece, usiog pre- 
 cisely the same language which was current at Athens two 
 thousand years ago. — ' What,' says Mr. Pearce, ' s< 
 1 most incontestibly to prove, that, to baptize, means to dip, 
 
 * is the practice of the Greek church, whose members, read- 
 
 * ing the New Testament in the original and their maternal 
 ' tongue, must certainly be better qualified to judge con- 
 4 cerning the meaning of a term, than foreigners ; and they 
 
 * have uniformly, from the apostles' times to this day, prac- 
 ' tised baptism by immersion.' ' This plausible evidence is 
 mere assumption in the first place, and contrary to fact in 
 the second. To say that the Greek church has practised im- 
 mersion, and immersion only, as performed by our oppo- 
 nents, from the apostles' time to this day, requires proof 
 which the esteemed author has not adduced — indeed, it 
 is contradicted by the Baptist historian ; and to contend 
 that the Greek of the New Testament has ever been, and 
 still is, the maternal tongue of, what we denominate, the 
 Greek church, or the language of the nursery, is contrary to. 
 truth. As justly might a Baptist contend, that the Romish 
 religion was professed only by the lineal descendants of the 
 ancient Romans, speaking the pure Latin of the Augustan 
 age. The Greek church embraces parts or all the popula- 
 tion of the following countries, whose languages are as 
 various as their territories : — 'A considerable part of Greece, 
 
 I P. 17- 
 
 B 5 
 
90 
 
 * tin- (iivrian Isles, Wallaclna, Moldavia, Egypt, Nubia, 
 
 1 Lybia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, 
 
 k the Russian Empire in Ekirope, greal pan of Siberia in 
 
 * A-ia. A-tiacan, CasaO, Georgia, and White Russia in Po- 
 
 ■ land. 1 ' Even the inhabitants of Greece, properly so called , 
 
 are, in a great Bteasure, unacquainted with the language of 
 their forefathers, and are obliged to have the original New 
 Testament translated into Modern Greek, before they can 
 understand it. 
 
 Speech is ever varying, especially when spoken by several 
 disorganized tribes. In the course of time, most langu 
 are completely metamorphosed. Even from Spencer to 
 Pope, a period of about one hundred and forty years, and, 
 in an established government, a revolution has taken place 
 in our own, which one would have hardly thought possible. 
 
 * It is well known/ says Dr. Jenkins, ' that when a language 
 1 is branched out into different dialects, those dialects may 
 1 diversify the signification of words considerably from the 
 1 strict and natural sense of the original.' * — ' The scripture,' 
 says Dr. Gale, ' is the rule, we know, of our faith and prac- 
 
 * tice, and was designed for that ; but not to be the stand- 
 ard of speech, which is continually altering, and depends 
 1 upon custom.' s Besides, if the practice of the Greek church 
 is to settle this question, and if her ministers may give their 
 opinion, then to baptize consists in three dippings and one 
 pouring — a mode as much at variance with one dipping a3 
 with one pouring ; 4 and that communion may, with equal 
 propriety, be referred to, in support of our mode, as of that of 
 our opponents. — We say nothing of the subject, as it is no- 
 us, that not only the Greek church, but every other on 
 
 I Encyclop. Lond. vol. vlii. p. 971 ( (Hbte, p. 86-91. ■ C. K. p. ». 
 3 P. 187. • Walker, p. 145. 
 
91 
 
 the face of the globe, except our Baptist brethren, baptizes 
 infants as well as adults. 
 
 It is further observable, and relevant to our position, that 
 
 * most of the eastern churches, like the Roman, have both 
 1 an ecclesiastical and a vulgar tongue. In that of Abyssinia, 
 ' the Ethiopic is the ecclesiastical, and the Amharic the 
 1 vulgar. In the Syrian churches of Mesopotamia and of 
 ' Malabar, or wherever else there may be Syrian churches, 
 
 * the Syriac is the ecclesiastical tongue — while in Mesopo- 
 ' tamia, the vulgar is the Arabic ; and, in Malabar, it is the 
 
 * Malayalim ; and, elsewhere, it is the vernacular language 
 4 of the country. Among the Copts in Egypt, the Coptic is 
 1 the church language, but the Arabic that of the people. 
 
 * In the Greek church, the ancient Greek is still used in the 
 1 offices, and the Old Testament read in the version of the 
 
 * Septuagint, and the New in the original text — while Ro- 
 ' inaic, or modern Greek, Arabic, or Turkish, is spoken by 
 
 * the people. In the Armenian church, the scriptures are 
 
 * read in a language but ill understood by the people — and 
 
 * this is the case in the Russian church.' ■ — Hence, we gather 
 that the original language of the sacred volume is an un- 
 known tongue to the great body of the people, and is studied 
 and read by the priesthood, as by linguists of the present 
 day — not as their maternal tongue, but as the subject of 
 academic acquisition. 
 
 That our opponents lay a paramount stress on the con- 
 duct of the eastern churches generally * — and of the Greek 
 church in particular — may be further seen by the following 
 remarks of Dr. Cox : — ' This is an authority,' says he, * for 
 1 the meaning of the word baptize, infinitely preferable to 
 
 * that of European lexicographers — so that a man, who is 
 
 • Eighteenth Rep. of the Church Miss. Soc. I Punt, p. 36. 
 
n 
 
 !.!. testimony, and who baptizes by 
 
 1 immersion became the Greeks do, understands theG 
 
 nl exactly as tlu; Greeks themselves understand it ; and, 
 1 in this case, the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, and 
 
 .1- practice is, in this instance, sale ground of actum/ ' 
 — But we have shown before, that the Greeks use trine im- 
 mersion with a subsequent affusion — that they baptize child- 
 ren, and give them the eucharist* — the water is exorcised, 
 and so forth, as previously specified. — Here is, then, ' the 
 * highest authority in existence — an unquestionable guide — 
 1 and a safe ground of action,' in almost every particular, 
 at variance with the practice of our opponents. — If the 
 Greek church, which, if possible, is more superstitious and 
 corrupt than the Latin, be such a faithful and true Wtl 
 in this matter, as the learned doctor declares, why do not 
 our opponents dip their candidates three times, and then 
 pour water upon them ? ' — and, as the word oikos, rendered 
 house and household in the New Testament, is as much a 
 part of their maternal tongue as the verb baptizo ; and M 
 the Greeks understand it to include the children of a family 
 — we ask, if this be not equally ' safe ground of action ?' 
 
 This gentleman, however, might have known, that the 
 avowed, and even current use of the terms in the Bib!' 
 no infallible criterion of the practice adopted even among 
 those who are designated Baptists. Our opponents in Eng- 
 land say, that to baptize, is * always and only to dip the 
 1 whole body,' and yet they do less than is enjoined — <i> 
 they only dip the upper part of the candidate — and more, 
 as th. out of the water, which is not included in the 
 
 act of dipping. — The German Baptists render the verb to 
 
 ize by Laujfen, to dip — and yet they only pop the head 
 
 <. p. W. * Booth, v. I. p. 136. • Hob. p. 88, 104, 106, 246 ; Burt, r 
 
9Q 
 
 of the person under the water — and the Dutch have trans- 
 lated it doopen ; and yet the Dutch Baptists only pour 
 water on the person baptized. 1 So that if the practice of 
 the Greek church were in accordance with the views of our 
 brethren, it does not prove that they understand the word 
 in the sense contended for by the Baptists — and might have 
 some other ground of action for immersion. — Let it be also 
 observed, that when a proselyte from Paganism or Ma- 
 homedanism, being an adult, is baptized in the Greek 
 church, he is not dipped at all — but, as a gentleman, who 
 had witnessed the ceremony, informed the preacher, he 
 stands in the water, and has a trine affusion from the offi- 
 ciating priest. — He also remarked that, in the Greek church, 
 sprinkling is perfectly valid — as those, who have been bap- 
 tized in this manner, are never immersed on subsequently 
 entering its communion.— Plow correct an exemplar of the 
 mode adopted by our brethren ! — and what excellent au- 
 thority do they derive from this ancient establishment! — 
 and what ' safe ground of action !' 
 
 But, to use die language of the said divine, with a very 
 slight alteration, we say, ' the eagerness with which our 
 * [Anti] Pedobaptist friends seize upon the most trifling 
 1 circumstance, and press into their service the most recon- 
 1 dite and remote signification, which can at any time, or 
 ' in any instance, be found to attach to any phrase or mo- 
 1 nosyllable, superinduces the conviction' * that they are 
 sadly pushed for solid and fair evidence. 
 
 X. The reference to the rubric of the church of England 
 is equally unfortunate for our opponents. 3 If the practice of 
 that communion be at all good criteria of the proper admin- 
 
 i Booth, vol. i. p. 47, '220 ; Kob. p. 547-550 ; and Gill, p. . 
 I (ox, p. m. 3 Ryland, Int. p. 12. 
 
M 
 
 titration of this sacrament, then the subjects arc infa,.' 
 well as adults, sponsors are necessary, the sign of the < 
 is indispensable, and the operation renders the baptized ' a 
 1 member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the 
 4 kingdom of heaven.' Besides, as in the rubricof the Greek 
 church,' there is an exception, even in the words of tin 
 prayer-book itself, for weak and sickly subjects who are to 
 
 irinkled or afifused — a consideration which n< 
 into the system of our respected opponents. ' By king Ed- 
 
 • ward'- lir>t book, the minister is to dip the child in the 
 4 water thrice — first, dipping the right side — secondly, the 
 
 * left — the third time, dipping the face towards the foot.' 1 
 Is not this good authority, and worthy of all acceptation ? 
 No, alas ! our brethren regard the founders of our episcopal 
 hierarchy, as but half awakened from the slumbers of Popery, 
 as having composed a liturgy loaded with Romish super- 
 stition, as being every way incompetent umpires in disputes 
 respecting the revealed will of God, and practically erro- 
 neous, even in this rite, as to the mode and subject of bap- 
 tino." And yet, when the least shadow of support can be 
 obtained from this establishment, ' the eagerness with which 
 ' our friends seize upon it,' and the tenacity with which it 
 
 !d, are surprising. Does not this manner betray a week- 
 in lair and solid argument, and a determination, at any 
 
 . to maintain a favourite hypothesis'? When our brethren, 
 with so much significance and complacency, point at a lew 
 antiquated fonts, in some of our old church- ikiag 
 
 nonies in favour of immersion, they seem to forget that 
 none but infants, literally infants, could possibly be dipped 
 ill them — and, that when baptism was administered at stated 
 
 ' Dr. Henderson's lliblical Kescarclirs in Russia, p. l!H. 
 " Encyc. Brit, on 
 
^-^ 
 
 tunes of the year, and that not frequently,' sufchfonts would 
 have been absolutely necessary lor afTusing ors^orinkluTg 
 the vast numbers brought together to receive this religious 
 sacrament. It is, however, somewhat remarkable, that when 
 a gentleman at Leicester, and a lady in London, requested 
 to be christened by immersion, in tubs, in the episcopal 
 sanctuary, dispensations from the respective bishops were 
 requisite to perform this ceremony. Now, if in the judg- 
 ment of Mr. Vaughan and Dr. Richards, or of the bishops, 
 dipping, at least adults, were the doctrine of the prayer- 
 book, what need of this prelatical license? 2 It may, also, 
 be proper to meet the arguments of our brethren, respecting 
 the fonts in our churches, by a citation from Maundrell's 
 Travels in Judea, in the year 1697. He says, ' In the 
 ' church, supposed to be erected over the house of St. Mark, 
 ' the Syrians show you a Syriack manuscript of the New 
 ' Testament, in folio, pretended to be eight hundred and 
 ' fifty-two years old, and a little stone font, used by the 
 ' apostles themselves in baptising.' 3 Which reference is most 
 to the point, you will easily judge. Let this suffice as a 
 refutation of the evidence derived from the history of the 
 Christian church, in favour of immersion -baptism. We shall 
 now proceed to a branch of this controversy on which our 
 opponents appear to suspend the issue of their cause. 
 
 SECTION FOURTH. 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZO. 
 
 Our Baptist friends assure us, in the most positive terms, 
 that this word is always and exclusively employed so as to 
 
 1 Hyland, p. 29. 2 Record Newspaper, Jan. 7, 18W. 
 
 1 Fraguieuts to Calmet'i Dictionary, No. 136. 
 
N 
 
 support their practiflH — u i km panagei <»ut of multin 
 
 will evince. — Dr. (, it pignifief 'only to dip or 
 
 • plunge' ' — and that, after baring extensively examined the 
 subject, ■ he did not remember a passage where all other 
 
 M8| are not necessarily excluded besides dipping.'* — 
 Dr.. h nkins<;\\<, * we maintain that baptizo always signifies 
 1 to dip the whole body.'* — Mr. ./. Stennett tells us, that 
 ' the word baptizo signifies, and only signifies, to imm» 
 1 or to wash by immersion' ' — and that ' to baptize persons 
 lilies no more nor less than to plunge or dip them in 
 r/ ' — |fr. Maclean assures us, that baptizo ' signifies 
 ' properly to dip, plunge, or immerse ; and that in distinc- 
 ' tion from every other mode of washing, as well as from 
 ' sprinkling or pouring, which are expressed in the original 
 1 by other words ; and no instance has yet been produced, 
 ' either from scripture or any ancient Greek writer, where 
 ' it must necessarily bear another sense.' 6 — Mr. D'Anvers 
 says, ' baptizo, in plain English, is nothing else but to dip, 
 ' plunge, or cover all over,' 7 — Mr. Gibbs assures us, that 
 ' the verbs bapto and baptizo are not generic terms, denoting 
 ' the application of water in any way ; but that they are con- 
 \fined to the specific mode, dipping, may be proved by 
 
 • a reference to their use in the works of classical Greek 
 1 writers, who certainly understood their own language bet- 
 1 ter than any other in later times — and the Pedobaptist 
 1 cannot cite one authority from these writers in defence of 
 1 his explanation of the terms.' 8 — And Mr, Booth deci 
 
 4 that to immerse, plunge, or dip, is the radical, primary. 
 
 • and proper meaning of the word.' 9 — In this specific se 
 thty contend, it must be invariably understood when em- 
 
 P.W7. J P. 78. 3 0. R. p. 56. <P. 179- 5 P.1*>. f Works, v. i. p. 109. 
 I Treatise, p. 182. e P. 80. » Vol. il. p. 69. 
 
97 
 
 ployed to designate the rite under immediate consideration. 
 They also pronounce the import of this term the pith of the 
 whole enquiry. — Dr. Gill says, ' those that are baptized, 
 * are necessarily dipped — for the word baptize signifies al- 
 ' ways to dip, or to wash by dipping.' ' — Mr. Anderson tells 
 us, that * if we can ascertain the meaning of the term [bap- 
 1 tize] that he employed [in Matt, xxviii. 19] it will help 
 k us to a certain conclusion.' 2 — Dr. Gale says, ' the mean- 
 ' ing of the word baptizo must be considered the main branch 
 1 of our dispute.' ' — And Mr. Robinson tells us, that ' whether 
 ' John baptized by pouring on water, or by bathing in water, 
 4 is to be determined chiefly, though not wholly, by ascer- 
 1 taining the precise meaning of the word baptize.' * 
 
 With this view of the case, our respected opponents have 
 made uncommon efforts to prove that its meaning is exclu- 
 sively in favour of dipping, and ever stands as an impreg- 
 nable bulwark of their system. They incessantly refer to 
 the Greek fathers of the church, heathen writers, different 
 translations of the scriptures, 6 lexicons, the concessions of 
 Pedobaptists, reason, analogy, inference, and the like — to 
 make us sensible, that baptizo means only to dip, plunge, or 
 immerse the whole body — or, that this is absolutely and 
 unequivocally its radical, primary, or proper meaning. In 
 this sense, of absolute immersion, it appears our opponents 
 have translated the word baptize in their versions of the 
 New Testament into the languages and dialects of the east. 6 
 If, iu this main branch of our dispute, they have failed to 
 establish their point, their cause is hopeless — in fact, is en- 
 tirely lost — and that they have completely failed, we feel 
 confident of fully convincing you. — Should we be some- 
 
 > P. 456. ■ P. 6. 3 P. 73, 74. 4 P. 5. i Dore's Int. p. 14, 17; Pearce, 
 p. 16; Ryland, p. 8. e See Con?. Mag. March, 1830. 
 
what elaborate in our observations on this bead, you 
 pardon the claim on your patience, and lend us your candid 
 and serious attention. — We shall first dispose of Mr. 
 Booth's never-failing phraseology about ' the radical, pri- 
 1 inary, and proper meaning' of the word baptize. 
 
 I. Tin' terms radical, primary, and proper, as applied 
 to the meaning of words, require a little explication. The 
 radical import of a compounded term, embraces its mean- 
 ing as gathered from its original component parts — hence 
 the word to manufacture means to make a thing by hand. 
 The radical import of a simple term, embraces its meaning 
 yn hen first employed to convey an idea from one man to an- 
 other. The primary import of a word may refer to its 
 original use, as distinguished from its present application — 
 or to its literal sense, instead of its figurative — or to its 
 common use, in opposition to an occasional one. The 
 proper meaning of a word may signify, generally, the no- 
 tion attached to it when first used — or the ordinary sense of 
 it at some subsequent period — or the current import of it 
 at some specific place — or, what is most correct, the idea 
 attached to it by some particular author in a sentence or 
 passage under consideration. Now, to ascertain the radical, 
 primary, and proper meaning of a word, is frequently very 
 difficult ; and especially to render these respective properties 
 accordant with each other — since the radical meaning of a 
 word often varies considerably from its proper and current 
 use. For example— the elements of the word to manufac- 
 ture mean to make a thing by hand ; but the current or 
 proper use of this verb is to make something by machinery. 
 
 primitive meaning may also differ from the pn 
 of a term : — a villain originally meant 'an inhabitant of a 
 1 village' — now it signifies 'a wicked wretch.' — To ascer- 
 
tain, therefore, the radical and primary meaning of a term is 
 of little importance, unless we also find out its current mean- 
 ing, and that meaning in the particular book or paragraph 
 are investigating — which must be determined by the 
 connexion and circumstances in which the word is found. — 
 Consequently, when a writer pronounces this or that specific 
 sense of a word to be its radical, primary, and proper mean- 
 ing, and labours to build a system of religious ceremonies 
 upon such a specific sense, it behoves him to be very certain 
 that he has really discovered not only this original, principal, 
 and current use of the word, but also the harmony of these 
 respective properties, and the import of it in the chapter and 
 verse of the author on whose dicta he erects his practice. 
 — Mr. Booth, however, assumes that the radical, primary, 
 and proper meanings of the word are precisely the same, as 
 distinguished from some secondary import. However falla- 
 cious this notion may appear, we shall argue for the moment 
 on the supposition. 
 
 II. Supposing then, what we do not grant, that the 
 radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word baptize, 
 (as distinguished from all secondary and figurative senses,) 
 were to accord, and signified to dip, plunge, or immerse the 
 whole body or thing spoken of; it does not necessarily fol- 
 low, that the writers of the New Testament have used it in 
 this sense, while describing the rite under consideration. If 
 the word have secondary and subordinate meanings, as 
 Mr. Booth's expressions certainly imply — how will our 
 opponents prove, that the inspired penmen have not em- 
 ployed it in some inferior or figurative sense ? As Dr. Wil- 
 liams justly observes — ' What Mr. Booth has produced 
 ' from Pedobaptist writers as concessions, no more regards 
 * the leading point in dispute than, I was going to say, the 
 
KM) 
 
 tii- fa flffSt book of Chrome I :u,Sh«Mh, 
 
 ' l'lnosh." For the immediate question H not what is th.> 
 • radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word baptism, 
 ' in I philological or etymological sense, but whether tin- 
 4 legal, the ceremonial, or sacramental sense of the word, 
 aides, absolutely excludes, every other idea but im- 
 ' mersion ? No concession short of this is of any real eetncti 
 4 to our opponent's cattse.' ' — It is well known, that words 
 used in common conversation, or in books, about the ordi- 
 nary affairs of life, and particularly in the writings of the 
 heathens — whose ideas were widely different r< 
 morals, religion, and ceremonial worship, from those of 
 holy and inspired penmen — assume a very different c 
 when brought into the vocabulary of the church. 8 A men 
 allusion to the words light, angel, virtue, prudence, charity, 
 church, sacrament, and similar terms, will place this doc- 
 trine in the clearest aspect. Therefore, to demonstrate even 
 that the radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word 
 baptize is to dip, plunge, or immerse a person or thing en- 
 tirely, would by no means settle the dispute, unle.-s it \va- 
 also proved, that the writers of the New Testament, when 
 describing the ceremony in question, employed it in this 
 radical, primary, and proper sense. To ascertain this, de- 
 volves on our respected brethren. That this point has not 
 
 i established by them, we shall presently show you; I 
 that it is impracticable, we are perfectly satisfied. 
 
 III. But we take upon us to assert further, that the 
 action of dipping, plunging, or immersing the whole body, 
 is not the primary, radical, and proper meaning of the word 
 baptize — that being an effect produced in the character of 
 
 I Antip. lA.un. vol. ii. p. :.. 0. 
 * See Walker, p. 82} and Dr. Pye Smlt] 
 
101 
 
 wetting, washing, colouring, consecrating, punishing, and so 
 on — whether done by pouring, painting, sprinkling, pierc- 
 ing, or immersing. This irrefragable position our opponents 
 have been driven to admit on many occasions, as will lie 
 shown hereafter. — One citation, at present, will serve as a 
 specimen of the whole. Dr. Gale says, ' the word baptize, 
 1 perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of put- 
 ' ting under water, as, in general, a thing being in that con- 
 ' dition, no matter how it comes so ; whether it was put into 
 * the water, or the water comes upon it.' ■ But, to illustrate 
 this sentiment, let it be observed, that the word primary, 
 which, on Mr. Booth's principles, comprehends the other 
 two, ' may either signify a priority of design, or a priority 
 1 of execution — it may refer to the end or the means. Now, 
 ' what we deny is, that the principal end or design con- 
 1 veyed by the word is to immerse.' ' — The verb is employed, 
 according to our opponents, as will be verified in its place, 
 for bathing, besmearing, colouring, covering, daubing, in- 
 fecting, imbuing, quenching, soaking, tinging, washing, and 
 the like — and, if their previous assertions be correct, ail this 
 must be done by dipping — and which, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, we will admit. But what is the unavoidable result ? 
 If the primary end or the ultimate design of the verb be to 
 dip or immerse, then a person is to be bathed, besmeared, co- 
 loured, covered, daubed, infected, imbued, quenched, soaked 
 tinged, or washed, as an act or means for producing the end 
 of dipping. Such is the inevitable consequence of their po- 
 sition, if immersing be the primary design of the word under 
 review. And who does not instantly discover the sophistry 
 of their reasoning ? If the primary means, or the priority of 
 execution, only be to dip, then the point in debate is con- 
 
 i P, 96. 2 Aatip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 2'J. 
 
 i 5 
 
m 
 
 ceded at once — since the direct and ultimate import oi 
 
 word may be something eke — unlets we are willing to be- 
 lieve that taking up a book is reading it, dipping the pen in 
 ink is writing, going to church is hearing a sermon, and 
 opening the mouth is speaking ; because these .ire primary 
 means for such a design, or are prior in execution to the 
 end intended. In accordance with this reasoning, Dr. I 
 tells us, that ' immersion is before tinging, for thing- 
 1 tinged by it.' ' — And Mr. Booth says, ' it may be ass. 
 * [even] of our English term dip, that it no where signifies 
 1 to immerse, except as a mode of, or in order to dyeing, 
 v washing, wetting, or some other purpose." 1 — One fact is 
 incontrovertible, that whenever the word baptize is em- 
 ployed to express an effect, state, or condition, as bathing, 
 besmearing, &c, which may or might be accomplished by 
 dipping — dipping is only the mode or means of producing 
 it, and not the effect, state, or condition included in the term 
 — and to suppose that a word, which expresses an effect. 1- 
 to be considered as synonymous with others which merely de- 
 signate the manner of accomplishing it, is every way im- 
 proper ; and, in the translation of books from one langi 
 to another, would produce consequences both erroneoi^ 
 and absurd. If the word in question signifies to bathe, be- 
 smear, colour, cover, daub, infect, imbue, quench, - 
 tinge, and wash — and if these, or any of them, can be 
 effected without dipping, we have the clearest evid« 
 that to dip is not its primary meaning ; and that it may not 
 be involved in the term even as a means of execution. 
 IV. Having made the preceding remarks respecting the 
 B laid on the supposed primary sense of the verb bapl 
 and shown the impropriety of our opponents' reasoning 
 
 I P. 100. - Vol.iii. p. 
 
10:} 
 
 shall next proceed to establish the variety of its import, in 
 contradiction to their pre-cited assertions. The word bap- 
 tizo is a derivative from bapto, and is a diminutive of it. 
 Hence, according to the ordinary construction of the Greek 
 verbs, if bapto signify to dip, baptizo means to dip less — or 
 if h-jpto signify to pour or sprinkle, bapiizo means to pour 
 Of sprinkle less. 1 Now, the word bapto is never used to ex- 
 press the ceremony of Christian baptism/ and it is reason- 
 able to suppose this constant use of the diminutive was by 
 design — and therefore not synonymous with its root, bapto. 
 Hence we might fairly confine ourselves to the considera- 
 tion of the derivative verb only — in this case, our labour 
 would have been much less, and our triumph, if possible, 
 more complete. But as our opponents contend that bapto 
 and baptizo are synonymous, 5 and as they constantly em- 
 brace both in their discussions of this rite, we shall, for the 
 sake of argument, and to give them all the advantage they 
 could justly claim, admit, at least for the present, that both 
 words mean precisely the same thing in action, nature, and 
 extent. Now, we contend that these words, so far from sig- 
 nifying one and the same action, in all cases and connexions, 
 have a great variety of meanings. This we shall prove from 
 the unanimous consent of the best lexicographers, the trans- 
 lations of our opponents, the use of them in the Septuagint, 
 Apocrypha, and New Testament — and by such other means 
 as may be available and proper. Should our intention be 
 realized to your satisfaction, the whole fabric of our op- 
 ponents' exclusive scheme falls to the ground and crumbles 
 into dust. 
 
 V . That the word baptize has a variety of significations and 
 is of a generic nature, may be made to appear by an appeal 
 to the best lexicographers. The following have been con- 
 
 > Jenkins's Def. p. 113. « Wall, vol. iii. p. M . . p. 7«".. 
 
104 
 
 suited : — Hedricus, Leigh, Parkhurst, Bchleuiioer, Scapula, 
 
 Stephens and Suidas. Reference lias also been made to 
 
 Montanus 1 Literal Version of the Apocrypha and New 
 . and of tlie Hebrew terms tendered baptize by 
 . translators, The result of the research is, that 
 
 fid is deemed synonymous with the following Latin 
 verbs — to which a translation is appended, and that chiefly 
 taken from the Baptists : — 
 
 I Ahluo 
 
 To wash away 
 
 U M 
 
 To wet 
 
 2 Colo 
 
 To col ur 
 
 11 Maculo 
 
 To pollute 
 
 3 Demerge 
 
 To dive 
 
 l.'i .1/ 
 
 To dip 
 
 A Duro 
 
 To l-al 
 
 16* \l until, 
 
 To cl< 
 
 
 To pierce 
 
 17 Obruo 
 
 To overwheh 
 
 C Fury, 
 
 To colour 
 
 18 Prrro 
 
 To perish 
 
 7 linurio 
 
 To draw up 
 
 19 Punro 
 
 To purge 
 
 B Mm 
 
 To imbue 
 
 20 Rubesro 
 
 To redden 
 
 'j Tmwtergu 
 
 To plunge 
 
 21 Ovtmerg* 
 
 To put under 
 
 1(1 llliplro 
 
 To fill 
 
 22 Terreo 
 
 To affright 
 
 11 Inttngo 
 
 To dye 
 
 2.1 Tingo 
 
 To stain 
 
 13 I. mo 
 
 To wash 
 
 
 
 From these unexceptionable testimonies, it is evident that 
 the word has various meanings, and that in general, if not 
 invariably, it expresses the effect produced by an action, 
 rather than the precise action itself. In fact, we might defy 
 our opponents to produce a single lexicographer, of the 
 least authority, who maintains that the word baptize m 
 only one definitive act or end, much less that it means al- 
 ways and only to dip, plunge, or immerse the whole body 
 or thing spoken of, under water or in any other element. — 
 To say that it is sometimes employed in this sense, or that 
 this is its primary import, amounts to nothing in the scale 
 of evidence, as we have previously established, 
 
 VI. We proceed now to the translations of our oppo- 
 nents. Considerable pains have been taken by them to 
 BI authors under their banners, for the pur- 
 pose of aiding their cause. Five only of their most eminent 
 
105 
 
 and learned divines — Booth, Cox, Gale, Ryland, and 
 Gibbs — notwithstanding their occasional opposition, and 
 that of their brethren, to such a mode of reference, bate 
 cited numerous passages from different Greek writers to 
 establish their position, that * baptize means only to dip or 
 * plunge, and that they do not remember a passage where 
 'all other senses are not necessarily excluded/ — They 
 have referred to nearly ali the texts in the Septuagint, Apo- 
 crypha and New Testament, where the word occurs not in 
 connexion with the sacrament under immediate considera- 
 tion. — That these gentlemen have not perverted the sense 
 of their authorities to the prejudice of their cause, may be 
 readily supposed — and what is the result ? That the word 
 baptize, as employed by the ancient Greek poets, philoso- 
 phers, historians, and divines, signifies only one and the 
 same definitive action, and that to dip, plunge, or immerse ? 
 — Far from it. — The following list of translations presents 
 the fruit of their laborious researches and philological 
 acumen. — According to them it is used for 
 
 1 Bathe 
 
 15 Infected 
 
 20 Quenched 
 
 2 Besmear 
 
 1(5 Imbue 
 
 30 Redden 
 
 3 Caused 
 
 17 Immersed 
 
 31 Hun through 
 
 4 Coloured 
 
 18 Involved 
 
 32 Smeared 
 
 5 Covered 
 
 IS) Laid under 
 
 33 Soaked 
 
 6 Crashed 
 
 20 Let down 
 
 34 Sprinkled 
 
 7 Daubed 
 
 21 Oppressed 
 
 86 Stained 
 
 8 Dip 
 
 22 Overwhelmed 
 
 M Steep 
 
 !» Drawing water 
 
 23 Over head and ears 
 
 37 Sink 
 
 10 Drank much 
 
 24 Plunged 
 
 18 Swallowed up 
 
 11 Drowned 
 
 20 Pour 
 
 31) Thrust 
 
 13 Dyed 
 
 M Purify 
 
 40 Tinned 
 
 18 Fill 
 
 27 Put 
 
 41 Washed 
 
 14 (liven up to 
 
 2-! Pat into 
 
 42 Wetted ■ 
 
 i Gale, p. 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, !»'_>, 86, '.»», !).'», %, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 
 103, 104, 1(»;>, 106, 119, (comp. Hees 120.) 120, 151 ; Booth, vol. I. p. 64; Cox, p. 
 41, 43, 4.'., 46, 51 ; Hyland's Appendix, p. 3, 4, 5, 10, l'j, 15; Gibbs, p. 52, 63, 
 54, 55, 88. 
 
I0(i 
 
 Let n be put to the judgment ol any sensible and un- 
 prejudiced person, whether a word which, according to our 
 opponents 1 own showing, admits of so many different and 
 
 even opposite explanations, can mean only one simple and 
 specific action, and that to dip, plunge, or immerse in the 
 manner of a modem baptism ? — With those who could 
 f this evidence, we would have no con- 
 tention. 
 
 \ II. H\ ■ cursory reference to the citations our oppo- 
 nents have made from Greek writings, for the express pur- 
 Bupporting their exclusive mode of baptism, we find 
 that (omitting the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and Xew Test- 
 ament) the following operations, conditions, or d 
 are designated by the word baptize or baptism. 
 
 I . Sfttolng a sword with blood or slaughter. 
 '_». Daubing the face with paint. 
 :i. Colouring the cheeks by intoxication. 
 
 4. Dyeing a lake with the blood of a frog. 
 
 5. Beating a person till red with his own blood, 
 ^tainiug the hand by squeezing a substance. 
 
 7. Ornamenting clothes with a print, needle, or brush. 
 
 8. Imbuing a person with his thoughts, or justice, 
 y. Polluting the mind by fornication and sophi 
 
 10. Poisoning the heart with evil manners. 
 
 1 1 . Involving a person in debt and difficulties. 
 
 12. Hrintrin^ ruin on a city by besieeing it. 
 ISi The natural tints of a bird or flower. 
 14. Plunging a sword into a viper or army. 
 16. Running a man through with a spear. 
 It!. Sticking the feet of a flea in melted wax. 
 17- Quenching a flaming torch in water. 
 
 )X. Seasonimr hot iron by dipping it in cold w 
 If, Plying the oars and rowing a vessel. 
 SI. Dipping children into a cold bath. 
 21. I >rowniug persons in a lake, pond, or sea. 
 
 inking a ship, ere.v, and persons mider water. 
 Aeetenlng hay with honey. 
 ikfag a herring in brine. 
 steeping a stone in wine. 
 
107 
 
 26. Immersing one's self up to the middle, Irt-asts, or head. 
 27- Destroying ships iu a harbour by a storm. 
 23. Filling a cup with honey. 
 
 29. Drawing water in a pitcher, or bucket. 
 
 30. Popping cupid into a cup of wine. 
 
 SI. Poisoning arrows and presents like arrows. 
 
 32. Washing wool in or with water. 
 
 33. C legating the body wholly or partially. 
 
 34. Tinging the finger with blood. 
 
 ."-&. Dipping birds or their bills in a river. 
 
 36. A dolphin ducking an ape. 
 
 37. The tide overflowing the laud. 
 
 38. Ponrh.g water on wood and gardes plants. 
 
 39. Dyeing an article in a vat. 
 
 4'.i. Throwing fish into cold water. 
 
 41. Dipping weapons of war in blood. 
 
 42. Overwhelming a ship with stones. 
 
 43. Opnressiug or burdening the poor with taxes. 
 
 44. Overcome with sleep or calamity. 
 
 45. Destroying animals with aland flood. 
 
 Little comment is requisite on these allusions. It is clear as 
 the light at noon, that the passages, which our opponents 
 have selected from Greek authors as the best calculated to 
 sustain their cause of exclusive dipping, have completely 
 failed. That, so far from implying one, and only one, defi- 
 nite act, and that the total immersion of a person or thing, 
 they express various and opposite actions, as applying the 
 baptismal element to the object in the shape of painting, 
 pouring, and overwhelming, as well as applying the object 
 to the element in the form of a partial or total dipping. 
 
 VIII. But to proceed with this important branch of our 
 discussion. We have no hesitation, then, in affirming, that 
 had the passages cited by our learned opponents been fairly 
 rendered, and the primary and proper design of the word 
 given in all its various connexions, without prejudice or par- 
 tiality, the renderings would have been still more numerous 
 and opposite — as a reference to the preceding catalogue of 
 its connexions will clearly evince. We shall submit the 
 
KM 
 
 mm of Kn^lish word \cnng to the true 
 
 impOfl of the Greek verb baptize or the noun bapti- 
 
 the citations made by our respected brethren. 
 
 1 r,;itlic 
 
 M H'-ding 
 
 idling 
 
 if aretl 
 
 V.t Imbue 
 
 • nching 
 
 ■ ken 
 
 20 Infected 
 
 
 IBM 
 
 21 Involved 
 
 aks 
 
 B I Mnni 
 
 22 Lost 
 
 39 8priukle 
 
 *i Cooled 
 
 M 'press 
 
 40 Stain 
 
 vtTed 
 
 24 Ornamented 
 
 41 Sleep 
 
 8 Crushed 
 
 J.) overcome 
 
 -tick* 
 
 1 Defiled 
 
 • verpowered 
 
 43 Submersed 
 
 Mi Destroyed 
 
 27 overwhelmed 
 
 44 sunk 
 
 11 Dip 
 
 28 Plied 
 
 1 eetened 
 
 IS Disiruised 
 
 •»> 1'lunged 
 
 AC Tempered 
 
 IS Drowning 
 
 30 Poisoned 
 
 47 Variegated 
 
 14 Ducking 
 
 M Polluted 
 
 Raft 
 
 If Dye 
 
 32 Popped 
 
 41 Wetted 
 
 1»; Knfeebles 
 
 tt Poured 
 
 N Wrecked 
 
 17 Fills 
 
 34 Put 
 
 
 Supposing the preceding translations to be correct, and we 
 fearlessly solicit investigation, we may appeal to any ju- 
 dicious and candid umpire, whether a word, which is capa- 
 ble of so many and such various renderings, can be con- 
 sistently pleaded by our opponents as signifying always and 
 only to dip — and whether the system they have adopted, 
 and which rots, in the main, on such an exclusive con- 
 struction of the term baptize, must not be destitute of a fair 
 ind solid foundation? 
 
 I X. But there are other passages in Greek writers, which 
 our brethren have purposely or inadvertently overlooked — 
 and where, in several instances, the sense of the word in 
 question is, if possible, still more adverse to their conclu- 
 pfrOOS. — Dr. Williams, Mr. C. Taylor, and the Rev. G. 
 Swing, have cited various authors, in order to prove, that 
 the word does not signify always to dip : but that it cm- 
 
109 
 
 braces many other modes of action. Without reading the 
 passages at length, we shall, as before, give you their import 
 in a few words. 
 
 1. Perfuming the head with precious ointment. 
 
 2. Injecting a force into the body. 
 
 • 3. Disguised by drinking too much wine. 
 4. Adorning the head with dress. 
 '). Dyeing the hair while on the head. 
 6. Pouring out broth. 
 ". Overcome by intemperance. 
 
 8. Staining a dog's month by eating a shell-fish. 
 
 9. Purifying at a small bason. 1 
 
 10. Sprinkling holy water. 
 
 11. Overwhelmed by calamity. 
 
 12 Tinging the body with various colours. 
 
 13. Filling the hand with flowing blood. 
 
 14. Embroidering a girdle with flowers. 2 
 
 Enough has now been said respecting the evidence deriv- 
 able from Greek writers, as to the various meanings of the 
 verb under consideration. And if, as Dr. Cox remarks, ' the 
 ' signification of a Greek term is to be determined by the 
 ' testimony of the best critics and lexicographers, in con- 
 * nexion with the primitive and current uses by the most 
 1 approved writers in the language ;' 3 our opponents cannot 
 support their position — that * baptizo means always and 
 only to dip.' 
 
 X. The deductions from this branch of our investigation 
 are simple and easy : — 1. That the word generally, if not 
 exclusively, expresses an effect produced, rather than any 
 precise mode of accomplishing it. — 2. That to dye, stain, 
 or impart a colour or character to a person or thing, is its 
 more ancient and prevailing import. — 3. That when the 
 action is discoverable, it is found to be various, up, down, 
 
 1 See Booth, vol. i. p. 92; and vol. iii. p. 250. 
 
 '- Antip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 65 ; Taylor's Letters, lett. 3, p. 63; Ewing's Essay, 
 
 p. 44-46, 246-24'J, l'.VJ.'J.m. 3 Cox, p. 35. 
 
 K 
 
no 
 
 raid, backward, and the like. — I. That our opponents 
 have adduced do instance where it is used For the two-fold 
 
 action of dipping and raising. — ;'). That the end prop 
 in the term may be effected by sprinkling or pouring, partial 
 or total inmier-ion, according to the circumstances of the 
 case, and — 6. That this point being established, the main 
 support of our opponents' scheme has given way. and the 
 others must speedily follow. 
 
 After this development of the various meanings of the 
 word baptize, and which, one would suppose, must have 
 been familiar to the mind of Mr. Booth, one should hardly 
 have expected to read in his work the following sentence : 
 — ' Were the leading term of any human law to have ain- 
 4 biguity in it equal to that for which our brethren plead 
 
 • with regard to the word baptism, such law would certainly 
 4 be considered as betraying either the weakness or wicked- 
 
 • ness of the legislator ; and be condemned as opening a 
 
 • door to perpetual chicane and painful uncertainty. Far be 
 f it, then, from us to suppose that our gracious and omni- 
 
 ie&t Lord should give a law relating to divine worship, 
 1 and obligatory on the most illiterate of his real disciples, 
 
 • which may be fairly construed to mean this, that, or the 
 
 • other action — a law which is calculated to excite and per- 
 
 tuate contention among his \\i>est and sincercst t'ollow- 
 -— a law. in respect of its triple meaning, that would 
 ' disgrace a British parliament, as being involved in the 
 ' dark ambiguity of a pagan oracle.' ' 
 
 But, all this pious parade of language is in direct oppo- 
 sition to the most stubborn and incontrovertible fai 
 
 which our opponents have largely and voluntarily ad- 
 duced — facts which their own mouths have uttered and 
 their own pens have transmitted to posterity. — This para- 
 
 > Vol. i. p. S4, 86. See alio p. 100, 231 ; and Gibbs, p. 
 
Ill 
 
 graph also proceeds on the principle of counselling the Al- 
 mighty as to the degree of simplicity which should chracter- 
 ize his enactments — as if infinite wisdom could not best 
 determine that point. It assumes, what we deny, that God 
 intended dipping, and only dipping, to be the mode of ope- 
 ration which he designed to enforce by the term baptizu. — 
 Conjoined with this presumption, is the inconclusive cha- 
 racter of the reasoning — since it supposes, that when laws 
 are enacted requiring some effect to be produced, not the 
 least latitude of method is to be allowed in accomplishing 
 it — or that the compliance required regards the minutia of 
 forms as much as the intended results. — Or, to illustrate the 
 absurdity of the position, when a law was made by queen 
 Elizabeth, enjoining that all persons should repair to the 
 parish church once every Lord's day, the parliament deter- 
 mined that the people were only to walk — or only to ride 
 — or only to go through the queen's high-way — or only to 
 wear such a dress — or proceed at such a pace ! — Who does 
 not discover the sophistry of Mr. Booth's argument ? l 
 
 XI. We shall now proceed to examine the signification 
 of the term baptize in the Greek translation of the old test- 
 ament and in the apocrypha, where it occurs twenty-six 
 times — in four of which passages, the original word is bap- 
 tizu, (2 Kings v. 14; Isaiah xxi. 4; Judith xii. 7; Ec- 
 clus. xxxiv. 25.) In the other twenty-two, it is simply 
 bapto. — This enquiry is of considerable moment, as it will 
 determine the sense in which the Hellenistic Jews under- 
 stood it, and how it was applied by them in their ceremonial 
 institutions. For it should be noted, that the Septuagint 
 version was made by the Jews themselves about 277 years 
 before the Christian era ; and was in use among such of 
 
 i See Autip. Exam. vcl. ii. p. ;<76-381. 
 
112 
 
 nation as spoke the Greek language, till, during, and 
 alter, the time of our Lord's incarnation. To this transla- 
 tion the writers of the New Testament refer, and from it 
 they frequently make their citations— employing the words 
 of that version to convey a similar sense in their own in- 
 spired compositions. And here we are to look for the pri- 
 mitive ecclesiastical sense of the word baptize. And as the 
 Apocryphal books, though uncanonical, and every way un- 
 suitable to be read or circulated as the word of God, ■ 
 
 * written by Alexandrian Jews anterior to Christianity, and 
 ' are calculated to elucidate the phraseology of the New 
 
 * Testament, they claim the frequent perusal of scholars and 
 ' theological students,' and will assist us in our subsequent 
 enquiries on this subject. 1 Dr. Pye Smith observes, that 
 4 the proper authority for understanding the diction of the 
 
 * New Testament, is the Septuagint and Apocrypha, com- 
 1 pared with the Hebrew text.'* — We feel no hesitation in 
 saying, that the word baptize is here used to express differ- 
 ent kinds of action and effect, as sprinkling, pouring, stain- 
 ing, washing, overwhelming, and partial, if not a total, dip- 
 ping. But it is never employed for one person immersing 
 another, nor for the two-fold action of dipping into water 
 and raising out of it. 
 
 Before we come to the chief subject of invest 
 may be proper to premise — 
 
 i. That the original Hebrew words, translated into bapto 
 or baptizo, are five, viz : baiiotii, boaii, machats, tsabang, 
 and tabal, and respectively mean — to affright — to roim — 
 to pierce — to dye — to cleanse. — The iir>t three are thu> 
 
 1 See Parkhurst's Preface to his Greek and English Lexicon ; Prideaux's 
 (on. vol. iii. p. (SO, 73, and Comprehensive Bible, Introd. p 
 a Messiah, vol. ii. p. 899. 
 
113 
 
 translated once each — the fourth, three times — and the last, 
 sixteen, in the Old Testament. 
 
 ii. That, in 2 Kings v. 10, 14, and Ecclus. xxxiv. l 2b, 
 baptizo and lavo, to wash, are used synonymously. 
 
 III. That Montanus, in his interlineary translation of the 
 Bible and Apocrypha, has either rendered the Greek word 
 baptize, or the Hebrew terms, of which baptize is deemed 
 a correct version, by the following verbs : colo — demergo — 
 duco — -figo — haurio — immergo — intingo — terreo — tingo. 
 
 iv. That the English version has rendered them by the 
 subjoined words : to affright — to colour — to dip — to draw 
 up — to dye — to plunge — to put — to wash — to wet. 
 
 Having made these preliminary remarks, we shall now 
 examine the various places where the word in dispute oc- 
 curs in the Septuagint and Apocrypha. 
 
 XII. The following are all the places where the term 
 in question is found. — These passages we shall, for the sake 
 of brevity, arrange and classify according to their aspect 
 and connexions. The separable prepositions will be mo- 
 dified to meet our views of the verb — for doing which, the 
 most substantial reasons will be given hereafter. 
 
 i. In Levit. iv. 6 — iv. 17 — ix. 9 — xiv. 16 — the priest 
 is commanded to baptize his finger in (or with) blood or oil 
 contained in a bason, or in the palm of his left hand, and to 
 sprinkle the blood, or oil adhering to it, on the altar, taber- 
 nacle, or before the Lord. It is evident, that whatever was 
 the action here, the design was to wet the finger, so that 
 some of the element should adhere sufficiently to admit of 
 a subsequent aspersion. Total immersion was not essential 
 nor intended — and, at least, in one instance (xiv. 16) was 
 impracticable. In the second and fourth cited passages, the 
 preposition by which the word is, in a considerable degree, 
 
 k5 
 
114 
 
 regulated, is apo, which our opponents contend (as will he 
 -how u beraafter) signifies out of Consequently the h 
 
 ding to their rendering, would read thus: — k And ibe 
 1 priest shall baptize his finger out of some of the blood,' 
 and not into it — ' and the priest shall baptize his right 
 4 finger out of the oil that is in [the palm of] \\\< 
 4 hand,' v. 15. — Dipping, therefore, in these cases, i> 
 tirely out of the question — and, in the others, i- 
 ingly doubtful. 
 
 ii. In Exod. xii. 22 — Numb. xix. IS — the people arc 
 commanded to take a bunch of hyssop and to baptize it m 
 (or with) the blood or water that is in a bason or vessel, and 
 to strike or sprinkle it. Here remarks, similar to the preced- 
 ing, are appropriate. To saturate the bunch of hyssop with 
 blood or water, is the precise import of the word in thi< 
 place. The manner of doing it being a matter of no consi- 
 deration in the mind of the writer. Though the d< 
 might be effected by dipping, it could only be partial, as a 
 portion of the hyssop was in the hand of the person, and 
 not brought in contact with the adhering element. In the 
 first passage apo is the governing preposition ; and, accord- 
 ing to the notions of our antagonists, should be read — ' I 
 * shall take a bunch of hyssop, and baptize it out of the 
 1 blood that is in the bason' — or pour the blood from the 
 i on the bunch of hyssop. 
 
 in. In Lev. xiv. 6 — xiv. 51— we read that a living 
 bird, cedar wood, scarlet wool, and a bunch of hyssop, 
 ■were to be baptized in (or with) the blood of a slain bird. 
 Here you have only to consider, that the bird baptized 
 as large as the bird killed — and that this, with the cedar 
 wood, scarlet wool, and the bunch of hyssop, were to be 
 baptized in the blood of the slain bird. — Total immersion 
 
115 
 
 was, therefore, impracticable — and, if immersed at all, it 
 could only be very partial, as a part of the things dipped 
 were in the hand of the operator. It does not appear from 
 the narrative, that the blood was mingled with the running 
 water. It should seem, from the latter text, that the bird, 
 wood, wool, and hyssop, were first baptized with blood 
 and then with water. 
 
 iv. In Lev. xi. 32, it is said, that a vessel, polluted by 
 any unclean animal falling dead into it, was to be baptized 
 in (or with) water for cleansing it. Now remark that this 
 was a ceremonial purification ; and without an explicit in- 
 junction, might be performed by sprinkling, as we learn else- 
 where. — I And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it 
 ' in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all 
 ' the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon 
 ' him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a 
 'grave.' (Numb. xix. 18.) Observe, also, that raiment, 
 skins, sacks, or vessels of stone, brass, iron, used for any 
 purpose, however large, or however pernicious a saturation 
 with water would have been to it, were to be cleansed in 
 the same manner. Sprinkling would injure none of them — 
 would be convenient for the largest — and would answer 
 every end the Legislator had in view. We therefore say, 
 the vessels were merely rinsed or sprinkled by the pro- 
 prietor. 
 
 v. In Deut. xxxiii. 24 ; Josh. iii. 1 5 ; Psalm Ixviii. 23 ; 
 it is said, ' Let him baptize his foot in (or with) oil.' — ' The 
 
 * feet of the priests were baptized in (or at) the brim of the 
 
 * Jordan.' — ' That thy foot may be baptized in (or with) 
 ' the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs 
 1 in (or with) the same.' In these expressions it is evident 
 that total immersion was not designed. Asher was to walk 
 
lie 
 
 i\ soil — the priest! touched the edge of the w. 
 with their fat — and, the blood of David's enemii 
 
 ipleefa In- in the tongue of hi> doge. It 
 
 there were any thing in the form of an immersion, it 
 rerj intperfect, and such as our oppponents would c 
 defective for even the feel of their i 
 
 \i. In 1{| in ii. 1 1 : and 1 Sam. \iv. 'J 7 : we read ot 
 
 1 baptizing a sop in (or with | ind the end of a rod 
 
 'in (or with) an honeycomb. 1 Hero the action 
 gather from thecjrcumstancee of the case, was dipping — but 
 
 only partial, a- the hand held part of the bread, and only 
 the end of the rod touched the honeycomb. But, whatl 
 
 the incidental act, ihe intention wasto moisten the bread 
 and to secure a little of the honey. I Icnce, to wet and take 
 up, are the lair and direct meanings of the term in tl 
 
 connexions; Josephm says, .Jonathan ' broke offa pu o 
 'a honeycomb, and ate part of it* 1 
 
 vii. In JUDOBS v. SO, it is written, 'To Si-era a prey 
 1 of baptized [ attire ], a prey of baptized [ attire ] oi* needle 
 1 work — of baptised [ attire | of needle work On both sides." 
 
 Here ■ garment is baptized by the needU — or embroidered 
 by the application of figures in the form of modern tapestry. 
 I [ere is nothing in the shape of dipping. To szj , it wa 
 
 if it were dipped, would only be a sophi-iry to overcome a 
 stubborn fact. 
 
 viii. In M Kings v. 14, it is said, ' And EHshs sent a 
 
 1 me ob age to Naaman, saying, i, r o and wash in (or at) the 
 
 'Jordan leVCtt tunes, (v. 10.) And he baptized himselt 
 
 .1 tunes m (or at) the Jordan. 1 That tins great and 
 arable man, (v. l ,) — this aeral of the Syrian 
 
 himself from the river's bank seven ti 
 
 1 Ant. b. »», c. <;, i 
 
•uccessivi 
 
 117 
 
 i ly, when be was commanded only to wasli, ami 
 
 i h;it ceremonially, is exceedingly improbable. Prom the 
 indications of bis temper, recorded in the narrative, be 
 
 evidently not disposed to do more than the prophet required - 
 and, that he did not, is plain — lor he acted ' according to 
 1 the laying of the man ofGod,' who commanded him simply 
 to wash. — His disease was only local (v. 11), and only a 
 local application of the water was necessary. How he Wl 
 baptized we lean from LlV, xiv. 7, * And lie shall sprinlJ. 
 4 Upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, ICVCB 
 1 times, and shall pronounce himclean.' This wastlie method 
 God had appointed) and wo can hardly suppose; the prophet 
 would have enjoined any other — at least, not till it is proved. 
 
 i\. In'iKiNos viii. 1 5, it is written, ' He took a thick cloth 
 k and baptised it in (or with) water, and spread it mi hi 
 1 lace, so that he died.' Whether the cloth was wetted by 
 dipping it into water, or by pouring water on it, is not < i i 
 tain — to pronounce; either positively, would be begging the 
 (piestion. ( )no thing, however, is plain, that the weltu 
 the cloth was the end intended by the term — the niannn "I 
 accomplishing it, being an immaterial consideration. 
 
 x. In .Ion i\. SI, it is said, ' Thou shalt bapti/.e HMJ m 
 * the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me.' That he 
 not submersed in the mud, is palpable, lie might be 
 rolled in the mire till his clothes were polluted, and thai i 
 all intended by the figurative expression of the patriarch. 
 
 \i. In Is.mmi \xi. 4, it is said, * My heart panted 
 1 fulness baptized me.' This nemagC il prophetic of llrl- 
 fthaEZar'l consternation and death, 1 1 recorded in Dwn i 
 V. 6, 10.' He was overwhelmed with the wrath of heaven. 
 — Lowth renders the passage, " My heart is bewildered — 
 I0p Lowth's Notes in LoOi 
 
Hi 
 
 1 tenon have icored me.*— 1( is worthy of ol .that 
 
 diviuejudgments are almost invariably represented bj l i 
 pOQling Ottt his wrath on the heads of his enen 
 
 nation of tins, Ps. lxix.2 I ; lwvi. fj -Is. xL 
 — Jf.r. x. 25 ; xiv. 16 — Lam. ii. 4 — Ezkk. vii. 8— Dak. 
 ix. 11, fcc. &c.'— Ilenee this baptism was administered by 
 the descent of the element on the object. 
 
 xii. In Ezkk xxiii. 14, 15, it is written— ' She saw men 
 ' pourtrayed upon the wall, the image of the Chaldeans 
 1 pourtrayed with Vermillion, girded with girdles upon their 
 1 heads, exceeding in baptized attire upon their heads.'— 
 Whether these head-dresses were dyed in a vat, or painted 
 with a brush, as people lay on vermillion, or wrought with 
 a needle, as ladies make their caps or embroider gam • 
 as mentioned in Judges v. 30, we cannot determine.— Im- 
 parting a colour or character in any of these w ays, is evi- 
 dently the design of the w r ord in this place. 
 
 xin. In Dan. iv. 33; v. 21, it is said—* And his body 
 ' was baptized with the dew of heaven.'— Nebuchadnezzar 
 was not plunged into a reservoir of dew— it distilled gently 
 or copiously upon him— or, in other words, 1. Red, 
 
 more or less, with this nocturnal rain.— If the action be the 
 thing we are considering, we have it in the clearest manner 
 —and entirely adverse to our opponents' hypothesis and 
 practice.— It is of importance to remark, that there are but 
 two passages in the Septuagint and Apocrypha, out of two- 
 and-twenty, where the word bapto is applied to the human 
 body or the whole person— and these both refer to the ! 
 of Babylon, who was wetted, or tinged, or baptized with 
 the dew of heaven. 
 
 \jv. In JUDITH xii. 7— and EcCLUB. \\\iv. l J.) \\ 
 » See Reach's Met. p. IS, 
 
119 
 bo account of a lady's washing herself ceremonially in a 
 camp containing two hundred thousand men, and at a well 
 guarded by the greatest vigilance— and of the purification of 
 a person after touching a corpse, according to the prescrip- 
 tions of the law. Suffice it to observe here, that the beautiful 
 Judith was not likely to be plunged naked or clothed into 
 a fountain surrounded by so many soldiers, and that an in- 
 dividual defiled, as before mentioned, was cleansed by 
 sprinkling, at least in part, as our opponents allow, and as 
 will be proved in the course of our future observations. 
 
 xv. In Ecc. xxxi. 26 — ' The furnace proveth the edge 
 1 by baptizing.' — Here we gather from the circumstances of 
 the case, that the instrument was dipped in the water to 
 harden it. The intention of the passage, however, is to ex- 
 press the tempering of the tool ; the manner of doing it 
 being of no consideration. 
 
 xvi. In 2 Macc i. 21 — ' Then commanded he them to 
 ' baptize the water and to bring it'— that is, to draw it up out 
 
 of a well, or receive it from a shoot for whether the vessel 
 
 was filled by dipping or by pouring is uncertain — At any 
 rate, the proper import of the word here, is quite the reverse 
 of immersion — for the water, and not the bucket, was 
 baptized. 
 
 XIII. We have now referred you to all the places in 
 the Septuagint and Apocrypha where the word baptize oc- 
 curs.— A few observations have been made on each to place 
 its import in a proper light.— From what has been said, it 
 is apparent, 
 
 i. That the word almost invariably expresses the state in 
 which a person or thing may be— no matter how it comes so 
 —or an effect produced in some way or other— no matter 
 what. 
 
(80 
 
 II. That the ellects said to lie produced art" vai 
 
 wetting, ordinary cleansing, ceremonial purification, dye- 
 ing, polluting, ovcrwlioliniii^, hardening iron, and drawing 
 water. 
 
 in. That these effects are produced by different modes 
 of action— such as dipping into the element and appl> 
 the element to the object with a needle, by sprinkling, dis- 
 tilling upon it as dew, and by pouring. 
 
 i\. That the effect in many caOQB is only intended, he- 
 roines apparent from the fact, that it is dubious and unde- 
 terminable, without b aggi ng the question, what the action 
 really was.— See Lev. xi. 32—2 Kings viii. 15. 
 
 v. That the word is no where used in the Septuagint or 
 Apocrypha for one person dipping another— for an immer- 
 sion followed by an immediate emersion — and not, without 
 considerable straining, for a total dipping at all. 
 
 vi. Upon the whole, it is plain and demonstrated, from 
 the preceding evidence, that the word has various meani; 
 expressing effects produced by different and even opposite 
 actions— and this is all we are now attempting to establish. 
 
 XIV. The general character of the term in debate, may 
 be further developed by remarking that it is synonymous 
 with the Latin verb, tingo y and the Hebrew verb, tabal. 
 Thin position if admitted by our opponents. Mr. .J. Stenneti 
 . • that lingo and baptizo signify the same thing.' ' And 
 Or. COX tells us, that ' in the Septuagint, hupto is frequently 
 * introduced [Hi times] as a translation of the Hebrew word 
 ' tubal.'' 1 Dr. Gill says ■ tabal and bapto are of the MK 
 Miiication.'* It is, therefore, only requisite to show that 
 both the Latin and Hebrew words are of a generic char,' 
 ove the assertion frequently made, that baph 
 ' P. 26. 3 P. . 
 
121 
 
 nerie also. — Passages might easily be cited to establish this 
 point; 1 but, for the sake of brevity, we shall, in imitation 
 of our Baptist brethren, refer to lexicons. 
 
 We will begin with tingo. — This word has a variety of 
 significations ; and means, according to — 
 
 AINSWORTH, 1 To dye. 2 To colour. 3 To stain. 4 To sprinkle. 5 To im- 
 bne. 6 To wash. 7 To paint. 
 
 ADAMS, 1 To dip. 2 To immerse. 3 To moisten. 4 To tinge. 5 To 
 
 stain. 6 To sprinkle. 7 To imbue. 8 To colour. 9 To 
 dye. 10 To paint. 
 
 HOLYOKE, 1 To dye. 2 To colour. 3 To dip in colour. 4 To sprinkle. 
 5 To imbue. 6 To wash. 
 
 FACCIOLATUS, 1 To dip. 2 To immerse in any liquid. 3 To wet. 4 To 
 moisten. 5 To bathe. 6 To stain. 7 To dye. 8 To colour. 
 9 To paint. 10 To tinge. 11 To tincture. 
 
 We now come to tabal, which is also of diversified ap- 
 plication ; and signifies, according to — 
 
 BUXTORF, 1 To tinge. 2 To intinge. 3 To plunge. 4 To immerse. 
 5 To infect. 
 
 CASTELL, 1 To tinge. 2 To intinge. 3 To dive. 4 To dip. 5 To baptize. 
 
 LEIGH, 1 To tinge. 2 To intinge. 3 To merge. 4 To immerge. 
 
 5 To plunge for the sake of tinging or washing. 
 
 PARKHURST, 1 To dip. 2 To immerge. 3 To plunge. 4 To tinge. 5 To 
 dye. 
 
 STOCKIUS, 1 To tinge. 2 To intinge. 3 To immerse. 4 To dip. 5 To 
 baptize. 
 
 From this brief statement of definitions, it is palpable, 
 that if baptizo is synonymous with tingo and tabal, its im- 
 port must be of a very general nature, and such as precludes 
 the possibility of our opponents mantaining their practice 
 on the assumption that it signifies always and only to dip ; 
 —especially such a dipping as is performed by them, in 
 what they call their pure apostolical baptism. Here it may 
 
 1 Antip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 31. 
 
 L 
 
be a propos U) remark, also, that the preceding references 
 
 to the arrangement of definitions in the before-named He- 
 brew and Latin lexicons, corroborate an assertion made in 
 our introduction, that the primary import of a term cannot 
 always be ascertained from the arrangement of words in a 
 dictionary — seeing, in the case before us, Ainsworth and 
 Holyoke vary from Faeciolatus and Adams — and Buxtorf, 
 Castell, Leigh, and Stoekius, from Parkhurst. 
 
 XV. We come now to notice the import of this word in 
 the new testament, on the precise nature of which, we 
 are told, hinges in a great measure the whole of this con- 
 troversy. The words baptize, baptism, and baptizer, occur 
 about one hundred and twenty-four times in the New Test- 
 ament. — The original term is bupto in the following texts: 
 — Luke xvi. 24— John xiii. 26_Rev. xix. 13 — in all the 
 others it is baptizo. — In most cases it is not translated at all 
 — when it is, the authors of our version have rendered it to 
 4 dip or wash/ — The following places are all in which it is 
 anglicised: Matt. xxvi. 23— Mark vii. 4, 8; xiv. 20— 
 LuKBzi. 38; xvi. 24— John xiii. 26-Hkb. ix. 10— Ri\. 
 xix. 13. — In these and the subjoined passages, the imme- 
 diate allusion is not to the initiatory rite of scripture or 
 Christian baptism : Matt. xx. 22, 23— Mark x. 38, 39— 
 Luke xii. 51—1 Cor. x. 2. — Consequently the use of the 
 word in these passages becomes a legitimate subject of en- 
 quiry — as, by ascertaining this, a light will be thrown over 
 the object we are professedly examining. — We shall, as be- 
 fore, classify the text- according to their connexion and as- 
 pect, and see if their applications are not various and oppo- 
 — the proof of which l>ein£ the end we have immediately 
 in view, as an evidence that the exclusive interpretation of 
 our opponents is without foundation. 
 
183 
 
 I, The word baptize is employed to express affliction in 
 the following places : Matt. xx. 22, 23— Mark x. 38, 39 
 — Luke xii. 50 — ' Are ye able to drink of the cup that I 
 4 shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I 
 * am baptized with, &c I 1 have a baptism to be baptized with; 
 ' and how am I straitened till it be accomplished !' Here 
 we may observe that affliction and misery are the principal 
 meanings of the word in question, and not any specific 
 manner of its infliction. The cup or its contents, 1 which 
 were to be drank, and baptism, are evidently used synony- 
 mously, to represent distress. — (Compare Ps. xi. 6 ; lxxv. 
 8— Is. li. 17, 22— Zech. xii. 2— Matt. xxvi. 39— Rev. 
 xvi. 19, 8cc.) 9 — The almost invariable mode of expression 
 in the Old Testament, and the exclusive one in the New, 
 in reference to punishment from God on account of sin, re- 
 present it as being poured out upon the guilty ; 8 and, like 
 every good and perfect gift, as coming down from heaven. 
 (See Ps. lxix. 24; lxxix. 6— Jer. x. 25— Ezek. vii. 8; 
 xxi. 31 — Hos. v. 10 — Rev. xiv. 10; xvi. 1, 2, &c.)— 
 Lastly, the penal sufferings of our Lord were not in the 
 shape of dipping or drowning, but of a crucifixion, in which 
 he was baptized with his own blood, streaming from his 
 sacred wounds and dyeing his immaculate body. Here the 
 mode is pouring or applying the element to the object. 
 
 ii. In Matt. xxvi. 23— Mark xiv. 20— Luke xvi. 24 
 —John xiii. 26 — are the following expressions: — 'He 
 * that baptLeth his hand with me in the dish. — One of the 
 4 twelve that baptizeth with me in the dish.— Send Lazarus, 
 1 that he may baptize the tip of his finger in (or with) water, 
 ' and cool my tongue. — lie it is to whom I shall give the 
 *sop when I have baptized it; and when he had baptized 
 J Keach, Met. p. 16. a lb. p. "1, 170. 3 lb. p. 58. 
 
m 
 
 ■the sop, be iravc it to.!u<l;is Iscariot.' — In these c i ta ti on * , 
 
 we have baptizing in a dish — baptizing the hand in a dish 
 and baptizing the so|) — moaning, also, in the dish. — The 
 other passage is baptizing the top of the linger in water in- 
 definitely. — In three of the above passages the word is em- 
 bapto; and, in the other, the force of the like inseparable 
 preposition may be fairly supplied— leaving the precise sense 
 of the simple verb baplo indeterminate. — Here we remark, 
 1. That even this compounded word is employed for a 
 partial dipping only— since all the body was not in the dish 
 — nor all the hand— nor, in fact, all the sop.— 2. That the 
 moistening of the bread and wetting of the finger are the 
 ultimate intentions of the several expressions, and not the 
 precise mode of doing it ; arid — 3. That the smallest species 
 of action is here designated baptism. Therefore, when Mr. 
 Fuller says, ' in all the applications of the term in the New 
 
 * Testament, I believe it will be found to contain the idea 
 
 * of plenitude or abundance' '—he must have overlooked the 
 preceding passages, especially that respecting the tip of the 
 finger. 
 
 m. In Mark vii. 4, 8 -Luke xi. 38— Heb. vi. 2 ; ix. 
 10— it is written — ' And when they come from the market, 
 ' except they baptize, they eat not. — The baptizing of cups 
 1 and pots, brazen vessels and tables, or couches. — The 
 1 baptizing of cups and pots. — The Pharisee marvelled that 
 
 * he had not baptized before dinner. — The doctrine of bap- 
 
 * tisms. — Who stood in meats and drinks and divers bap- 
 
 * tisms/ — As these passages will be particularly considered 
 hereafter, but few remarks are requisite here. — 1. That 
 they all refer exclusively to ceremonial purifications. The 
 only one which could be considered otherwise, is Li II 
 
 1 Kyland, Appendix, p. JO. 
 
125 
 
 38.— But, as we cannot suppose that our Lord would sit 
 down to meat with natural dirt on his person, we must in- 
 fer this to be of a similar description. — 2. That the modes 
 of Jewish purifications were diverse, as a person bathing or 
 washing himself and his apparel, and the priest or a clean 
 person pouring or sprinkling the cleansing element on him ; 
 which last was the only act analagous to a Jewish baptism, 
 as will be proved hereafter. — 3. That we cannot suppose, 
 notwithstanding all our opponents have advanced, that the 
 Pharisees and all the Jews plunged themselves entirely un- 
 der water every time they came from the market with a 
 pennyworth of vegetables, nor dipped their tables or couches 
 absolutely under water, in order ceremonially to purify 
 them. — 4. That washing their hands is called washing 
 themselves — and that nipto is synonymous with baptizo. 
 Ju all these passages, the direct import of the word is to 
 cleanse — the manner of effecting it being accidental and un- 
 important. 
 
 4. In 1 Cor. x. 2— Rev. xix. 13—' And were all bap- 
 v tized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. — And he was 
 1 clothed with a vesture baptized in (or with) blood.' — Let 
 it be briefly noted, that the Israelites were not literally 
 plunged into Moses nor into the sea — for they passed 
 through on dry land, (Ex. xiv. 22, 29 ;) and, if baptized 
 with water at all, it must have been by the clouds, which 
 poured out rain upon them, (Ps. lxxvii. 16-20;) and the 
 Sou of God had not his vesture dyed in a vat of blood, 
 but it was splashed with the streaming gore of his expiring 
 victims. This text may be illustrated by Is. lxiii. 2, 3 — 
 ' Their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I 
 ■ will stain all my raiment.' 
 
 From this concise exposition of these passages — most of 
 
 l5 
 
t26 
 
 w bicfa will be more fully discussed in the sequel, it is manl- 
 iest that the word baptize is employed in the New T< 
 DMOi tor partial dipping, overwhelming, washing, colour- 
 ing, pouring, and sprinkling — to establish which is the only 
 thing we are here attempting. 
 
 XVI. We shall now proceed to notice several miscel- 
 laneous proofs of the equity of our position. The best 
 way to ascertain the varied use of this word in the New 
 Testament is, in imitation of our respected opponents, 1 to 
 translate it in different places by one and the same word.— 
 And as our brethren have frequently rendered it to plunge, 
 and have often designated their baptism plunging — and as 
 this term is not much hackneyed, and conveys a precise 
 and definite idea to the mind, we shall translate it in a few 
 places by the verb to plunge. — This method will answer 
 two purposes — it will attest the different acceptations of the 
 disputed word, and show that the act of dipping or plunging 
 is incompatible with its force in almost every place and 
 connexion. 
 
 Matt. iii. 1. « In those days came John the I'lungcr, preaching in the wil- 
 derness.' 
 
 7. ' Many of the Pharisee* and Sadducees came to his plunging." 1 
 
 11. * I indeel plunge you with [or into] water. He shall plunge 
 yon with [or into] the Holy (i host, and with [or into] fire.* 
 
 • Are ye able to be plunged with the plunging that I am plun^ni 
 with.' 
 
 xxvi. 23. ' He Ihbl plungeth with me in the dish.' 
 
 ixviii. ly. 'Teach all nations, plunging them in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Uh- 
 
 M.irk i. 4. ' Julia did plunge in the wilderness, and preach the plunging of 
 repentance.' 
 
 » Booth, vol. i. p. S7-90; vol. ili y I'.irt's Strictures, p. 
 
 J; liit.bs, p. TV, 71. 
 
127 
 
 Mark vii. I. ' Wlicu they come from the market, they eat not, except they 
 plunge.' 
 
 • The plunging of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables.' 
 xvi. 16. ' He that bclicveth and is plunged, shall be saved.' 
 
 Luke iii. 8. ' Preaching the plunging of repeutance for the remission of sins.' 
 
 vii. •*.». ' And all the people justified God, beiug plunged with the 
 plunging of John.' 
 
 xi. 3d. 'When the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he was not 
 plunged before dinner.' 
 
 vvi. i>4. • Send Lazarus, that he may plunge the tip of his finger iu 
 water, and cool my tongue.' 
 
 'Therefore I came plunging with [or into] water.' 
 
 ' Jesus made and plunged more disciples than John.' 
 
 ' He went again beyond Jordan, where John at first plunged, 
 and there abode.' 
 
 • He it is to whom I shall give the sop, when I have plunged it.' 
 
 ' John plunged with [or into] water; but ye shall be plunged 
 with [or into] the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 ' And they were plunged, both men and women.' 
 
 ' Lydia, when she was plunged, and her household.' 
 
 ' Unto what, then, were ye plunged ? and they said uuto John's 
 plunging: 
 
 • As many as were plunged into Jesus Christ, were plunged into 
 his death.' 
 
 • We are buried with him by plunging iuto death.' 
 
 • And were all plunged into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' 
 « And by one spirit were all plunged into one body.' 
 ' Who stood in meats and drinks and divers pluugings.' 
 ' And he was clothed with a vesture plunged in blood.' 
 
 It must instantly strike the most superficial observer, on 
 hearing the preceding texts and renderings — 1. That the 
 notion of dipping, plunging, or immersing, in all of them, 
 is inconsistent with propriety — and, in some, makes abso- 
 lute nonsense. — 2. That the radical, primary, and pro- 
 per meaning of the term, is some effect produced in the form 
 o( sanctifying, wetting, cleansing, and colouring — and not 
 
 .lolin i. 
 
 n. 
 
 iv 
 
 . i. 
 
 X. 
 
 flt. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 R. 
 
 Actsi 
 
 .5. 
 
 viii. 
 
 Ub 
 
 xvi. 
 
 Li. 
 
 xix 
 
 .A. 
 
 Horn, vi 
 
 1.8. 
 
 
 4. 
 
 1 Cor. x 
 
 . % 
 
 xii. 
 
 IS, 
 
 Heb. ix. 
 
 11). 
 
 Kev. xix 
 
 . 18. 
 
IS8 
 
 tin' mode of its accomplishment. — 3. Thai do word, but 
 one <>f i generic nature, is adequate to express the ultimate 
 and lull design of the verb baptizo in connexion with Ghris- 
 M;m baptism — as purifying, consecrating, initiating, or the 
 like — 4. That it cannot be inferred, without begging the 
 question, that it is ever s xp t esfli se of a total immersion— 
 
 IS person dipping another— or of the two-fold action— 
 sinking ami raising. — 5. That the position of our oppo- 
 nents, respecting its meaning 'always and only to dip,' is 
 unfounded — SS we have demonstrated in our preceding re- 
 marks. — f). That if the sense of this word be the main 
 branch of our dispute — as we are told — the cause of our 
 brethren stands on a very defective foundation. 
 
 W II. What our opponents say, respecting the sup- 
 posed more suitable use of the words cheo and rhantizo, had 
 pooling and sprinkling been the modes intended by our 
 Lord, amounts to mere nothing. 1 For, had these verbs been 
 employed, our good friends would probably have ransacked 
 i ireek authors, and discovered that, in a figurative or meta- 
 phorical sense, they meant to wet all over — and would 
 have pronounced the action overwhelming, bathing, or 
 washing — nor would that inconsistency have been greater 
 than we find in their reasonings and declarations under 
 presenl circumstances— as what we have adduced, and shall 
 yet bring forward— must convince you. It is palpable be- 
 yond mistake, that the word baptize is employed to 8XB 
 
 tfl produced by pouring and sprinkling— or, in more 
 general terms, for applying the element to the object. Hence 
 j' answers our end as effectually as clieo and rkafUizo, Be- 
 sides, might not our opponents be asked in return— if the 
 
 .1 writers understood baptism to mean a total dipping, 
 
 I Booth, vol. i. p. HI, 140; vol. iii. p. 247; Cox, p. 47. 
 
129 
 
 why did they not employ words to express it unequivocally 
 declarative of such a state or operation ? Had buthizo, duuu, 
 dupto, epikluzo,pluno, or pontizo,been used, we might have 
 considered the objections of our brethren more specious and 
 tenable— and, when they have fairly answered our question, 
 which completely neutralizes their's, we shall consider that 
 proposed by them, of sufficient importance to require a little 
 attention— and not before. 
 
 XVIII. Here we will cite a paragraph from a learned 
 divine, tending, indirectly, to corroborate our sense of the 
 rite in dispute.—' Although the word baptize, which is a 
 * Greek word, occurs in the original text of the New Testa- 
 4 ment, it is not the word which must have been originally 
 4 applied to the ordinance, which we are now to consider. 
 4 The language spoken in Judea, at the time of our Saviour's 
 1 incarnation, was called Hebrew, and was, in fact, a mixed 
 4 dialect of Syriac and Chaldee. The Syriac translation of 
 4 the New Testament, is generally allowed to be the most 
 4 ancient, which is extant, and is supposed to have been 
 4 made in the first century. In this translation, all the words 
 4 used for baptizing, baptism, and baptist, are taken from 
 4 the Hebrew word homad, which signifies, 44 to stand, con- 
 4 tinue, subsist— to cause or make to stand— to support as 
 4 by a pillar— to set or raise up— to place, present, or estab- 
 4 lish," &c. It is the same word, also, which is used for bap- 
 4 tism in the Arabic version. This word is, certainly, worthy 
 4 Of particular attention in the present enquiry, because, in 
 4 the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, it was in all probability the very 
 4 word originally used by John the Baptist, as the name of 
 4 the new ordinance which he administered, when he came 
 4 to prepare the way of the Lord— the very word used by 
 4 the messengers from Jerusalem, when they asked his reason 
 
tao 
 
 • Fcm : ihia new ordinance, saying, why baptii 
 
 1 thou I the very word used by Jeeui when he u r ^«' the 
 
 • apostolic commission— the very word used by the 
 
 • ind evangelist ng, at least, as they preached and 
 1 baptized in .Judra, tJalilee, and Samaria." The writer 
 then proceedfl to illustrate this term, and supposes that there 
 
 vlnence to setting up of pillars, as Jacob's, which he 
 anointed (Gllf. xxviii. IS), and, as Solomon's, in the porch 
 of the temple ( 1 Kim;* vii. 15-22.) The church is called 
 the pillar and ground of the truth, ( 1 Tim. iii. 1 5 ;) and the 
 saints shall be pillars in the temple of God for ever, (Hi.v. 
 iii. 12.) This allusion would represent the baptised as 
 Standing, and being anointed in that position. It also ex- 
 plains the import of the expression, * arise and be baptized ;' 
 ( \its ix. 18; xxii. 16 ;) and gives an energy to the pas- 
 sage, ' for God is able to make his servants stand,' (Ron. 
 xiv. 4.) The idea of immersion is entirely excluded by this 
 exposition. Let our opponents impugn this reasoning if 
 they can. 
 
 XIX. The position we are advocating will be further 
 confirmed, by examining the various expressions our oppo- 
 nent- employ to represent this initiatory sacrament. 
 
 i. The baptistry they denominate — 
 
 ' Blessed pool.' * Swelling flood.' ' Crystal stream.' 
 
 ' Micred wave.' ' Liquid grave.' ' Mystic flood.' 
 
 ' Holy laver.' ' Watery tomb.' rvd stream.' 
 
 ii. The element is designated — 
 
 'Blood.' 'Tears.' 'Sweat.* 'Water.' 
 
 HI. The ceremony is pronounced emblamatical of — 
 
 • Innovating grace.' 'Cleansing.' 'Passion.' 'Victory.' 
 ' The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.' 
 •The dreadful abyss ..( ' divine justice.' 
 
 ' Ewing't Essay on Bapt. p. IS, 19. 
 
131 
 
 iv. The action is called — 
 
 « Bathing.' ' Interring an I raisin;.'.' 
 
 * Burying an l raising.' ' Entombing and raising.' 
 ' Cleansing.' ' Overwhelming.' 
 
 ' Descending and rising.' ' Plunging.' 
 
 ' Pipping.' ' Planting.' 
 
 • Immersing and raising.' ' Washing.' ' 
 
 It need hardly be observed, that the above nomenclature 
 is almost exclusively modern, and made, no doubt, for the 
 purpose of giving variety and'beauty to a scheme otherwise 
 destitute of even nominal charms and attractions. But, as 
 the action is the only thing we are professedly investigat- 
 ing, we shall confine our remarks to the terms employed 
 to designate that. Let the question, then, be proposed to 
 our opponents— whether the words and phrases last recited 
 express precisely and exclusively one and the same action ? 
 As they certainly do not, this constant use of different and 
 even opposite terms to express one simple and unvarying 
 act, is injudicious, and calculated to mislead the unwary 
 hearer or reader. Let another question be proposed— do all 
 these terms singly exhibit the baptism of our brethren I If 
 this be the case, one would imagine that their modes must 
 be unaccountably diverse from each other— or that the terms 
 must mean exactly the same thing. Now, what we contend 
 is, that the method of our respected friends is precisely and 
 universally simple and the same— and that the words and 
 phrases here used to set it forth, are widely different in 
 meaning. Nor have we any hesitation in saying, that such 
 loose and vague phraseology is employed to blind the eyes 
 of the people, and to baffle the inexperienced disputant, 
 while contending for the various significations of the verb 
 in dispute. 
 
 I Oale, p. 74, 77; Ryland, p. 6. 26-35; Rippon'a Hymns, 442-471; 
 Fellow's Hymns, patsim; Glbbs, p. 348. 
 
m 
 
 W. We shall, therefore, briefly examine the various 
 terms used to express the first act of baptism— and prow 
 that they materially differ from each other—and, neither 
 Mildly nor collectively represent the action of modern im- 
 mersion, as practised by the Baptists. 
 Bathing, according to Johnson, means, * to wash as in a 
 1 bath— to supple or soften by the outward application of 
 1 warm liquors— to wash any thing.' This word does not 
 determine whether the person bathes himself, or is bathed 
 by another— whether the person is applied to the water, 
 or the water to the perspn— nor whether, if one be dip- 
 ped, he is pulled 6ut of the bath by another person. It 
 is, therefore, a very inadequate term to express our op- 
 ponents' baptism % 
 Burying, means * to inter— to put into a grave— to inter 
 1 with the rites and ceremonies of sepulchre— to conceal, 
 ' to hide— to place one thing within another.' — This term 
 and modern baptism disagree in two very material points. 
 —In burial, earth is poured on the body, which is not 
 then raised again.— In immersion, water is not poured on 
 the body, and it is immediately raised out of the element. 
 Cleansing, means ■ to free from filth or dirt, by washing 
 ' or rubbing — to purify from guilt— to free from noxious 
 4 humours by purgation— to free from leprosy— to scour 
 * —to rid of all offensive things.'— This word is inade- 
 quate to represent the mode of our opponents— as it does 
 not convey the notion of dipping at all — and expresses the 
 idea of purification, by rubbing or scouring— acts not 
 known to modern immersion. 
 Descending, signifies * to go downwards — to come from a 
 1 higher place to a lower — to fall— to sink.' This word 
 defective in three things. As the person descends him- 
 
133 p> r . 
 
 self, and is not carried down by anotheV^It does not de- 
 termine whether the person descends tiKvwet^ over his 
 shoes or his head— and it includes no act like ah-emersion* 
 Dipping, means ' to immerge— to put into any liquid— tcT 
 ' moisten— to wet.' This word does not determine whether 
 any thing dipped is totally or partially immersed — nor 
 does it express the second significant act of baptism, 
 raising again. 
 Entombing, means 'to put into a tomb— to bury.' This 
 term does not express the idea of lowering the body 
 into a grave — nor does.it convey the notion of a resur- 
 rection — both of which are essential to represent our op- 
 ponents 1 baptism. 
 Immersing, means ' to put under water— to sink— or cover 
 4 deep.' This word, like some of the preceding, is de- 
 fectively not proving whether the person immerses him- 
 self i or is immersed by another — nor does it intimate that 
 there must be a subsequent emersion. It is observable 
 that Mr. Robinson speaks of ' the head being immersed 
 '.by superfusion,' ' and Dr. Ryland,' by descending dew.' * 
 Interring, is ' to cover under ground— to bury— to cover 
 '.with earth.' This term, like entombing and burying, 
 is a very incorrect appellation of modern baptisnj, as, 
 among other discrepancies, it says nothing of an ulterior 
 ' resurrection— which is significant in the rite of our op- 
 ponents. 
 Overwhelming, is * to crush underneath something violent 
 i and weighty— to overlook gloomily.' This word is the 
 very reverse of dipping— since we are not overwhelmed 
 by lowering our hodies, but by the falling of superin- 
 cumbent matter, or by too foeavy a load on our shoulders. 
 
 I Hist. p. fa 2 App. p. 1 
 
 M 
 
m 
 
 Planting, means ' to put into the ground— to set— to culti- 
 1 vate— to fix.' Planting a tree, or engrafting a scion, is 
 a very different act from sowing seeds. To plant implir>. 
 at most, but a partial immersion, and excludes the idea 
 of emersion. 
 Plunging, means * to put suddenly under water— to put 
 4 into any state suddenly— to hurry into any distress— to 
 1 force in suddenly.' This word is defective, in not 
 stating whether the person plunged is raised again — nor, 
 in fact, whether there is an entire submersion. 
 Washing, is 'to cleanse by ablution— to moisten— to \\» t. 
 • as rain washes the flowers, and the sea washes many 
 1 islands— to affect by ablution/ This word does not 
 specify any precise act of cleansing. We wash our feet 
 by dipping — our hands at a pump by pouring — and our 
 face by raising water to it. — ' Washing,' says Mr. Mac- 
 lean, ■ is a general word, and includes various modes.' ' 
 — When Dr. Gill says, ' there is no proper washing but 
 by dipping,' 9 he contradicts the most palpable fact How 
 is a new-born child washed?— (Ezek. xvi. 4.)— And 
 how was Ahab's chariot washed in the pool in Samaria '.— 
 (I Kings xxii. 28.)— How did Mary wash the Saviour's 
 feet?— (Luke vii. 30.)— The same writer gravely tells 
 us, ' there can be no dipping without washing !' s — so that 
 we wash our pen whenever we dip it into the ink ! 
 XXI. From this brief exposition of the English terms, 
 employed by our opponents to represent their mode of 
 baptism, we gather that their forms are various— that the 
 words are of one precise import— or that they employ a 
 phraseology calculated to mislead the unwary reader. We 
 have twelve verbs to designate one simple action— neither 
 
 • Maclean, vol. iii. p. 113. 2 Gill, p. 303. 3 Ibid, p. 223. 
 
135 
 
 of which represents their practice fairly and fully— nor are 
 ten of them confessedly ever used in scripture for baptism 
 — while the other two, burying and washing, are of doubtful 
 disputation, the former, as to its application, and the latter, 
 as to its sense. But they not only talk of ' bathing, burying, 
 &c.' We have, also, ' raising, rising, emerging, ascending, 
 &c.' as included in the verb baplizo. Taking out of the 
 water is done by our brethren as a necessary consequence 
 of putting into it. They have, however, produced, no au- 
 thority from all their researches for considering it an inhe- 
 rent part of the verb — which, at most, speaks only of putting 
 into the water, but never conveys the idea of taking out 
 again. One of their writers goes even further, and makes a 
 three-fold action in baptism. He says, it ■ consists in im- 
 * mersion into the water, abiding under the water, and a 
 ' resurrection out of the water.' 1 But in what author, 
 sacred or profane, is the word thus employed ? They can 
 exhibit no such triple use attached to it in the whole com- 
 pass of Grecian literature. Nor can our good friends dis- 
 cover in the Bible the word employed for one person dip- 
 ping another. The only instance they pretend to have found, 
 even in heathen writings, is the following, which Dr. Cox 
 pronounces a decisive evidence in their favour : — ' Certain 
 ' Greeks, having enticed Aristobulus into a pool, where, iin- 
 ' der pretence of play, immersing or putting him under 
 ' water, they did not desist till they had quite suffocated 
 ' him.'* Poor Aristobulus was drowned I— a lucid case in 
 favour of our opponents' scheme ! A similar instance oc- 
 curred about twenty years ago on the river Hudson, in 
 America. A minister baptizing a female, and letting her 
 slip out of his hands, she drifted under the ice, was suffocated, 
 
 ' Keach, p. 30. 2 Cox, p. 40. 
 
m 
 
 and seen no more. This is equally decisive evidence in fa- 
 vour of our opponents. 
 
 The employment of terms as synonymous, which 
 themselves dissimilar, does not arise from their want of 
 penetration— for, when it serves their purpose, they can dis- 
 criminate as well as ourselves. You have seen that they em- 
 ploy burying and washing as equally expressive of the simple 
 act of baptizing — and yet the last mentioned author e 
 k it would be putting Mr. Ewing upon a most perplexing 
 
 * search to require him to produce any passage in Hebrew 
 
 * or Greek antiquity, where washing means to bury.' ' They 
 repeatedly assure us, that to baptize means only and always 
 to dip or plunge. And the most laborious investigator of 
 the philology of the question says, ' I do not remember a 
 
 * passage where all other senses are not necessarily excluded 
 ' besides dipping.' s Consequently the word should express 
 one simple act, namely— to dip. Hence, to talk of bathing, 
 burying, descending, entombing, immersing, interring, over- 
 whelming, planting, plunging, and washing ; raising, rising, 
 emerging, ascending, and the like, is superfluous, and - 
 culated only to deceive the inexperienced auditor, 
 another of their writers, more ingenious than Dr. Gale, tells 
 us, * there is no one word in the English language which 
 
 * is an exact counterpart to the Greek word baptizo.' 3 But 
 this point, with numerous others of a similar description, 
 we shall leave to our opponents, hoping they will settle it 
 among themselves. 
 
 XXII. We, however, have not quite done with this 
 part of our subject. The impropriety of such a di 
 
 [ nation of their mode of baptism will be further ap- 
 parent by bringing the terms to the test. This will pi 
 
 1 Cox, p. 60. a Galr, 3 R ob . p. 6. 
 
137 
 
 that words are employed to represent the rite in question, 
 which are quite incongruous with the notions generally en- 
 tertained of baptism. Suppose, then, that some Baptist 
 minister, about to have a dozen ladies added to his church 
 by the solemn rite in debate, were to put the following no- 
 tice into the hand of his clerk : — ' You will be pleased to take 
 1 notice, that on Wednesday evening next, at six o'clock, 
 4 the Rev. Mr. Addington will bathe Mrs. Button, bury Mrs. 
 1 Bennett, cleanse Mrs. Cooper, dip Mrs. Dore, descend 
 1 Mrs. Day, entomb Mrs. Edwards, immerse Mrs. Ivimy, 
 ' inter Mrs. Jones, overwhelm Mrs. Orton, plant Mrs. 
 ' Popjoy, plunge Mrs. Piper, and wash Mrs. Waters. The 
 ' attendance of friends, to witness the ceremony, is earnestly 
 1 requested' — would not most of the audience change the 
 forms of their phizzes, and wonder what the good man in 
 the pulpit was about to do ? The following dialogue seems 
 to accord with the occasion : — 
 
 A. ' Pray, sir, can you tell me what the minister is going 
 ' to do to the women, next Wednesday ? It is a very odd 
 ' notice.' 
 
 B. * O dear, sir, he is only going to baptize the ladies. 7 
 
 A. * Only baptize them ! What is the use of talking about 
 ' burying, bathing, cleansing, washing, &c* 
 
 B. ' Why, perhaps, you may not know it— but these 
 4 words are all one in the Greek.' 
 
 A. 4 Pugh ! nonsense ! Why not simply say baptize 
 ' them ? What a foolish parade of terms !' 
 
 B. ' Our good minister knows better than we do, and no 
 ' doubt it is all very proper.' 
 
 XXIII. We have now gone through all the evidence 
 adduced by our opponents, to maintain their practice from 
 the meaning of the word baptize. The points we have been 
 
 m 5 
 
138 
 
 labouring to establish, are — 1. That this word. whx 
 pronounced ' the mam branch of our dispute, 1 has various 
 applications, and includes actions as opposite to each other 
 as pouring, sprinkling, and overwhelming, are to sinking, 
 plunging, and drowning.— 2. That the primary import of 
 the word, is not the act of dipping, or immersing, but the 
 effect of some action, such as giving a colour, distressing, 
 wetting, destroying, consecrating, purifying, and the li 
 the manner in which this is done being often variou> and 
 incidental. — 3. That if the primary meaning were abso- 
 lutely to dip or plunge, we have no evidence that the apos- 
 tles used it in this primary sense, while speaking of Chris- 
 tian baptism. — 4. That our opponents have discovered no 
 instance where it is employed for the two-fold operation of 
 dipping and raising— nor a text in the Septuagint, Apo- 
 crypha, or New Testament, where it is used for one per- 
 son dipping another. — 5. That they have used many differ- 
 ent and opposite terms to represent their own rite — which, 
 while it sanctions our position, shews the weakness of our 
 opponents', when attempting to establish their exclusive 
 scheme from the supposed import of the word in question. 
 And — 6. That our brethren cannot maintain their cause, 
 
 from the sense of this term, and, consequently, not at all 
 
 Some apology may be requisite for dwelling so long on this 
 part of our discourse. For, to use the words of Dr. Gale, * a 
 1 thing of this nature, and so evident, did not, indeed, need 
 
 * to have been so largely treated as it lias already been— but 
 
 * the unaccountable tenacity of our antagonists, have n 
 1 it necessary to be very particular.' ' 
 
 I P. 101. 
 
139 
 SECTION FIFTH. 
 
 THE IMPORT OF FOUR GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 
 
 The arguments which our esteemed brethren found 
 on the use of Greek prepositions are really so weak and 
 frivolous, that they hardly merit a reply. Yet, as they are 
 employed with overwhelming effect upon the unskilful and 
 ignorant audience, it will be proper to pay them some little 
 attention. The words alluded to are the following :— apo, 
 eis, ek, en. These are used in connexion with the term 
 baptize, and are supposed to determine its sense exclusively 
 in favour of dipping. The subsequent texts are the most 
 material : — 
 
 Matt. iii. 6. 'And were all baptized of him (en) in Jordan.' 
 
 16. ' When lie was baptized he went up straightway (apo) out of the 
 water.' 
 
 Acts viii. 38. 'And they went down both of them (ei$) into the water.' 
 39. ' And when they were come up (ek) out o/the water.' 
 
 These passages are cited with a vast deal of triumph by 
 our opponents, as demonstrative proofs that Christ and the 
 Eunuch, and, consequently, all other persons, baptized by 
 John and the apostles, were absolutely plunged ' over head 
 ' and ears' in the water — and that John, while baptizing, 
 actually stood ever so deep in the river or fountain to per- 
 form this rite. To prove that these deductions are unwar- 
 ranted, we shall offer a few observations, to which your 
 serious attention is respectfully solicited. 
 
 I. From what has been previously advanced, it appears 
 that our opponents consider the verb baptize alone as sig- 
 nifying to immerse under water, and as warranting an emer- 
 sion correspondent with the immersion. And yet they in- 
 terpret the prepositions in question, when conjoined with 
 
140 
 
 tlw verb baptize, as meaning into and out of additionally — 
 making, in tact, ■ double dipping and a double raising, 
 rding to their notions, the verb mean- to dip into, and 
 the particle added if al>o into — so as to place the pc I 
 or thing under the element. The verb means to raise out of, 
 and the particle out of is also added. 1 This, at least, makes 
 a tautology — especially if both terms are applied to the ac- 
 tion. Now, either the word baptize alone does not neces- 
 sarily convey the idea of absolutely putting a person under 
 the water, and of taking him out again, or the prepositions 
 into and out of are useless and cumbersome appendages. 
 To be consistent, our friends must give up this active sense 
 in one or the other — and we presume, that, to be correct, 
 must sacrifice their usual applications of both. That the verb 
 baptizo does not of necessity, or through any inherent 
 power, convey the sense of absolute intusposition we have 
 already established — and probably shall find little difficulty 
 in maintaining that the dipping system can acquire no 
 support from the use of the before-mentioned Greek pre- 
 positions. 
 
 II. After giving these words all the force which our op- 
 ponents can possibly attach to them, it by no means follows 
 that the persons said to be baptized were totally submer 
 John was baptizing in Jordan, (Matt. iii. 6.) in the river 
 of Jordan, (Mark i. 5,) and in Enon, (John iii. 23.) But 
 might he not have been in the water without being under it .' 
 And might not his converts have been in the river or fountain 
 without having been absolutely submersed ? Is it imagined 
 that John and Philip, who are said to have been in the 
 water, were themselves under water ? Might not a per- 
 son stand in the water, in order to perform some act, such, 
 i JeDkio's Def. p. 120. Dore's Introd. p. 15. 
 
141 
 
 if you please, as pouring some of it on another's head, with- 
 out going entirely under ? And might not this other person 
 stand there to receive this affusion without being completely 
 immersed ? Christ is said to have come up out of the 
 water — and Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone 
 down into the water, and to have come up out of it ; but 
 do these declarations vouch for the total submersion of any 
 of them ? Is it ungrammatical to say, we went down into 
 the water, and then we came up out of the water, unless we 
 have been ' over head and ears' in the water { When a per- 
 son ' looseth his ox or his ass from the stall, and leadeth him 
 ' away to watering/ (Luke xiii. 15,) and causeth him to 
 go into the pond or river to drink, doth he submerse him, or 
 put him entirely under water ? Our opponents admit that 
 persons may ' go to their necks in water, and yet not be bap- 
 ' tized' ' — that is, be not entirely immersed. So that John 
 and Philip might have been in the water to administer bap- 
 tism, and Christ and the Eunuch might have stood in it to 
 receive baptism, and after all might not have been more than 
 knee or ancle deep. Hence the hypothesis erected on the 
 passages previously cited is without foundation. It is all 
 surmise and conjecture — and our opponents, who talk so 
 largely about building their scheme on plain precepts or 
 apostolical examples, without the process of inferential ar- 
 gumentation, are here labouring to establish their system on 
 a vague and improbable supposition. It is said/ the children 
 ' of Israel went into the midst of the sea,' (Ex. xiv. 22,) 
 ' and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 1 sea,' (1 Cor. x. 2,) while they were absolutely on dry 
 land in the channel of the departed waters. The Psalmist 
 says, ' they that go down into the sea in ships, and do busi- 
 
 1 .Maclean, v. iii. p. 118. 
 
142 
 
 M in great waters, (Psalm cvii. 23 ;) but did they go 
 absolutely under Water, and transact their concerns in the 
 bowels ot the deep / In 2 Kings, vi. 4, it is said, * the sons 
 4 of the prophets came (ei.s) into Jordan to cut wood ;' but 
 surely they did not go under the water of the river to fell 
 timber. 
 
 III. We, however, contend that our Baptist brethren 
 cannot adduce the least substantial evidence that John, our 
 Lord, Philip, or the Eunuch, or any other person mentioned 
 in scripture as baptizing or baptized, went into the water at 
 all — at least they cannot prove it from the before-named 
 prepositions. When it is said John was baptizing in Jordan 
 and in Enon, we have no data for concluding that he was 
 doing any thing beyond baptizing at those places, or uitk 
 the waters found there — the word ew, as we shall presently 
 prove, meaning at, on, or with, as well as in. When our 
 blessed Lord is said to have come up out of the water, 
 the terms assure us of nothing more than that he came up 
 from the edge or brim of the river — the legitimate meaning 
 of the word apo being properly from. So when Philip 
 and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water, 
 and to have come up out of the water, we can gather nothing 
 more than that they went down to the water, and came up 
 from the water — the prepositions eis and ek signifying, 
 chiefly, to and from. Should our opponents reply that the 
 sense they give the words in dispute, is their radical, pri- 
 mary, and proper meaning, we might contend, first, that 
 this requires proof, the production of which we earnestly 
 solicit. And, secondly, if it were true, they must demon- 
 strate that the inspired penmen have employed them in the 
 preceding passages in their radical, primary, and proper 
 meaning. This they have not done, and are unable to do. 
 
143 
 
 As they are used in various senses, it would puzzle them 
 to verify the precise import they have attached to them in 
 the places under consideration. In fact, all that they have 
 effected, is boldly asserting the strength of their position — 
 which is effectually neutralized by a flat denial. 
 
 IV. As the case now stands, our opponents can derive 
 no advantage to their cause from the terms under review, 
 unless they can establish the assumption that they have each 
 only one simple and definitive meaning throughout the 
 New Testament, and that precisely the same as they at- 
 tach to them in this controversy. If they cannot establish 
 this, they can do nothing in favour of their exclusive sys- 
 tem of immersion. And if we can prove the use of them 
 respectively in different senses, we shall go far in effecting 
 our immediate object, which is to show the invalidity of 
 their arguments in defence of their exclusive practice. 
 
 In attempting this, we shall first refer to Schleusner's cele- 
 brated Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. In this work 
 we are told ih-aiapo has twenty distinct senses — eis, twenty- 
 six — ek, twenty-four — and en, thirty-six. Now, had these 
 words one simple and unvarying import each — apo, being 
 always and only out of — eis, exclusively into — ek, nothing 
 more or less than out of — and en, absolute intusposition — 
 what must we think of the intolerable puerility of a man 
 who gravely asserts they have so many ! We shall next re- 
 fer you to the authorized version of the scriptures, wherein 
 we learn, from a personal examination, that the translators 
 have rendered them in the New Testament by various 
 English terms or expressions. They have translated apo by 
 twenty-four vernacular terms — eis, by thirty-six — ek, by 
 twenty-three — and en, by thirty two. Let us now ask 
 any unprejudiced persons, and particularly our opponents, 
 
Ill 
 
 who lay such stress on the common translation of the Bible, 
 \\ bether words, capable of so many versions, can be only of 
 one precise and definite meaning each ? And whether a 
 communion must not be hard pushed for substantial evi- 
 dence to support their cause, before they would lay the 
 
 emphasis upon such weak and dubttable 
 sumptions ? — Particularly so, after one of their most re- 
 spectable writers has acknowledged that * eis is sometimes 
 1 used in different senses' — that " en is [but] equally deci- 
 >ivc' — and, we assume, that ek is no more. Having cited 
 several instances involving the preposition apo, best adapted 
 to uphold his notions, he subjoins, * it might be rendered 
 4 from in most of these passages.' ' Mr. Gibbs remarks, 
 4 that the pepositions eis and ek do, in some instances, mean 
 4 to and from, no one will deny.' 8 
 
 V. But our argument admits of a still further and more 
 convincing elucidation. We find, from a careful investiga- 
 tion of the point in dispute, that, in our version of the New 
 Testament, the translators have rendered apo, from, three 
 hundred and seventy-four times — eis, to or unto, five hun- 
 dred and thirty-eight times — ek, from, one hundred and 
 eighty-six times — and, en, at, on, or with, (i.e. the water,) 
 three hundred and thirteen times. The deduction from these 
 premises is easy and disastrous to our opponents' system. 
 When it is said our Lord came up out of the water, we learn 
 no more than that he came up from the water, apo being 
 properly from, and, as Dr. Ryland intimates, might be 
 nearly always thus rendered. When it is said the Deacon 
 and Eunuch went down into the water, we can fairly gather 
 no more than that they went to or unto the water, eis being 
 properly translated to or unto — and when it is added, they 
 
 i Ryland** App. p. 25, 26, 29. 2 p. 78. 
 
145 
 
 came up out of the water, it does not prove any more than 
 that it was from the water's edge — for, if eis in this con- 
 nexion is employed for going to the water, ek can only 
 mean coming back from it. And when it is said that John 
 baptized in Jordan and in Enon, we are not obliged to 
 conclude that he did more than stand by the side of the 
 water and apply the element to the people in the form of 
 sprinkling or affusion. Let our opponents prove otherwise, 
 if they can — if not, the admission of our interpretations sur- 
 renders the main prop of immersion in the judgment of its 
 more illiterate advocates. 
 
 VI. Our position will become still more evident by adopt- 
 ing the practice of our opponents, 1 and by bringing the pre- 
 positions to the test — which may be done by translating 
 several passages where they occur with the constructions 
 our Baptist friends put upon them. This will be found, in 
 many cases, to make absolute nonsense. We have tried the 
 experiment in more than a*hundred places, and discovered 
 the issue to be perfectly conclusive. All we can do at present 
 is to cite a few texts, involving each preposition, as examples 
 of multitudes more. 
 
 i. We shall begin with apo, and render it out of. 
 
 Matt. Hi. 7. ' generation of vipers ! who hath warned yoo to flee out of 
 the wrath to come.* 
 
 23. ' Depart out of me, ye workers of iniquity.' 
 
 xxi. 43. ' The kingdom of heaven shall be taken out of yon.' 
 
 xxvii. 42. ■ Let him now come down out of the cross.' 
 
 Lake i. 38. ' And the angel departed out of her.' 
 
 ix. 5. ' Shake off the very dust out o/your feet.' 
 
 ii. We shall proceed to eis, and render it into. 
 
 Matt. iii. 11. 'I baptize you with water into repentance.' 
 1 Fearce, p. 18; Booth, vol. HI. p. 316; Ryland's App. p. 24; Gibbs, p. 79. 
 
I boa I am well pi' 
 41. ' Because they repented into the preaching of Jonah.* 
 'I am gent but into the lost sheep.' 
 ' And his fellow -servant fell down into his feet.' 
 John ix. 7- ' Go, wash into the pool of Slloam.' 
 
 in. We come to i:k, and shall translate it out of. 
 
 \\\.X\. ' For the tree is known out o/his fruit.' 
 
 xx. 2. ' He agreed with the labourers out of a penny a day.' 
 
 \xi. B. ' The baptism of John, whence was it, out ©/heaven or out nj 
 men?' 
 
 John xiii.1-4. ' He riseth out of supper, and laid aside his garner. 
 
 Acts x. 1. 'A centurion out of the band called the Italian band.' 
 
 Kev. ix. 21. 'Neither repented they out of tlitir murders, nor out of their 
 sorceries, nor out of their fornications, nor out of their 
 thefts.' 
 
 iv. We shall conclude with en, and render it in. 
 
 Matt. v.34,.Vi. ' Swear not at all, neither in heaven nor in thy head.' 
 
 \xii. 40. ' In these two commandments hang all the law and the 
 
 prophets.' * 
 
 xxvi. 52. ' They that take the sword shall perish in the sword.' 
 
 Mark i. '23. ' There was in the synagogue a man in an unclean spirit.' 
 
 Heb. ix. 25. ■ The High Priest entereth into the holy place in the blood.* 
 
 1 John v. 6. ' He came not in water only, bnt in water and blood.' 
 
 We need hardly say, that every passage here translated 
 
 cording to our opponents' constructions, makes downright 
 
 nonsense ; and this will appear still more glaring, if you 
 
 into the account that by in and into, they must mean 
 
 over head and ears ; and by out of, an ascending from a 
 
 of total immersion. 
 
 VII. But the versatile character of these prepositions, 
 
 and the futility of our opponents' assumption, will bt^ome 
 
 -till more palpable, by showing that these very prepositions 
 
 employed interchangeably, as well as indiscriminately 
 
147 
 
 with others, to be mentioned hereafter. A few examples 
 
 will sufficiently illustrate our position. 
 
 i. Apo, which they contend must be absolutely out of, 
 is so connected with the verb baptize, as to render submer- 
 sion impracticable. 
 
 Ex. xii. ">2. ' And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop and baptize it (apo) out 
 o/the blood that is in the bason.' 
 
 Lev. iv. 17- * And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out of the blood 
 and sprinkle it seven times.' 
 
 xiv. 16. ' And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out of the oil that 
 is in his left hand.* 
 
 Dan. iv. 33. * And his body was baptized (apo) out of the dew of heaven.' 
 See also chap. v. 21. 
 
 Lcclus. xxxi.26. • The farnace proves the edge (apo) out o/the baptizing.' 
 
 ii. Eis is employed in conjunction with the word bap- 
 tize where an entire submersion is very improbable. 
 
 Lev. xiv. 6. ■ As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, 
 and the hyssop, and shall baptize them (eis) into [till sub- 
 mersed in] the blood of the bird that was killed.' See 
 v. 51. 
 
 Acts viii. 16. ' They were all baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] the name 
 of the Lord Jesus.' See chap. xix. 5. 
 
 Bon. vi. 3. ' As many as were baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] Jesu.- 
 Christ, were baptized (eh) into [till submersed in] his 
 death.* 
 
 4. ' We are buried with him by baptism (eis) into [till submersed 
 in] death.' 
 
 1 Cor. i. 13. ' Or were ye baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] the name 
 of Paul ?' 
 
 16. ' Lest any should say I had baptized (eis) into [till submersed 
 in] mine own name.' 
 
 x. 2. ' Aud were all baptized (eis) into [till submersed in ] \! 
 
 in. Eis is used synonymously with apo. 
 
 ;. _"J. ' And he shall take a bunch of hyssop and baptize it (apo) out 
 
 o/the blood that is in the bason.' 
 
 Num. xix. is. < And he shall take a bunch of hyssop and baptize it (eis) into 
 the water.' 
 
! 1> 
 
 ' An. I the priest shall baptize his finger (eu) into the blood.' 
 
 17. • And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out of some of 
 the blood.' 
 
 «x. 9. ' And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him, and hr 
 baptized his finger (eis) into the blood.* 
 
 \iv. III. ' And the priest shall baptize his right finger (apo) out «1 the 
 oil that is in his left baud.' 
 
 iv. Eis is used synonymously with en. 
 
 I>eut.xxxiii.24. « Let Ashur baptize his foot (en) in oil.' 
 
 Josh, iii. 15. « And the feet of the priests were baptized (eit) into the brim of 
 the Jordan.' 
 
 Matt. iii. 6. ' And were baptized of him (en) in Jordan.' 
 Mark i. '.». ' Aud were baptized of John (eis) into Jordan.' 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 23. * He that baptizeth his hand with me (en) in the dish.' 
 
 Mark xiv. 20. ' It is one of the twelve that baptizeth with me u-it; into 
 the dish.' 
 
 v. Eis is used synonymously with epi. 
 
 M itt.xxviil. 19. « Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (eu) 
 into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' 
 
 Acts ii. 38. ' Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you (epi) upon the 
 name of the Lord Jesas.' 
 
 vi. En is used synonymously with epi. 
 
 Judith xii. 7- ' Judith went out in the night into the valley of Bethulh, and 
 baptized herself (epi) upon a fountain of water.' 
 
 John i. L'.'.. ' And John was baptizing (en) in Enon,' [a fountain of ■ I 
 
 vii. The word baptize is used in connexion with uper. 
 
 I (or. xv. •_*). ' What shall they do who are baptized (uper) for the i 
 Why arc they baptized (uper) for the dead ?' 
 
 vi 1 1. In some passages the prepositions are omitted. 
 
 Luke iii. 6. ' I baptize you * * WM 
 
 iliat he may baptize his finger * * water.' 
 
149 
 
 Acts xi. 16. ' John indeed baptized * * water.' 
 
 Kev. xix. 13. « He was clothed iu a vesture baptized # * blood.' 
 
 VIII. Upon the whole then, and without any additional 
 evidence, it may be safely concluded that the prepositions, 
 on the supposed import of which such uncommon stress is 
 laid by some of our opponents, make not an iota for their 
 cause. For conceding, what no Pedobaptist of judgment 
 ever denied, that the words, in some connexions, fairly con- 
 vey the meaning which our Baptist brethren contend for — it 
 may be enquired whether they have adduced any adequate 
 evidence to show that such is their force in the texts quoted 
 at the head of this section ? We answer, certainly not ; and 
 have no hesitation in saying that such evidence is not at- 
 tainable. 
 
 A frivolous remark has been made by a reverend 
 brother with respect to one of these prepositions, which 
 shows that the good man had not fairly studied the merits 
 of this controversy, or had written contrary to his know- 
 ledge, in order to make an affecting impression on the minds 
 of his ignorant readers. He says, \ if eis does not signify 
 1 into, then entering into heaven is only going to the gate 
 ' of heaven ; and entering into hell is only going to the gate 
 4 of hell.' ' But Pedobaptists never denied that eis sometimes 
 signifies into. All they contend for is, that the Baptists can- 
 not prove such to be its precise import in Acts viii. 38, 
 and in other passages narrating the act of scripture baptism. 
 This point we have endeavoured to establish — and this, 
 indeed, is conceded by Dr. Ryland, when he says, ' eis is 
 4 sometimes used in different senses' — so that Mr. Bin's 
 observation amounts to nothing in the argument. In fact, 
 the whole of our position is surrendered to us by two of 
 
 1 Birt's Letters, p. 52, 53. See Butterworth's Con. p. 19. 
 
 n5 
 
160 
 
 the cleverot HMD among the Baptist writers. Dr. ' 
 
 lie, that ' the criticisms of opposing parties on these prepo- 
 
 1 Mtions ari' comparatively immaterial, and in what 
 1 manner adjusted, they must lie deemed insufficient ol 
 1 themselves to determine the controversy.' ' And Mr 
 binson says, ' that Abraham's covenant, Greek particles, and 
 1 a thousand more such topics, no more regard the subject, 
 1 than the first verse of the first book of Chronicles, Adam, 
 'Sheth, Enosh.'* Thus much then for the prepositions. 
 That they make nothing for dipping any more than for 
 sprinkling or pouring, must be evident to all who have 
 carefully attended to the preceding remarks. 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. 
 
 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST N. T. BAPTISMS. 
 
 By the first New Testament baptisms, we mean those 
 performed by John the Baptist. In connexion with th 
 there are two circumstances noticed on which our brethren 
 lay no ordinary stress. The one is his baptizing in Jordan , 
 a considerable ■ river,' and the other his baptizing in Enon 
 because there was * much water' in it. The kind of evidence 
 adduced from these circumstances may he comprehended 
 in the following syllogism : — ' John could have had no oc- 
 casion to preach and baptize w here there was much w 
 had he not immersed his converts — but John preached and 
 baptized in Jordan and Enon, where there was much water, 
 therefore Ins converts were immersed.' 1 This notion and 
 argumentation jK'rvade the whole denomination of our op- 
 
 I x, p. 104. 2 Notes on Clandr, vol. ii. p. 423. 
 
 3 Sec Maclean, vol. iii. p ll'J. 
 
151 
 
 ponents — and it is questionable, if the above circumstances 
 are not among the main supports of their cause, especially 
 with the illiterate and unthinking part of its abettors. They 
 consequently demand a distinct consideration. The ensuing 
 remarks, however, will shew the impropriety of laying any 
 stress on the places where John baptized his followers. 
 
 I. It cannot escape your notice that this kind of proof is 
 presumptive — and different from the plain example or posi- 
 tive precept which the Baptists require of us in support of 
 our positions. They often declaim against reasoning, analogy, 
 or inference, respecting positive institutions — yet are here 
 employing them all in defence of their practice. They sur- 
 mise and conjecture that John would not have baptized in 
 these places, containing much water, had he not dipped his 
 converts — but can adduce nothing more. They simply sup- 
 pose that much water was required for baptism, and could 
 be necessary for no other purpose. Now, when Senacherib 
 invaded the country of Judea, he wanted 4 much water, 1 
 (2 Chron. xxxii. 4,) but surely not for baptizing his army ; 
 and Christ, who, by his disciples, baptized more people than 
 John, did not deem Jordan or Enon necessary for their 
 performance of this rite; nor does it appear, from the evan- 
 gelical history, that they ever required much water for doing 
 it. Hence we may gather that much water might be neces- 
 sary for the use of great multitudes of people who were not 
 to be plunged or washed in it — and that still greater multi- 
 tudes may be scripturally baptized where there is not, for 
 ought the scriptures tell us, much water for the purpose. 
 
 II. It is plain and fully admitted by some of our most 
 respectable and intelligent opponents, that the baptism of 
 John and Christian baptism were materially and essen- 
 
162 
 
 tially different. 1 II. td in Acts xix. 3-5, of certain 
 
 persons who had been baptized by .John, being baptized 
 with Christian baptism, about thirty years after, by the ap<»- 
 tle Paul. The nature of their respective baptisms varied i 
 
 rably. John, by birth, was a Jewish priest,* (Acts xiii. 
 25, compare with Luke i. 8,) officiating while the Levitieal 
 economy was in all its force and operation,* performing a 
 rite preparatory to the coming of Christ in the ministry — 
 admitting to this ceremony persons who were ignorant of the 
 existence of the Holy Ghost, who * was not given in a way 
 1 peculiar to the gospel dispensation during John's baptism, 
 'nor till Christ was glorified;' 4 (John vii. 39;) and re- 
 ceiving persons otherwise unfit for Christian baptism — at 
 least, such as our opponents would not presume to immerse. 
 (Matt. iii. 7-11, xi. 7-9.) The apostles of our Lord, sub- 
 sequent to his resurrection, were Christian ministers, bap- 
 tizing the people in the name of the Lord Jesus, and ad- 
 mitting to a certain religious fellowship the adults they 
 baptized only on an open or tacit avowal of their belief in 
 the son of God as the true Messiah. Supposing, therefore, 
 that John did actually baptize by immersion, his not beini, r 
 Christian baptism, it does not follow that the apostles of 
 Christ dipped their converts also. We find our opponents 
 
 nedly referring, not to the baptism of John as the in- 
 stitution of their baptism, but to our Lord's commission, 
 delivered after his resurrection and recorded in Matt, xxviii. 
 19, and Mask xvi. 15, 16. In fact, one of them says, 
 
 • these tw<. passages are our only authorities for our bap- 
 
 • tizing at all.' ' And another tells us, ' they should ever be 
 
 H.ll'u Egseo. Dif. a J. Stennett's Misc. Works, vol. ii. r 
 
 a Booth, vol. il. p. 257. « Macleau, vol. i. p. 114. » Pearce. i 
 
153 
 
 1 considered, respecting the mode and subject, as the rule 
 ' of baptizing.' ' Therefore, to say that though the qualifi- 
 cations of the candidates and the formulary of the adminis- 
 tration differed essentially, the modes were one and the 
 same — is begging the question. Let them prove it if they 
 can, or surrender the supposed evidence derived from the 
 performance of this rite in Jordan and Enon as invalid and 
 inapplicable. But, to save them a world of labour, we will 
 concede this point — and yet expect to prove to your satis- 
 faction that both John and our Lord's followers baptized 
 the people by pouring or sprinkling, or, in general terms, 
 by applying the element to the object. This accords with 
 the description Josephus gives of John's baptism, who says 
 he * washed or purified the crowds that came about him,' 2 
 but never intimates that he dipped them into the Jordan or 
 any where else. 
 
 III. But let us briefly notice John's baptizing at Jordan. 
 From what has been previously advanced respecting the 
 verb baptize and the prepositions eis, apo, and en, rendered 
 into, out of, and in, no fair evidence can be adduced by our 
 opponents to prove that our Saviour's harbinger dipped the 
 multitudes, that came to him, into this celebrated river. It 
 is impossible for them to maintain, except by bold assertions 
 and bwgging the question, that John or his candidates for 
 baptism went into the water at all. He baptized ' at,' ' on,' 
 or ' with' the water of this celebrated stream. He probably 
 stood in the channel of the Jordan, and might then be fairly 
 said to be in the river, as the Israelites are said to have gone 
 into the midst of the sea and to have been baptized in the 
 sea, when we know from the narrative of the Exodus that 
 they were only in the channel of the divided and departed 
 
 i Booth, vol. iii. p. 371. - Ant. b. is, .-. ;>, s. •_'. 
 
154 
 
 . It should bo also observed that .John w baptized in 
 .' commonly a waste, wild, and barren p'. 
 (Mabxi.4.) ' In the country about Jordan,' (LuKF.iii. 
 ' in Bethabara, beyond Jordan,' (John i. 28,) and in the 
 
 \\ here Christ took up his abode, (John x. 40.) 1 1 
 are lour places mentioned as scenes of John's ministry and 
 baptism, where, for ought our opponents know, there 
 little or no water at all. Even, while in the vicinity of this 
 river, he did not find it necessary to baptize all his people in 
 it. He performed this ceremony in the wilderness, where 
 ! iould not expect to find a great deal of water; and where 
 Christ took up his abode, which was surely not in a brook, 
 pool, or fountain. This last citation proves that little sti 
 can be laid on the terms ' in Jordan.' For as John baptized 
 only in the neighbourhood or near the place where Christ 
 took up his abode, so he might have baptized on or near the 
 Jordan only. If the words ■ in the place' mean only near 
 the place, why should the words ' in the Jordan' mean more 
 than near the Jordan ? Let our opponents establish the dif- 
 ference of the expressions. As John's baptizing at Jordan 
 will be a subject of after consideration, we must not enlarge 
 further on it at present — 
 
 IV. And therefore shall proceed to his baptizing in 
 Enon, (John iii. 23.) It is said, he was baptizing there 
 because there was much water. Now, you need hardly be 
 informed, that this passage is adduced on the other 
 with all the eclat of a complete victory. Let us then enquire 
 whether our brethren can establish their dipping sy- 
 from this narrative. 
 
 I. Enon, according to Parkhurst, signifies a fountain or 
 Bprihg — according to Schleusner, it is the ' name of a city, 
 situated near the Jordan on the borders of the tribe of 
 
155 \<?" 
 
 1 Manasseh, where it joined the tribe of Issa™&ne^r to 
 4 Salim, distant seven miles from Scythopolis. Here .)■ 
 ' baptized (John iii. 23), because there were many \vat< 
 4 whence also it received its name — for Einon, as On, signi- 
 4 ties metaphorically a fountain.' ' And the phrase hydata 
 polla means literally many waters or several streams. But 
 we must refer to the remarks of a learned and laborious in- 
 vestigator of this subject on the other side of the debate. 
 Mr. Robinson tells us that * Enon, near the Jordan, was 
 4 either a natural spring, an artificial reservoir, or a cavern- 
 • 4 ous temple of the sun.' * The spring where John baptized 
 ' was called the Dove's Eye. The prophet Nahum (ch. ii. 6) 
 4 describes waters running off in streams gurgling among 
 4 stones, as doves that wander cooing ; or, as the English 
 4 version has it, tabouring through the solitary grove. Ac- 
 " cording to this, Enon was a cavernous spring, and such 
 - w ere of great account in Judea, especially in some sea- 
 4 sons.' 3 Hence Enon was not a place of much water, in 
 the modern and occidental use of those terms : nor contained 
 sufficient for those immersions which it is presumed took 
 place in it. ' It is very probable,' says a convert to Pedo- 
 baptism, in his Scripture Reasons for Infant Baptism, 4 ' that 
 4 Enon was a village or tract of land where there were many 
 4 springs, which terminated in many rivulets of water. It is 
 4 observable that the town called Middin, in Josh. xv. 61, 
 * is named Enon by the seventy Greek interpreters of the 
 4 Old Testament. They also observe, that in Judges v. 10, 
 4 mention is made of those that sit in, upon, or near 
 4 Middin — we read 4 in judgment,' where the Holy Ghost 
 4 takes notice of the places of drawing water, so that if any 
 
 > Lex. in Loc. 2 Rob. p. 14. 3 ibid, p. 17. 
 
 " P. 46, Ed. Birmingham, 1818. 
 
156 
 
 uoiikl know why Middin is rendered Enon by the 
 i -Mtv Greet interpreters of the Old Testament, the thing 
 i ident, became of the places of drawing wati 
 
 ii. While the words much water, many waters. 
 waters, and waters, in the plural, in many places, mean large 
 relations of this element, particularly when used to ex- 
 ! figuratively crime or calamity, we find them often 
 employed when what we should consider little water is in- 
 i ended. A few citations will place this in a clear point of 
 light. Many waters are used to express the moistening of 
 the soil with rain. * He shall pour the water out of his 
 
 • buckets and his seed shall be in many waters/ (Numb. 
 \mv. 7) — for several rills watering a vineyard. 'Thy 
 1 mother is like a vine in thy blood, placed by the waters ; 
 ' she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many 
 ' waters/ (Ezek. xix. 10.) Great waters are used to ex- 
 press the streams refreshing and fertilizing the fields and 
 gardens of Judea or elsewhere. ' He took also of the seed 
 ' of the land and planted it in a fruitful field ; he placed it 
 1 by great waters and set it as a willow tree,' (Ezek. 
 xvii. 5.) ' This vine did bend her roots towards him and 
 1 shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water 
 1 it by the furrows of her plantations. It was planted in a 
 
 * good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches 
 1 and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine,' 
 (v. 7, 8.) The 'great waters' in Gibeon, (J FR.xli. 12,) are 
 called ' the pool of Gibeon' in 2 Sam. ii. 13, and by Jose- 
 phus, * a certain fountain in the city Gibeon." So that 
 
 . great waters are only a pool or fountain of water. 
 Much water is used for a brook that might be stopped 
 up and for wells that might be covered and hidden, 
 i Ant. b. 7, c. J, 8. 3. 
 
157 
 
 1 there was gathered much people together, who stopped 
 ■ all the fountains and the brook [or river Kedron] that ran 
 1 through the midst of the land, saying, why should the 
 ' king of Assyria come and find much water V (2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 4.) The term Waters, in the plural number, is used 
 to express several wells. ' And they came to Elim, where 
 ' there were twelve wells of water and three score and ten 
 ' palm trees, and they encamped there by the waters,' 
 (Exod. xv. 27) — for a single spring or fountain — \ and he 
 ' went forth unto the spring of the waters and cast the salt 
 4 in there and said, thus saith the Lord, I have healed these 
 1 waters : so the waters were healed unto this day,' (2 Kings 
 ii. 21,22.) Maundrell visited this well or fountain, about 
 which Josephus expaciates so complacently,' and deno- 
 minates it ' a spring issuing several small streams watering 
 ' a field.' 2 It is used for a cup of water — ' waters of a full 
 ' cup are wrung out to them,' (Psalm lxxiii. 10) — for 
 such a quantity as people drink — ' drink waters out of thine 
 * own cistern and running waters out of thine own well,' 
 (Prov. v, 15) — and for tears, ' that our eyes may run down 
 4 with tears and our eyelids gush out with waters, (Jer. ix. 
 18.) The laver of the temple, which contained at most 
 one thousand barrels, is called ' a molten sea,' (1 Kings 
 vii. 23.) 
 
 in. The above passages are adduced as specimens of 
 many more. From this we perceive that many waters, 
 great waters, much water, and waters in the plural, are 
 terms employed to designate what, in this country, would 
 be considered but a little of this element. When we hear 
 our opponents talking of Enon with its much water or many 
 streams as necessarily being little less than ' the confluence 
 
 i Hist. Wars, b. 4, c. 8, s. 3. I Travels. 
 
 O 
 
i:,s 
 
 * of tin- Tigris or Euphrates the swelling of the Nile, or as 
 
 • echoing to the voice of many thunderings, the sound of a 
 < cataract, and the roaring of the sea' ' — astonishment i 
 whelm* OB, That the word- many waters, great waters, 
 
 id waters, are sometimes expressive of ri 
 B, and seas, no one can question — but to say such im- 
 mense quantities of water are necessarily implied in the 
 terms, Hebrew, (mek, or English, is to betray a cranium 
 certainly less hard than adamant. Let our opponents tell 
 us where these mighty floods are to be found, let them point 
 out some ancient geographer who has described this < 
 brated sister of the Nile, the Euphrates and the Amazon. 
 The fact is, ' Enon, near to Salim,' as the phraseology im- 
 plies, was a place of little notoriety, unknown as a village 
 in early times, and unnoticed for its waters, save in the text 
 under review, in the New Testament. Neither does Jose- 
 phus ever say a word respecting Enon in any of his works, 
 though he describes, or at least notices, almost every other 
 fountain or water of any magnitude in the Holy Land — so 
 insignificant was this roaring cataract in his day, though he 
 was coeval with the apostles. And all that modern travel- 
 lers have been able to discover as a vestige of its former 
 magnificence, is only a well whither the virgins go forth to 
 draw water for their flocks and their father's families. Dr. 
 Gill justly remarks, ' there is great difficulty in determining 
 where or what this Enon was.' 2 
 
 iv. Let it be observed, also, that John could not have 
 gone from Jordan to Enon or any other place merely for 
 the sake of having * much water.' He must have had some 
 other motive for his movement. Jordan was a considerable 
 river, and Enon, according to Robinson, a spring in a cave. 
 
 • Ryland's App. p. 30. 2 P. 206. 
 
159 
 
 This latter place was probably more centrical and conve- 
 nient for some of the inhabitants of the country — and the 
 water was necessary J for the refreshment of his numerous 
 followers in that comparatively arid climate. ' Such a 
 ' spring was of great account in Judea, especially in some 
 1 seasons' of the year, when water was very scarce and the 
 w father very sultry. He that congregated multitudes of 
 people in such a country must, like Senacherib, have re- 
 quired much water ; and if they attended John, as they 
 did our Lord, three or four days successively(M att. xv. 32), 
 the necessity of much water, for other purposes than immer- 
 sion, must have been great. Thus John prudently took 
 his station where the lives of his followers would not be 
 endangered by the drought, and where the well -watered 
 soil produced shrubs and trees, which proved a cooling 
 shade amidst the scorching heat of a Summer's day in 
 Palestine. Hence Christ often resided, and preached near 
 the sea of Tiberias, Capernaum, and Galilee ; though there 
 is not a word spoken of his baptizing in any part of this 
 lake. Now, if there were other cogent reasons for John's 
 baptizing in Enon, where there was much water, besides 
 the operation of dipping his converts, we are at perfect 
 liberty to conclude, that these alone influenced his pro- 
 ceedings. Besides, if this Enon were a fountain or spring 
 in a cave, it, in all probability, supplied the people and their 
 cattle with water to drink, as well as John for his washings 
 or baptisms ; and as his followers were numerous, many 
 of them must have been bathed in this fountain previously 
 to the drinking of others, and consequently must have been 
 refreshed with dirty and ceremonially polluted beveridge. 
 Whether this was the case or not, you may easily deter- 
 mine. Such a proceeding, would hardly be tolerated in our 
 
1. 10 
 
 times, even by those who are so loud about taking up the 
 OfDM and sacrificing delicacy to a compliance with duty. 
 You will also remember that pure, fair, running, or living 
 water, derived from perpetual springs, was requisite for 
 purification or baptism ; and when so many became the 
 subjects of his ministration, it may easily account for his 
 taking his station at Jordan, Enon, or other places where 
 there was a fountain or stream, great or small, of pure water 
 adapted to his typical ablution or consecration. 
 
 V. But it may be argued further, that for the mere pur- 
 pose of immersing one individual after another, John could 
 could have no valid reason for going either to Jordan or 
 Enon. The former is a deep river, sometimes overflowing 
 its banks (Josh. iii. 16), and, at certain seasons of the 
 year, running with considerable velocity. ' Dr. Shaw com- 
 * puted it about thirty yards broad and three yards in depth, 
 1 and states that it discharged daily into the Dead Sea about 
 4 6,090,000 tons of water. Viscount Chateaubriand, who 
 4 travelled nearly a century after him, found the Jordan to 
 4 be six or seven feet deep close to the shoi'e, and about 
 4 fifty paces in breadth.' ' And our brethren suggest, that 
 Enon comported with the confluence of the Tigris and 
 Euphrates, the swelling of the Nile, the voice of many 
 thunderings, the roaring of the sea, and the rushing of a 
 cataract. But could these have been convenient places for 
 dipping either men or women in their light, loose, flowing 
 dresses ; or for a man, at most, six feet high, to stand in 
 days and months consecutively, for the purpose of immers- 
 ing them ? Do our apostle-like opponents go in que 
 sueh mighty waters for the purpose of dipping their people. 
 though guarded with cloaks, and sometimes mud- 1) 
 l Home's Inirod. p. M, I^ond. 1825. 
 
and all that the wit of modern ingenuity has contrived 
 against accidents and exposures of (he person { Do they 
 not consider a baptistry, artificially constructed, with steps, 
 pump, and sewers, and filled to a definite height with qui- 
 escent water, much more convenient in many respects '{ 
 That sucli a congregation of this element was unnecessary, 
 we may gather from the declaration of our opponents, who, 
 being practical men, are of course the best judges in this 
 particular. Mr. Robinson says, ' the true depth of water 
 ' for baptizing an individual, is something less than two- 
 ' thirds of the height ; but the tallest man may be baptized 
 ' in the Lateran depth, which is thirty-seven inches and 
 1 half.' l If this be a fact, and we have no reason to question 
 it, how unsuitable was Jordan, a deep rapid river? and 
 Enon, roaring and foaming along, could not have been a 
 whit better. * In baptism,' says another eminent writer 
 on the same side, 'it is the act of immersion, and not the 
 ' quantity of water, that is contended for — so that there be 
 ' sufficient after a prudent and suitable manner to dip or 
 ' bury the person baptized in it.' 2 A third observes, that 
 
 * one single rivulet, having pools of fair and deep water, 
 
 * would have been as fit for John's purpose as if he had 
 ' twenty.' 3 Our friends, in accounting for the baptisms of 
 the apostles, without going to natural water-courses, sup- 
 pose that baths were very numerous in ' private-houses in 
 4 Jerusalem, and bathing common among the Jews ;' and 
 no doubt used for this purpose. 4 Conceding the truth of 
 this assumption, it may be remarked, that as John was a 
 great favourite with the public (Matt. xiv. 5 ; xxi. 26), 
 1 who were ready to do any thing he should advise,' s h« 
 
 " P. 78. « Jenkin'g Dtf. p. 108. a R ee s, p. 126. 
 
 < Gill, p. 4G0, 215; Booth, v. i. p. 250. ■ Jos. Aut. b. IS, c. 5, s. 2. 
 
 o 5 
 
162 
 
 aright have used these baths also; and surely it would 
 have conduced much to the decent manner of Ail c 
 mony, and the feasibility of its performance, over tin 
 plunging of men and women into a deep, rapid, and po* 
 ful river, or a foaming cataract. But John did not use ttae 
 baths — his manner of conducting this ceremony could bv 
 done with equal facility where there was much water or 
 little— at or on the Jordan or fountain of Enon, or in the 
 wilderness where Christ took up his abode. Consequently 
 he did not baptize near these places for the sake of immers- 
 ing his followers — some other inducements marked out his 
 course and fixed on his stations. 
 
 VI. Upon the whole we conclude, that the great parade 
 of our opponents about John's dipping in Jordan and in 
 Enon, because there was much water in these places, 
 amounts to no more than a feather against a millstone in the 
 scales of rational investigation. Superficial minds may be 
 caught by the sound of words ; but persons of judgment will 
 weigh their sense, and determine accordingly : and this has 
 been our object in the present enquiry. 
 
 SECTION SEVENTH. 
 
 CERTAIN ALLUSIONS TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 
 
 Our opponents often refer us, with a good deal of ex- 
 ultation, to various references made by Christ and his dis- 
 ciples, which, in their humble opinion, countenance their 
 method of performing this initiatory rite, as — 
 The haptiflQ of the Israelites in the Red Sea, (1 Cor. x. 2.) 
 Of Noah and his family in the ark, (1 Pet. hi. 20, 21.) 
 
163 
 
 The sufferings of Christ and his disciples, (Mat. xx.22, 23.) 
 The sufferings of believers in Christ, as their federal repre- 
 sentative, (Rom. vi. 5, 6 ; Col. ii. 10-13.) 
 These allusions are often brought forward and much dwelt 
 upon by our respected brethren ; but they do not produce 
 in our minds any impressions favourable to their mode of 
 baptism. A brief consideration of each will doubtless 
 justify our sentiments. As the first three are not deemed 
 very important, and as the fourth is regarded as an impreg- 
 nable battlement about their cause, it claims, and shall re- 
 ceive, most of our attention. 
 
 I. 4 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
 1 in the sea,' (1 Cor. x. 2.) This text, according to the 
 literal construction of our our opponents in other cases, 
 should be rendered, ' And were all totally dipped (eis) 
 
 * into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' The passage 
 says nothing of their being dipped into the cloud and into 
 the sea ; but only while passing behind, under, and before 
 the one, and between the waters of the other, they were 
 baptized into Moses. But not to be too literal with our 
 brethren , and to allow them advantages they have no right to 
 claim, let us enquire if these Hebrews were dipped into the 
 cloud or the sea in their transit from Egypt to the wilder- 
 ness of Shur ? Mr. Booth assures us, that ' the word bap- 
 1 tize, in this dispute, denotes an action required by divine 
 
 * law, and the simple question is, what is that action V l We 
 reply certainly not dipping in the case before us ; for the 
 sacred historian assures us, that they all went through the 
 channel of the departed waters upon dry land, (Ex. xiv. 22.) 
 What was the action here? — walking between the divided 
 flood. To retort, that the clouds were over their heads, 
 
 " Vol. iii. p. 265. 
 
164 
 
 uid the heaps of water on each side of them, whereby they 
 were m if immersed, has nothing to do with the matter 
 
 in debate, which is about the action embraced by the verb 
 and displayed by the event. The Baptists contend tor dip- 
 ping a person really and absolutely under water, in order to 
 constitute a proper baptism, and ridicule the notion ot 
 less or otherwise being baptism at all. If water-baptism 
 were at all intended, it was effected by a shower. ' The 
 * clouds poured out water' (Ps. Ixxvii. 17); and in this \\ ,i\ 
 they were baptized, like Nebuchadnezzar, with a copious 
 sprinkling from above. The refuge of our friends in the 
 supposed saturated state of the Hebrews, is a mere conjec- 
 ture and a sophism — a conjecture, as they do not know that 
 even the rain fell on the chosen tribes — and a mere sophism, 
 since a person walking in the rain till wet to the skin would 
 not, according to their notions, be properly baptized. On 
 this principle, a copious shower-bath would be equally 
 efficient with an artificial or natural baptistry. This would 
 however be giving up the action in which the essence of 
 the sacrament is said to consist. At all events, this allusion 
 will not support the exclusive system of immersion. 
 
 II. 4 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the 
 ' long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
 1 the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
 1 were saved by water. The like figure, whereunto baptism 
 4 doth now save us (not the putting away the filth of the 
 1 flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), 
 ' by the resurrection of Jesus Christ/ (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21 .) 
 Now, if this text refer to any mode of water-baptism at all, 
 and not to the influence of the Holy Ghost, it must hi 
 the baptism of the ark, or of Noah and his family in it, or 
 of both conjoined. Suppose it wore of the ark, then what 
 
165 
 
 was the action here? Was the vessel absolutely dipped 
 under water, or did the water descend upon it ? Unques- 
 tionably the latter ; and though, from the quantity of ruin 
 which fell, the vessel was at length partly in the water and 
 partly out of the water, it was never dipped, nor ever en- 
 tirely under the rising element. The baptism of the ark was 
 much like some of the representations in Mr. Robinson's 
 plates of ancient Christian baptism ; where the converts are 
 seen standing up to the knees or middle in water, while the 
 officiating minister pours some of it on their heads. — Sup- 
 pose it were Noah and his family in the ark, then they 
 were baptized with a * dry baptism ;' for the water from 
 above or below never touched them. The rain fell in tor- 
 rents on the roof of their vessel, but they were not brought 
 in contact with it. And if this were baptism, we are often 
 baptized by our fire-sides, while a copious shower is falling 
 on the tiles of our habitations ; and the mariner in his 
 cabin at sea is being constantly baptized when it rains on 
 the deck of his ship, though not a drop of it reaches his 
 person. At any rate, Noah and his family were not 
 plunged, immersed, or dipped, in the waters of the deluge ; 
 and what may be said of the ark and the people separately, 
 may be pronounced of both conjointly. To say that the 
 Hebrews and Noah were, as it were baptized, only betrays 
 the difficulties felt by our opponents in this case. If in this 
 or the preceding instance there was a baptism analagous to 
 their method, the Egyptians were the only subjects in the 
 former case, and those who were shut out of the ark, in the 
 latter ; and who, as stated in the Baptist Magazine, were 
 1 baptized to a general destruction.' l 
 
 III. 'Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink 
 1 lUpt. Mag. for 1816, p. l'JS. 
 
1 of, ami to be baptized with die baptism that I am baptized 
 
 k with/ ( M a I 23.) ' I have a baptism to be bap- 
 
 (1 with and how am 1 straitened till it be accomplish* 
 (Luke xii. 50, see also Mark x. 3S, 39. ) Our Lord, in 
 these passages, evidently alludes to his last sufferings and 
 death. The Baptists tell us that Christ was plunged into 
 affliction or overwhelmed with it. 1 lint these profi 
 elucidations evidently obscure the Bubjecl — plunging and 
 
 ■whelming being directly Opposite act-. As to the former 
 expression, it may be remarked that the phrase plunged into 
 affliction, and particularly into a penal suffering for sin, is 
 a mode of speaking, very rare, if ever, used in the New 
 anient. The punishments inflicted on account of sin — 
 like every good gift and every perfect gift — are from ab 
 and are represented as descending on us. As to the latter, 
 it may be seen from our previous observations, that a person 
 overwhelmed suffers from the pressure of a superincumlxmt 
 w r eight — and is at complete variance with our opponents' 
 hypothesis. It is perceivable that drinking the cup and being 
 baptized are here used synonymously, and are both expres- 
 sive of pain and punishment, without specifying any par- 
 ticular mode of inllicting them. 'To drink,' says Mr. Keach, 
 1 denotes being overwhelmed with calamity,'-' (Is. li. 20; 
 lxiii. 6. Jer. xlviii. 26. Ezek. xxiii. 38. Ki:v. \iv. 10.) 
 But let us come to historical facts. Had our Lord and his 
 disciples suffered death, like Aristobulus, by drowning, our 
 opponents might have had some colour for their conclusions. 
 Hut neither Jesus, James, nor John, were martyred by dip- 
 ping or immersion. Christ, as we all know, was crucified; 
 James was killed with a sword, (Acts xii. 1 :) and John. 
 
 ording to universal opinion, and which our oppon 
 
 » Booth, vol. Hi. p. 318. lot. p. 168. 
 
Ki7 
 
 cannot gainsay, died in his bed a natural death. The 
 analogy, therefore, between dipping under water and suf- 
 fering in any of the preceding forms, is vague and incon- 
 sistent. To talk of their being baptized in their own blood, 
 as an argument in favour of modern plunging, betrays a 
 weakness too palpable to require correction. When we 
 can conceive the dyeing of a person with gore issuing from 
 certain bodily wounds, as fairly emblematical of dipping, 
 our imaginations must have lost their sober direction and run 
 wild amidst their vagrant reveries. 
 
 The frequent allusion of our brethren to the expressions 
 of the Psalmist, ' he drew me out of many waters,' (Ps. 
 xviii. 16.) ' I am come into deep waters,' (Ps. lxix. 2,) 
 ' and deliver me out of great waters,' (Ps. cxliv. 7 ;) as if 
 they referred to baptism in the sense of affliction, is perfectly 
 gratuitous and inconclusive — as none of them are designated 
 baptism by the inspired writers, and as there is no proof of 
 David's being dipped by any other being. He speaks of 
 • waters overflowing' or coming upon him, (Ps. lxix. 2,) 
 'going over him,' (Ps. xlii. 7,) 'coming nigh unto him,' 
 (Ps. xxxii. 6,) and ' coming into his soul,' (Ps. lxix. 2,) 
 expressive of overwhelming calamity. (See also Ps. xxii.14.) 
 May we not conclude, then, with equal propriety, that these 
 are baptism also ? And as the quantity of the element is not 
 the question at issue, but the act of its application, our in- 
 ference must be deemed equally proper and tenable. In 
 faet, the whole genius of the gospel is opposed to the in- 
 terpretation of our opponents. Our Lord was a sinner by 
 imputation, that is, God laid on him the iniquity of us all ; 
 and his sufferings were, in accordance with this view of the 
 case, also laid upon him — that is, taken from us and applied 
 to him, for it pleased the Lord to bruise him. Upon the 
 
whole tin- sullerings mentioned in the passage and de 
 natini baptism, will l)y no means and in no measure eoun- 
 trnanee the exclusive mode advocated and practiced by our 
 n -jvcied antagonists. 
 
 IV. We come, now, to the most material allusion con- 
 tained in the tore-cited passages, which we shall here quote 
 at length. * Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- 
 4 tized into Jesus C 'hrist, were baptized into hisdeath — there- 
 4 fore we are buried with him by baptism into death — that 
 1 like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
 1 the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
 ' For if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
 4 his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. 
 4 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
 4 that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
 
 * we should not serve sin,' (Rom. vi. 3-6.) — ' And ye are 
 
 * complete in him, which is the head of all principality and 
 4 power : in whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 4 cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the 
 1 sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried 
 4 with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
 4 through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
 4 him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins 
 
 * and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened to- 
 
 * gather with him, having forgiven you all trespasses,' (Col. 
 ii. 10-13.) 
 
 i. In considering these passages, it is proper to observe 
 that the apostle is speaking of the union of believers with 
 C 'hrist, and of their mutually suffering death, being buried 
 and raised again in Christ. The Son of God died, was bu- 
 ried, and rose again as the representative of his people— and 
 in hnn, as their federal head, they virtually died, were bu- 
 
169 
 
 ried, and rose again. This sentiment is well expressed by 
 a Baptist writer of considerable authority. He says, ■ by a 
 
 * gracious constitution Christ sustained the persons of all 
 ' the elect in his dying and rising again. They were so 
 
 * comprehended in and counted one with him, as to have 
 
 * died in his death, being buried in his burial, and raised 
 
 * again in his resurrection.' ' The design of the inspired 
 writer is to enforce holiness of life; and he is now urging 
 their spiritual union with Christ, as a cogent motive to 
 effect his purpose. This identification of the Mediator and 
 his people is a prime doctrine of scripture, and the like 
 practical use is made of it in various parts of the New Test- 
 ament; as must be manifest to all who read the sacred 
 volume with the least attention. In addition to this virtual 
 death, burial, and resurrection of believers, in consequence 
 of their federal union with Christ, he represents, in these 
 passages, the spiritual operations of divine grace in our 
 souls, which he designates circumcision, death, and cruci- 
 fixion; planting, burial, resurrection, and ascension to 
 newness of life : that is, he exhibits, in metaphorical lan- 
 guage, the work of the Holy Ghost in our souls by those 
 outward symbols, between which there is an instructive 
 analogy, perfectly simple to those who were conversant 
 with the customs of antiquity, nor unintelligible to us, with 
 the whole volume of scripture before us. 
 
 ii. An enquiry now arises, when this apparent and 
 professional union with Christ and work of the Spirit were 
 first recognized by the church. Few will question its taking 
 place at baptism — at least, in the case of adults ; for in the 
 apostolic age conversion from Judaism or Gentilism to an 
 acknowledgment of Christ as the Messiah and baptism, 
 
 > Maclean, v. i. p. 138. 
 
 P 
 
170 
 
 were ef fected simultaneously. Hence Mr. Robinson re- 
 marks, * there was no intermediate state of scholarship — 
 1 baptism was administered immediately on conviction of the 
 1 truth of the report.' l Hence the operation of the Spirit 
 and the application of water to a believer in the Saviour's 
 mine mission, are blended as concurrent acts. Wherefore 
 we read, * born of water and of the Spirit,' (John iii. 5) — 
 ' the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy 
 ' Ghost,' (Titus iii. 5) — ■ can any forbid water, that I 
 ' should not be baptized which have [now] received the 
 1 Holy Ghost ?' (Acts x. 47) — and much more might be 
 cited of a similar nature : from which it is easily perceived, 
 how a union of the renovated soul with the Saviour became 
 denominated baptism. Remark also, that in Rom. vi. 4, 
 we are said to be buried with him ( dia) through baptism, 
 or in consequence of it. And though in Col. ii. 12, it is 
 written, buried with him (en) in baptism, it by no means 
 militates against our position, since en is often employed in 
 a sense that favours our scheme — being rendered ' through,' 
 4 by,' or * because of, ' one hundred and ninety -six times in 
 the New Testament. Assuming the validity of this remark, 
 both passages mean the same thing, viz : That our apparent 
 union with Christ, in whom, as our federal head, we were 
 buried and rose again, was acknowledged at our dedication 
 by baptism. Our opponents admit that, in Col. ii. 12, 
 1 baptism is considered a principal medium of renovation ;'* 
 or as * signifying, outwardly, that they were dead to sin, 
 4 but alive to God. ,s 
 
 HI. That this or a similar interpretation of the pat 
 under review, accords with the intentions of the apostle, 
 may be assumed from the incongruity of the exposition 
 
 > Rob. Hilt. p. 284. » Keach's Met. p. 183. ■ Jrnk. Dcf. p. 124. 
 
171 
 
 which our opponents are constrained to give them, in order 
 to support their notions of baptism. To illustrate our po- 
 sition, Let us paraphrase the texts in consonance with their 
 assertions and sentiments. 
 
 ' Baptized iiito Christ ;' dipped iuto Christ, immersed into Christ, plunged 
 
 into Christ ! 
 ' Baptized iuto his death ;' dipped into his death, immersed into his death, 
 
 plunged into his death < 
 ' Buried with him by baptism into death;' buried with him by dipping into 
 
 death, by immersiug into death, by plunging into death I 
 'Buried with him in baptism;' buried with him In dipping, immersing, 
 
 or plunging ! 
 
 Who does not instantly discover the impropriety of such a 
 version, and look for something more analagous with scrip- 
 ture and common sense ! Besides which, the ideas attached 
 to these phrases in this paraphrastic version, are, at least, 
 literally erroneous; for the Romans and Colossians ad- 
 dressed were never, in respect of time or place, baptized 
 with Christ. They were surely not dipped into Christ at 
 their baptism, nor plunged into his death! The very at- 
 tempt at a literal rendering of the passages, appears the height 
 of absurdity. And yet if baptize mean nothing more or less 
 than to dip, immerse, or plunge, such a translation is una- 
 voidable. The simple intention of the writer is, that these 
 converts were, through baptism, separated to a profession of 
 discipleship — of being dead indeed unto sin and alive again 
 unto righteousness. They were buried with him, not by 
 being dipped under water at the same time, by the sum. 
 administrator, and in the same place; but through baptism, 
 however administered, were initiated into him as their fede- 
 ral and public representative ; and through their covenant 
 relation to him, they ' died in his death, were buried in his 
 
178 
 
 1 burial, anil MM again in his peg PITOC tlOn 1 — not absolutely 
 and ostensibly witli him — nor, lor aught the texts say, like 
 him — but in him, through a virtual union with him, as their 
 head and representative. All this is simple, in accordance 
 with the method of salvation, and harmonizing with the 
 general scope of the sacred writings — while the necessary 
 constructions of our brethren are complicated, unscriptural, 
 and even ridiculous. In fact, before our opponents can 
 make these passages answer their purpose, they are obliged 
 to construe the prepositions which, in some measure, govern 
 the action of the verb baptize, in a manner perfectly novel 
 and unwarrantable : — ■ Buried like him in baptism — buried 
 * likehim through baptism' — meaning either that an ordinary 
 burial with us, is like our Lord's baptism in Jordan, or that 
 their baptism is like his burial in the sepulchre — neither of 
 which, unfortunately for them, is true; nor for what the 
 venerable Paul asserts, is even remotely intended in the 
 fore-cited scriptures; which we shall now proceed to 
 establish. 
 
 iv. We contend, then, that our Lord's baptism in Jordan, 
 if he were dipped under water, as our opponents assert, 
 is not like an Ordinary burial in this country. On their 
 principles, John baptized the Redeemer by plunging him 
 entirely under water and instantly raising him out of it. 
 But this operation is widely different from our usual inter- 
 ments in the following respects : — 
 
 First. — The actions are different. A person baptized 
 by our brethren is merely dipped into the water. A per- 
 son buried is covered with earth — the lowering of the body 
 into a grave being an incidental circumstance — and not 
 truly a part of the literal burying of it. This point 
 i- admitted by the Baptists. ' It is true,' -ay (hey, 4 we do 
 
* bury by casting earth on the dead body, but it is so much 
 
 * earth as covers the corpse all over, or it is not buried.' ' 
 
 * The custom of raising tumuli or barrows over the dead 
 1 was universal in the times of the remotest antiquity. Such 
 
 * a practice is sufficiently indicative of the original and most 
 
 * prominent idea of burial that prevailed in remote antiquity, 
 
 * namely, that of committing to the earth [or laying out on 
 ' the earth] and covering with earth. a The Greeks and 
 
 * Romans entertained the firmest conviction, that their 
 
 * souls would not be admitted into the Elysian fields till 
 ' their bodies were buried or committed to the earth. Tra- 
 ' vellers, therefore, who happened to find a dead body, cast 
 ' dirt upon it three times,' 3 [that is, they buried it.] ' Burial, 
 ' as every child knows, is covering the body entirely.' 4 
 It is of importance to observe that the Jews held similar 
 notions. ■ Those whom they caught in the day time were 
 1 slain in the night, and then their bodies were carried out 
 
 * and thrown away, that there might be room for other pri- 
 ' soners — and the terror that was upon the people was so 
 
 * great, that no one had courage enough openly to weep 
 ' for the dead man that was related to him, or to bury him ; 
 4 only in the night time they would take up a little dust 
 ' and throw it upon their bodies ; and even some that were 
 ' the most ready to expose themselves to danger, would do 
 ' it in the day time!' 3 Consequently no two acts can be 
 more opposite to each other than a submersion-baptism 
 and an ordinary burial — the former being an immersion 
 into the element — the latter, a pouring or casting of the 
 element 'on the object. 
 
 Secondly. — The periods of interment are different. When 
 
 ' Keacli. p. 2G. a Cox, p. 71. 3 lb. p. 72. ' Pearce, p. 20. 
 
 5 Josephus, Hist. Wars, b. 4, c. 5, 8. 3. 
 
 p 5 
 
174 
 
 I |)S(\ with us, is tli fmiti voly buried, it is to remain in 
 that state till the end of the world. When our hrethren 
 bapti. -n, he is kej)t in a state of baptism lor an 
 
 ceedingly small portion of time. Hence in thi they 
 
 by no means correspond. Dr. Ryland encourages the timid 
 eandidates for immersion to submit, in the following words : 
 — ' You are about to resign yourselves now into the hands 
 1 of your pastor, who having immersed you for a moment 
 1 in the name of the blessed Lord, will easily [if able] and 
 1 instantly raise you out of the water.' ' Another Baptist 
 writer says, ' I never heard of any who were continued 
 
 * half one minute in the water.' * Now, who that had no 
 particular end to answer would ever have raised a grave 
 comparison between popping a person momentarily under 
 water and covering a corpse with earth till the great day 
 of a universal resurrection 1 
 
 Thirdly.— The subsequent operations are different. When 
 our blessed Lord was, according to our opponents' ideas, 
 baptized by John, he was first dipped under water and then 
 instantly raised out of it. And this latter act of the Baptist 
 was not a mere incidental and insignificant consequence of 
 the previous immersion, but an inherent and expressive part 
 of the ceremony. Hence we are told by Mr. Keach, * that 
 
 * cannot be Christ's true baptism wherein there is not, can- 
 4 not be, a lively representation of the death, burial, and 
 1 resurrection of Jesus Christ.' 3 And Mr. Burt says, ' bap- 
 ' tism is designed to represent unto us things of the greatest 
 
 * importance and concern, viz : the death, burial, and resur- 
 ' rection of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' 4 
 But in a burial, this raising again is wanting ; for though 
 all of us shall be raised at the last day, yet a resurrection is 
 
 » P. 31. ' Ree«, p. 133. a P. 318. < P. 13. 
 
175 
 
 not included in the act of burying ; which might be per- 
 formed, though men never left their sepulchres. 
 
 There are, therefore, three discrepancies in the case bo- 
 fore us, which completely destroy the analogical arguments 
 which our opponents so complacently erect on the allusions 
 under consideration. In fact, those who fancy such a simi- 
 larity as our opponents plead for, are entirely mistaken ; 
 for, as Mr. Robinson justly remarks, ' the first English 
 
 * Baptists, when they read the phrase, buried in baptism, 
 
 * instantly thought of an English burial, and therefore 
 
 * baptized by laying the body in the form of burying in 
 ' their own country ; but they might have observed that 
 
 * Paul wrote to Romans, and that Romans [at that period] 
 
 * did not bury but burned the dead, and buried nothing 
 
 * of the dead but their ashes in urns ; so that no fair rea- 
 
 * soning on the form of baptizing can be drawn from the 
 
 * mode of burying the dead in England.' ' 
 
 v. We next contend that our opponents' baptism is not 
 like our Saviour's burial. Mr. Butterworth assures us, 
 that ' it is the noble design of this ordinance to represent a 
 
 * buried and risen Saviour.' 2 But in this case the discre- 
 pancies are as great as in the preceding. When our oppo- 
 nents baptize a convert, he, as a voluntary agent, walks 
 knee or middle deep into the water — then he permits the 
 officiating minister to put the upper part of his body en- 
 tirely under — then he is raised on his legs, and walks away 
 to shift his dress. This is just as exhibited in practice — 
 though somewhat at variance with the sense they give to the 
 verb baptize. Now the dissimilarity between this ceremony 
 and the interment of Christ is glaring. Christ did not walk 
 into the sepulchre — Joseph of Arimathea did not lower his 
 
 i Hist. p. 550. « Conf. Weighed, p. ID, M. 
 
m 
 
 body into I grate, nor aid in mttBDg him OUt of it ;c 
 
 Hi-, being entirely pas-ive, was carried into, or nj) in* 
 room bewn out of ■ rock, in an elevated position ' — laid on 
 the floor, or rather on a side stone bench, ai I) 
 laid in an upper chamber, (Acts ix. 37) — tone 
 
 was rolled against the door or opening of the sepulchre — 
 and the people departed, intending after the Sabbath finally 
 to inter his precious body. Before they arrived, however, 
 the angel of the Lord rolled thestonefrom the mouth of the 
 cave, and the Saviour, without the aid of the Counsellor, 
 or his friends, left the mansion of death. Who that was not 
 edingly blinded in favour of an hypothesis, and deter- 
 mined to maintain it at all events, could even fancy a like- 
 l>etween two ceremonies so void of every feature of fair 
 analogy ! 
 
 A judicious writer remarks, that ' the sepulchres of anti- 
 ' quity possessed but little similarity to our graves. A large 
 1 excavation was made in the side of a rock — the floor of 
 
 • the chamber thus formed not being at all below the surfa< ■<• 
 4 of the soil without — and this chain bar was a tomb. ( )f the 
 ' grave of Lazarus, we are told it was a cave. That our 
 ' Lord's sepulchre was of this kind, must be inferred from 
 
 • the phraseology used respecting it by the inspired histo- 
 ' rians. Matthew and Mark declare it to have been hewn 
 
 out of a rock. Mary Magdalene and the other Man 
 
 • represented as sitting over against the sepulchre. We 
 
 4 informed that Joseph rolled a great stone to the door of the 
 ulchre. An angel of the Lord on the morning of the 
 L third day came and rolled back the stone from the door, 
 1 and sat upon it. The entrance, or door, was low, not 
 1 much more elevated*kan was necessary to admit th» 
 • See Bp. Lowth's Notes od Is. xx\\. 16, and liii, P. 
 
177 ^' 
 
 * therefore we read, that when the disciples cai 
 1 of the body, they stooped down to look into tne^DuyJJ JJ^ ft 
 ' chre.' l Besides this, our Redeemer remained in this room" 
 at least, a part of three days and three nights : whereas, in 
 modern immersion, the person is not (barring accidents) 
 kept under water half a minute ; and when emerged, it is 
 by the minister either alone, or, in case he be heavy, with the 
 aid of the deacons. In a word, so far from there being a 
 proper similitude between the dipping of our opponents and 
 the interment of Christ, the one is no more like the other 
 than plunging a person into a pond and carrying a corpse 
 into a chamber and stretching it on a bed. A further deve- 
 lopment of the discrepancy is not requisite. — We do not 
 design by these observations, however, to insinuate for a 
 moment that the predictions and declarations respecting the 
 interment of our blessed Lord were not perfectly fulfilled as 
 far as intended by the Holy Spirit, or that his precious 
 body was not placed in a state which the Jews designated 
 burial, and for a period which they accounted three days 
 and three nights. It is, however, plain, that Christ was in 
 the sepulchre only about thirty-six hours out of seventy-two, 
 and subject only to a preparation for final interment, and 
 not fully interred. This analogy between the time and 
 the circumstances of our Lord's burial, as respectively pre- 
 dicted and detailed in the New Testament, throws a consi- 
 derable degree of light on this subject, and materially 
 favours our position. 
 
 vi. Perhaps the sense of the words to baptize and to 
 bury, in the texts under review, is not so plain and settled 
 as our opponents presume. Can they tell us whether 
 the baptism of water or of the Holy Ghost is intended by 
 
 1 Urwick's Concise View, [>. 1 1, ;.;,. s C c also Cox, p. "4. 
 
m 
 
 the apostle] They stippo-«> the former — but would I 
 e difficulty to prove it — as, also, to determine whether 
 
 the l>ody to be interred mi that of sin, mentioned in 
 
 (( : . 11. 1 1,) and which is the amplest 
 virion of the passage, or of the Colossians ihminolriis. 
 referred to in the tenth verse of the same chapter. 
 would they be less perplexed in settling the import of the 
 word to bury in the fore-cited text That Christ was 
 
 definitively interred, is plain, from the fact that it was to be 
 done on the first day of the week, and probably in some 
 other place of sepulchre ; therefore the term cannot mean 
 1 covering the body entirely, which every child know 
 1 be burial.' Depositing the body in the sepulchre was pro- 
 bably intended — but perhaps something else, or more 
 meant Parkhurst tells us that the original word signifies 
 1 not only to bury or inter, according to its usual souse in 
 ' the profane writers, but also includes the preparation of 
 ' the body for burial, by washing, anointing, &c.' Schleua- 
 ner renders it, ' the preparation of the body for sepulchre.' 
 The same Greek word is used in theSeptuagint, (Gen. 1.26) 
 to express the embalming of Joseph, who was not finally 
 interred till hundreds of years after, (Ex. xiii. 19 ; Josh. 
 . 32.) The anointing of Christ before his death, i> 
 called his burial, (Matt. xxvi. 12 ;) and it is said, pro* 
 leptically, to have been done on the day of his burial. 
 (John xii. 7.) Ananias and his wife are said to have 
 buried, when, from the short time employed about it, three 
 hours, and the ignorance of their relatives, respecting 
 the bereavement, nothing more than washing, anoint 
 and similar preparatory rites, as performed in th 
 Dorcas, (Acts ix. 27,) and common among th» Jews, 
 (Acts v. 1-10,) could be intended. 
 
179 
 
 It is also remarkable that the word Lhupto, translated to 
 1 bury,' in the passages under consideration, is only once 
 used in the narrative of Christ's interment, and that for the 
 preparation of the body for the subsequent burial, (John 
 xix. 40.) When the inspired writers speak of the action 
 in debate, they all use another word, tithemi, rendered 
 ' laid,' or placed in the sepulchre for the time, (Matt, xxvii. 
 60 ; Mark xv. 46 ; Luke xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 42.) The 
 question of the pious women that sought the body of Christ 
 on the first day of the week, was, ' where have they laid 
 4 him V (John xx. 2 ; xiii. 15.) The angels were sitting 
 on the place 'where Christ had lain,' (John xx. 12;) 
 and said, ' behold where they laid him,' (Mark xvi. 6 ;) 
 4 come, see the place where the Lord lay,' (Matt, xxviii. 
 6.) Is it, therefore, not fair to infer that the angels, women, 
 and the Evangelists, considered our Saviour not buried de- 
 finitively, and that the word in question refers only to the 
 anointing, &c ? Supposing this to be the sense of the term 
 buried, in the preceding passages, and which our opponents 
 will feel it difficult to disprove, what becomes of all their 
 boasted assertions and indisputable evidence in favour of 
 dipping ? 
 
 vii. Our brethren regard baptism as a sacramental repre- 
 sentation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
 1 That,' says Keach, ' cannot be Christ's true baptism 
 ' wherein there is not, cannot be, a lively representation of 
 ' the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.' But 
 the same writer tells us in the same page, that • the sacra- 
 ' ment of the Lord's supper was ordained to represent his 
 1 body was broke and his blood was shed.' On this prin- 
 ciple of interpretation both sacraments symbolize the death 
 of Christ. Our opponents, we presume, can tell us on what 
 
ISO 
 
 ground they adinunMer OOfl ol ll amenta <>nce a 
 
 inonlli ur on.r a week, and the Other only once in a be- 
 liever's life-time .' Why is such a distinction niacU', if the 
 
 11 of both is one and the same .' lint there is ane 
 obstacle to their portion and inference. The Lord's sup- 
 per fully comprehends the objects intended by the -acred 
 Institutor — a memorial of his death and the communion of 
 saints. But the baptism of our antagonists, under the notion 
 of burying, is very defective, not representing a tithe of 
 what the scriptures and themselves declare it to symbolize. 
 For examples in Gal. iii. 27, it is said, ' as many of you as 
 
 * have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' Here 
 the design is general and full, the person being consecrated 
 to the profession of all the doctrines, duties, and privileges, 
 of the gospel. In 1 Cor. xii. 13, Paul says, ' for by one 
 
 * spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be 
 
 * Jews or Gentiles ;' that is, not only into a participation of 
 the death of Christ, but into the visible church with all its 
 advantages and obligations. Our opponents tell us, aj 
 shall presently verify, that baptism is designed ' to represent 
 ' a minister's washing a person' — * God's washing away 
 1 his sins by the blood of Christ' — * an act of worship to 
 
 * God' — ' an emblem of sanctification' — they also call it 
 4 purification' — ' a washing all over' — and * abundant pu- 
 
 * rification' — none of which effects are represented by bap- 
 tism as a burial, which they assure us is quite a different 
 thing from washing.' The visible descent of the Holy 
 Spirit, which is frequently designated baptism, is also totally 
 neglected in a burial. So that were we even to admit the 
 
 nsible consistency between their baptism and a burial, 
 other acknowledged intentions of the first importance in 
 
 I Cox, p. 60. Spc Maclean, v. i. p. 112. 
 
181 
 
 Christian baptism are excluded. And, consequently, their 
 em on this plan is partial and defective. Nor should it 
 be forgotten that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, of Judea, 
 and of all the region round about Jordan, were baptized by 
 John and our Lord's disciples when they entertained not 
 the slightest idea of Christ's passion or burial — therefore 
 they could not have administered this rite with a reference 
 to his interment, nor have considered it in the least degree 
 characteristic of a burial, previous to the crucifixion ' — nor, 
 for any thing we read, did they ever afterward contemplate 
 such an allusion as our opponents plead for. 
 
 vin. On the expressions in the passages unjder review, 
 our opponents endeavour to establish a rite in their churches 
 representing, in their esteem, the burial of Christ and his 
 resurrection from the dead. But their process of reasoning 
 on the texts, obliges them to derange the order observed by 
 the sacred penman and to omit a full compliance with what 
 they must conclude to be his design. First, they derange 
 the order observed by the sacred penman. They talk of, 
 first, a death, secondly, a burial, and thirdly, a resurrection. 
 Whereas, Paul speaks first of a burial, secondly of a planting, 
 and thirdly, of a crucifixion. By what authority is this muta- 
 tion of the divine arrangements 1 But our antagonists feel 
 it necessary. To talk of, first, burying, secondly, planting, 
 and, thirdly, crucifying, and to apply the order to their bap- 
 tizing, was too absurd for their adoption or avowal. Had 
 the Holy Ghost intended by the texts, to establish a system, 
 such as we presume to say the Baptists have invented, his 
 language — (on the natural order of which their scheme as 
 to the proper subjects chiefly depends, Matt, xxviii. 19 ; 
 Acts ii, 38, 41 ; viii. 12 ; x. 47)— is every way incorrect, 
 i See Hall's Essent. Diff. p. 16. 
 
 Q 
 
na 
 
 and before thoy can oven imagine, from these won! 
 -hadow of resemblance, tliey arc forced, contrary to their 
 •■ sd practice, to torture the text and entirely derange the 
 sacred narrative. Secondly, they omit a full compliance with 
 what they must conclude to have been the apostle's design. 
 ! Ie makes other allusions in the immediate connexion which 
 they totally disregard. ' Ye are circumcised with the cir- 
 1 cumcision of Christ.' — ■ Our old man is crucified with 
 4 him.' — * We have been planted together in the likeness of 
 
 * his death.' Why are all these expressions overlooked ? 
 To be consistent with their profession they should, in some 
 
 or other, represent the acts of circumcision, crucifixion, 
 and planting. Why is burying singled out before all the 
 rest ? Was it an after thought, and recurred to as a prop 
 of a cause previously espoused ? What we solicit is con- 
 sistency — symbolize all, or none. The preference of burying 
 to planting is remarkable, as the latter is expressly said to 
 be in the likeness of his death. The apostle also speaks in 
 another place of ' being made conformable unto his death,' 
 yet not to his burial, (Phil. iii. 10.) But the adoption of 
 the principle further than positively established, would lead 
 to the most superstitious results. ' We are commanded, 
 
 * to put on the Lord Jesus Christ' — to imitate him in ' wash- 
 
 * ing one another's feet' — * to shine as lights in the world.' 
 But where shall we find, among our friends, an ostensible 
 and analogous exhibition of these actions ? To be consi 
 with their principles, they ought, at least, to erect crucifixes 
 — to use lighted candles in their chapels — or in some way to 
 set forth these mental and spiritual allusions— or cease to 
 plead the afore-cited passages as reasons for dipping. Hence, 
 
 conclude, that our opponents have failed to establish 
 their exclusive scheme of baptismal immersion, from the 
 allusions of scripture to this divine ordinance. 
 
183 
 
 SECTION EIGHTH. 
 
 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. 
 
 Our opponents, confidently assuming that their mode of 
 baptism fully and minutely corresponds with that practised 
 by the apostles of our Lord, contend that we should, on no 
 account, depart in the smallest matters from the primitive 
 model. — Dr. Gale says, ' I think it is clear, that nothing can 
 
 * be baptism which varies from Christ's institution.' ' — Mr. 
 Dore affirms, that * what is not commanded by Christ, or 
 
 * practised by his apostles, is virtually forbidden as will- 
 ' worship.' 2 — Mr. Booth says, ' no additions should be made 
 4 by human authority [or intervention] to the positive ap- 
 1 pointments of Jesus Christ ; and it is not lawful, under 
 4 any pretence, either to corrupt or depart from the primitive 
 
 * institution of those appointments.' 3 ' Except it be main- 
 ' tained that positive ordinances are to be entirely governed 
 
 * by positive law and primitive example, it is impossible for 
 ' the Antipedobaptists to stand their ground by fair argument 
 4 in various cases, when disputing with Pedobaptists as 
 4 such.' * — Mr. Gibbs asserts, that ' the subjects as well as the 
 4 mode must accord with the precept and practice of the 
 
 * New Testament : to alter either of these is to perform a 
 4 new rite, and not the one which Christ has ordained. To 
 4 plead for this practice, as some do, on the ground that what 
 4 is not prohibited is lawful, is to open a wide door indeed 
 4 for the admission of human inventions into the worship of 
 4 God.'" — Similar declarations might be cited from most 
 Baptist writings. They assure us that a particular and un- 
 
 1 P. <>;. 2 iutrod. p. li>. s Vol. i. p. 26. 
 
 < lb. p. 402, KJ. 1784; Apology, p. 378. » P, 8, 9. 
 
184 
 alterable adherence to what they denominate scripture | 
 
 cept and apostolical practice, is essential to the mainten 
 of their system. Alter what has been advanced, a refuta- 
 tion °f lms evidence might have been omitted, had it not 
 been resols ed to give their views of the mode of baptism a 
 full, as well as a fair, investigation. In contemplating this 
 position, we shall argue on the principles of our Opponents : 
 and now solicit your attention to the following remarks : — 
 I. Our opponents presume that they have clearly disco- 
 vered the primitive practice and scrupulously copy it. But 
 perhaps in this respect they display a little too much self- 
 confidence. ' This ordinance,' says Mr. Burt, ' is laid down 
 
 * so plain in the sacred rule of scripture, that he who runs 
 ' may read it. And it must be highly criminal for any man 
 
 * to say or suppose that the divine Lawgiver should leave 
 
 * that ordinance under any veil which must be administered 
 4 in those awful names that are used in holy baptism. No 
 
 * serious Christian dares entertain so cruel a thought of Jesus, 
 1 our dear Redeemer, as that he should have so little love 
 
 * and value for his ministers, as to leave them at uncertainty 
 
 * in this important case.' ' — All this is very plausible and 
 pious ; but can our friends answer the following questions, 
 which are far from frivolous ? — 
 
 i. Did the persons to be baptized walk into the water, 
 or were they carried in by the baptizer ? That is, did they 
 partly baptize themselves, or were they wholly baptized 
 by the officiating minister ? For, in modern dipping, the 
 minister never baptizes the feet and legs of the subjects — 
 this being done by themselves. 
 
 ii. If the people walked into the water, to what depth 
 did they go ? — up to the ancles, knees, middle, or neck I — 
 I TreatUe, p. 18. See Dr. Stennelt, Tart II. p. 4. 
 
185 
 
 for now, many ministers dip little more than the head and 
 shoulders of the candidates. 
 
 in. Were the people baptized naked or dressed ? If 
 dressed , was it partially or fully ? Were the men and 
 women attired alike or differently ? In their ordinary 
 apparel, or in dresses made on purpose ? If the latter, 
 were the men in black and the women in white, or not ! 
 Had they weights at the bottom of their garments, to make 
 them sink into the water ? 
 
 iv. Were the baptized plunged backward or forward ? 
 Were they immersed once, twice, or three times ? Were 
 they dipped only, or also subsequently affused, as in the 
 Greek, Abyssinian, and other eastern churches ? Were 
 they wetted only by a simple dipping, or washed by manual 
 or other friction, as in some oriental communions ? 
 
 v. Did the disciples attend to the literal injunction of our 
 Lord, by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, or only in the name of the Lord Jesus 1 If 
 there be no instance where the rite was administered in the 
 name of the adorable Trinity, how do our opponents, on 
 their principles, justify the practice ? 
 
 vi. Was there only one person employed to dip a con- 
 vert, or was he assisted by others — especially when the 
 minister was small and feeble and the candidate stout, tall, 
 and weighty. 
 
 vii. Did they ever warm the water in cold seasons or 
 countries I Did they ever baptize the people privately ? 
 Did they ever construct baptismal fonts 1 Did the minister 
 ever dress in a particular garb for the occasion ? Did he 
 ever wear under garments, to keep out the water from 
 his legs ? 
 
 viii. Was the mode invariably the same in all places 
 
 Q 5 
 
186 
 
 and i -ons — male9 and females — tin 
 
 of the court ami the rustic ploughman of the field — tin- 
 BieUy and tlu> hale — the bed-ridden and the active { — 
 Were they all treated precisely in the same manner I 
 
 i\. When persons were affected under a sermon, so as 
 to cry for mercy, or confess their belief that .Jesus was the 
 Son of God, were they all baptized immediately — whether 
 provided with proper dresses or not — whether ignorant of 
 religion as a system or not? — Were they ever k. ; 
 chumens and candidates for baptism for a month, or a J 
 or at all ? 
 
 x. Was the faith of discipleship or of salvation neces- 
 sary ? Was an individual confession made before the church 
 or congregation previous to baptism ? If so, in what did it 
 consist ? What was the nature and extent of the instruction 
 required previous to receiving this ordinance 1 And who 
 were the persons that judged in this case — the minister 
 alone, or the people with him, or without him ? 
 
 These questions might have been considerably en I 
 but can they be answered? If not, with what consistency 
 can our opponents dilate so largely on scripture precedent, 
 and the absolute necessity of a strict, individual, and unde- 
 viating adherence to it, for a legitimate performance of this 
 ceremony — when, in truth, they confessedly know not how 
 it was originally understood and observed. Having no 
 means of information on this subject which we do not pos- 
 sess, are they inspired by Heaven to decide, at pleasure, 
 what was formerly done and what now shall render their 
 rite valid in the absence of sufficient data and unimpeach- 
 able credentials ? 
 
 II. But though our opponents cannot answer the pre- 
 ceding interrogatories, they still persi>t that the manner is, 
 
187 
 
 or ought to have been, as definitively settled as the Jewish 
 ceremonies or the eucharist. Let us hear their own words : — 
 
 * Baptism is a positive institution of Christ, and, agreeably 
 
 * to his infinite wisdom and goodness, he has expressed him- 
 1 self in the most clear and explicit manner respecting both 
 4 the mode and the subject of it.' ' — ' Such laws admit of no 
 4 commutation, mutilation, or alteration by human au- 
 ' thority.'*— * Baptism being a positive institution, as well 
 1 as those ancient rites [of circumcision, sprinkling of blood, 
 
 * anointing with oil, and other Levitical ceremonies,] what 
 1 reason can be assigned, if water should be applied to a 
 
 * particular part of the body, why that part was not men- 
 1 tioned, either in the institution of the ordinance or in some 
 1 apostolic example of its administration.' ' — ' Circumcision 
 ' was ordained, and every minutia of it expressly settled — 
 
 * so was the passover — so the Lord's supper. In like man- 
 ' ner in baptism, every thing is clear, and we are not left to 
 ' guess at the element to be made use of, or the form of 
 ' words to be repeated on the occasion — all is express 
 
 * and explicit.'* — On these assertions a few observations 
 are requisite. 
 
 i. According to the above statements and deductions, 
 the mode of baptism is expressed in the most clear and ex- 
 plicit manner ; and which is unquestionably to dip the 
 whole body of the candidate under water and take it up 
 again. But to whom is this mode so plain ? Not to one 
 in ten of the inhabitants of this empire. But it is as plain as 
 the Levitical ceremonies under the law. This we deny ; 
 since the Hebrews were, in many cases, restricted to spe- 
 cific rules unknown to the ordinance of baptism, as will be 
 
 i S. Stennctt, Fart II. p. 4. - Maclean, vol. iii. p. 244. 
 
 3 Booth, vol. i. p. %, 97. < Jenkio's Def. p. L'o. 
 
188 
 
 proved hereafter. But Ikeo it ought to bo as plain ( But 
 bon do our opponents know this \ Surely God U the 
 biH judge how precisely he shall circumscribe his ordi- 
 nances — whether the most ignorant and thoughtless should 
 understand them ai well as the intelligent and enquiring. 
 Is not this presuming to dictate to Infinite Wisdom how |o 
 prescribe laws and relate passing events ? Is it not 'directing 
 4 the Spirit of the Lord, and giving counsel to the Most 
 ■ High God r 
 
 n. But we may enquire whether there are not other 
 corresponding institutions of an equally positive nature, in 
 which Christ is equally remote from restricting the hands of 
 his servants to minute and unvarying rules of action 1 Several 
 things might be referred to under the law, but we shall come- 
 to the gospel, and consider the duties of preaching and 
 prayer. And we ask are these so expressly regulated by- 
 Christ in his commissions as to admit of no variety I Wen 
 all the apostles commanded to preach exactly alike, as to 
 matter and form ? Were they to preach only on stated 
 days, or at any time ? Were they to address their audi- 
 ences in their ordinary apparel, or in some ministerial robes '. 
 Or might all these be diversified according to circumstance 
 — such as place, time, audience, and opportunity ? When 
 they engaged in prayer, was it according to a particular 
 form prescribed, in part or wholly ; or were they left to 
 begin, continue, and end, according to their own discretion ? 
 Were the character and the qualification of evangelists so 
 d that none but those minutely described should offi- 
 I Were all those sent to preach, Bant also to bapti. 
 If not, wherein lies the difference between a preaching and 
 a baptizing minister .' Was the erection of chapels, exca- 
 vation of baptistries, and the like, enjoined or left to arise ac- 
 
189 
 
 cording as occasion should dictate ? Let our brethren find, 
 it* they can, in these all-important institutions, the minute 
 regulations which they plead for in respect of baptism. 
 
 m. But they refer us to the Lord's supper, as containing 
 a specimen of explicit and immutable legislation. In reply, 
 we ask them whether this sacrament is so verbally and posi- 
 tively fixed that all must observe it exactly alike, or become 
 culpable for deviating from the revealed will of the Legislator. 
 Hath Christ so specified the time, place, posture, guests, 
 form of words, the quality and quantity of the bread and 
 wine, that no serious persons can ignorantly err respecting 
 his intentions ? Let our brethren also find, if they are 
 able, in this sister sacrament, the minute regulations they 
 plead for in baptism. Further, did the Son of God intend 
 the Lord's supper to be a symbolical or a pictorial repre- 
 sentation of his sufferings and death 1 If the former, as Dr. 
 Gill asserts, 1 the precise mode must, in their view, be im- 
 material. If the latter, it is every way defective — for surely 
 a stranger to Christianity, witnessing the administration of 
 this sacrament for the first time, would never conclude that 
 the ceremony was just like a person agonizing in a garden 
 or dying upon a cross. And why might not baptism be 
 rather a symbolical than a pictorial representation of the 
 great lessons it inculcates. 
 
 iv. From these references it is manifest that our oppo- 
 nents, with their notions, would find some difficulty in 
 proving that the ordinance of baptism should be settled in 
 every iota by the Institutor, or exemplified precisely by the 
 apostles. When Dr. Jenkins talks of every thing being clear 
 and explicit as the minutiae of circumcision, the passover, 
 purification, and the eucharist, we naturally look for a con- 
 
 i p. n& 
 
190 
 
 timiation of the sentiment; but behold, we are ' not left to 
 I the element to be made use of or the form <>l 
 •ids to be repeated on the occasion !' This \a what we 
 never disputed, and, therefore, the declaration mere 
 to blind the eyes of ignorant people, by leading them to 
 Blippoee that all other things are precisely settled in their 
 favour by the Holy Spirit. When Mr. Booth asks, ' what 
 4 reason can be assigned if water 9hould be applied to a 
 1 particular part of the body, why that part was not men- 
 4 tioned or exemplified in practice ? ' ' — we would reply, 
 first, that our Baptist friends never apply water to the body, 
 but the body to the water ; and, secondly, we would em- 
 ploy the language of a Menonite Baptist, who says, * nor do 
 4 X remember it is any where said, that the person baptized 
 1 was covered with water or was put under it ; and had 
 1 this been the case, I can hardly think the scripture would 
 4 have been entirely silent about it ; but in some place or 
 4 other it would have been expressly mentioned, especially 
 * if it be a circumstance of such importance as some persons 
 4 suppose and contend for.' * — Now, Mr. Booth wonders, 
 if water was to be applied to a particular part of the body, 
 why it was not mentioned; and Mr. Elliott wonders, if 
 it were to be totally covered or dipped, why it was not re- 
 corded ; and perhaps one wonder is tantamount to the 
 other, which is all we require. 
 
 III. But let us for a moment suppose our opponents to 
 be absolutely certain, that a mode similar to their own was 
 generally or always observed by the harbinger and apo- 
 of our Lord, is it necessary with an undeviating scrupulosity 
 to adhere to it now, in this and every other country where 
 the gospel is preached .' If so, it must arise either from ex- 
 
 i Vol. i. p. 96, 97. - Elliott's Dipping not Baptiziii-'. 
 
101 
 
 plicit and positive enactments, or the inherent character of 
 the ceremony. The latter we deny, and, being the topic in 
 debate, it will not be received without competent evidence. 
 If it follow from the nature of positive institutions generally, 
 ought not all positive laws to be thus interpreted ? But 
 do our brethren observe this rule ? Are they not continually 
 neglecting the performance of positive injunctions and the 
 plainest examples of scripture — quite as positive and plain 
 as their particular and exclusive mode of immersion- baptism '{ 
 We will prove this fact in several indisputable instances. 
 
 i. Christ washed his disciples' feet at the feast of the 
 passover and the institution of the sacrament, saying, ' If I 
 1 then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye 
 1 also ought to wash one another's feet,' (John xiii. 14.) 
 But this is neglected. 
 
 ii. James, says, * is any sick among you, let him call for 
 1 the elders of the church — and let them pray over him, 
 ' anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord,' (James 
 v. 14, compare Mark vi. 13.) This is neglected. 
 
 hi. Paul enforces the kiss of charity — i salute one another 
 1 with an holy kiss, (Rom. xvi. 16,) greet one another with 
 ' an holy kiss, (1 Cor. xvi. 20,) greet all the brethren with 
 1 an holy kiss,' (1 Thess. v. 26.) Peter, says, ' greet 
 ' one another with a kiss of charity,' (1 Peter v. 14.) 
 This also is neglected, as are the feasts of charity mentioned 
 by Jude, (v. 12.) 
 
 iv. When the Lord's supper was instituted and the model 
 of its observance first given, it was on a Thursday evening, 
 in a large upper room, with only eleven or twelve commu- 
 nicants, all of them males, after eating the passover, with 
 unleavened bread, and in a reclining posture, (Luke xxii. 
 7-20.) Are these rules observed ? 
 
LIB 
 
 Kir Lord and his - observed the seventh day 
 
 of the w< D, and his disciples kept 
 
 h as well as the first afterwards. Norjiav* 
 any command for making an alteration, (Luke iv. 16 ; 
 Do our opponents proceed in the same 
 manner .' 
 
 m. We are commanded by the apostles, assembled at 
 Jerusalem, to abstain from things strangled and from blood, 
 (Acts xv. 20, 29.) But do not most of our brethren 
 partake, more or less, of these prohibited eata 
 
 fit. The primitive Christians had all things in common, 
 (Acts iv. 32.) Why do not the opulent members of the 
 Baptist communion adopt a similar practice ? Surely their 
 poor communicants would highly approve of the plan ! 
 
 vin. Poor Christian widows, when sixty years of age, 
 were supported by the voluntary contributions of the church, 
 and deacons were appointed to serve their tables and minis- 
 ter to their daily nee VcTsvi. 1-4; 1 Tim.v.3-10.) 
 But were is this law observed by our brethren ? 
 
 ix. When people first heard the word of God, and con- 
 fessed their belief in Christ as the true Messiah, whether 
 truly converted or not, they were all baptized without the 
 least delay, (Acts ii. 41— viii. 12, 37, 38— x. 47, 48— 
 i I- this precedent followed ? 
 
 \. Whenever the apostles baptized a person at the head 
 of hb family, they invariably baptized his (oUcos) children 
 also, (Acts xvi. 15, 23, &c.) Do our opponents in Eng- 
 land, India, or elsewhere, follow this apostolical example ? 
 
 Whence then arises all the parade about an undeviating 
 adherence to primitive example and positive law ? Let our 
 friends be consistent or silent, whichever they please ; or, 
 as one of them says on another occasion, 'if this is their 
 
193 
 
 * supposed warrant, why do they not keep exactly to the 
 
 * rule of that comm- 
 
 IV. -But our opponents are not only inconsistent by 
 omitting many things they know to have been enjoined or 
 practised — they also perform various others of a sacred 
 nature, or associated with their religious worship, for which 
 they find no examples, nor can justly plead the least divine 
 authority. Let us propose a few more appropriate ques- 
 tions, for the purpose of illustrating the truth of our as- 
 sertion : — 
 
 hat express precept or precedent have our opponents, 
 in die New Testament, for erecting chapels, with pe^rs and 
 pulpit — for employing choirs and instruments of music* — 
 for singing hymns of human and uninspired comj 
 and for their particular mode of ministering in holy 
 
 ii . What express precept or precedent have our i 
 brethren for administering the Lord's supper weekly or 
 monthly — for using leavened bread and port wine — and for 
 admitting females to participate ia this communion ? 
 
 in. What precept or precedent have they in the Xew 
 Testament for 4 uniting with the parents of a 
 4 child, in reading some portion of scripture on the 
 4 — returning thanks to the Giver of all good, and 
 4 mending the infant to God in earnest prayer !*• — in fret, 
 for performing all the parts of baptism, except applying 
 the water ? * 
 
 iv. What express precept or precedent have they for 
 baptizing the adult oflspring of parents who were Christ- 
 ians or believers at the time of their childrens' birth or 
 ■fimcj I 
 
 Bort.p.Si. - See Booth. *l.ii.>.9a.SU. 
 
 s Booth, rol. ii. p. «3. « See New Enoe. Msy . toI. ix. p. L*X 
 
m 
 
 . . What command or example do they plead for digging 
 baptist ric< in their chapels or near them — for mak 
 water-proof — with steps to descend — with wells, 
 and shoots, to fill them — and with sewers under, to drain 
 off the water after baptism I 
 
 vi. What divine authority do they plead for making 
 dmtes peculiar to the occasion — black for the men and 
 white for the women — with leads at the bottom, to make 
 them sink, and thereby avoid an exposure of the person — 
 or for * deacons using wands, to press the floating clothes 
 * beneath the water V 
 
 vii. What precept or precedent is pleaded for the minis- 
 ters using a different robe in baptizing than in preachi: 
 for wearing, like the late Dr. Ryland, mud boots mac;, 
 leather, water-proof, and reaching above the middle— or 
 for singing hymns, praying, and delivering oratio;. 
 baptism ? 
 
 viii. What precedent have our opponents for employing 
 women with cloaks, to throw over the heads and shoulder.^ 
 of the ladies who come up out of the water, to hide the clip- 
 ness of their clothes from appearing to the crowd — or for 
 standing between the baptized and the congregation, and 
 hurrying them, breathless, into the adjoining rooms ? 
 
 ix. What divine authority do they bring for warming the 
 water in the baptistry — for having double vestries, with a 
 fire in each — for placing tubs in them, to receive the 
 clothes—and for giving the baptized wine or spirits and 
 . to cheer their spirits or prevent a chill ? 
 
 x. What precedent have they for dipping a person once 
 rather than thrice — or, when a first dipping is not absolute 
 and entire submersion, for dipping him a second time till 
 wholly under water ? 
 
195 
 
 Not to particularize further, we have shown you that our 
 opponents do many things, even in the rite before us, for 
 which they can plead neither precept nor example, and 
 consequently, that their baptism, on their own principles, is 
 invalid ; for they assure us, that ' nothing is or can be a part 
 ' of Christian worship which is not recommended either by 
 
 * precept or example in the Holy Scriptures' ! — that J to go 
 ' beyond or come short of what is expressly noted in the 
 
 * scriptures of truth, with respect to a positive institute, 
 ' is to set aside the institution itself, and to practise a human 
 ' nte' 2 — that ' in the worship of God, nothing therein as 
 ' worship is to be admitted without some plain and ex- 
 ' press word, by precept or practice, to warrant the same out 
 
 * of the New Testament' ' — and that ' as nothing should be 
 
 * excluded from the worship of God which Christ hath ap- 
 
 * pointed, so nothing should be added by human authority : 
 1 he alone, as legislator of his own kingdom, can alter or annul 
 ' what he hath himself commanded. To interfere with the 
 ' economy of things established in his church, is to be wise 
 
 * above what is written, and to invade the prerogatives of his 
 
 * office, who is head over all things to his church, which is 
 4 his body, the fulness of him who filleth all in all.' * 
 
 V. The only attempt at vindicating these innovations 
 must be founded on one or other of the following pro- 
 positions : — 
 
 i. ' That the manners and customs of our age and 
 
 * country require all those precautions and conveniences.' 
 Hut while any denomination of believers, except the Bap- 
 tists, might plead this argument — in their mouths, and fol- 
 lowing the fore-cited passages — it becomes inconsistent in 
 
 1 Pearce, p. 14. See Maclean, vol. i. p. 119. - Paice's Serm. p. 8. 
 
 3 D'Auver's Iunoc. p. <W, 87. 4 Gibbs, p. ?68. 
 
the extreme ; since they profess to act not on deductions 
 drawn from scripture, but on a strict and unvarying ad- 
 herence to its primitive forms and ceremonies. Beei 
 they make many additions, alterations, and omissions, 
 which the change of climate and customs by no DM 
 renders necessary. For instance — what has the change of 
 climate or manners of the people to do with theadmini-- 
 uon of the Lord's supper, as to place, time, element, 
 or posture ? What have the climate and customs to do with 
 the kiss and feasts of charity, anointing tfie sick with oil, ob- 
 serving the seventh day of the week, eating blood or things 
 strangled, having all things in common ? What have the 
 climate or customs to do with baptizing immediately on 
 conviction— supporting aged Christian widows— and a dozen 
 other things which might be enumerated? If they still 
 contend that the climate and customs of the age and country 
 make these alterations prudent and essential, we will answer 
 in the language of Mr. Booth — ' So, then, the voice of na- 
 
 * tional decency is to be heard and the force of local customs 
 ' is to be felt in the administration of a divinely positive 
 ' rite, even though the will of the Institutor be the sole 
 
 * ground of this institution.' ' — If our opponents consider 
 ;my rite specifically enjoined by Christ or precisely admi- 
 nistered by the apostles, on their own principles, they are 
 bound to observe it exactly in the same manner. That 
 they are inconsistent with themselves and act contrary to 
 the professions they are constantly making, we have fully 
 established : and if a deviation in many cases is allowable, 
 as in preaching, and prayer, and the Lord's supper, why 
 not in baptism itself; and if our good friends make so 
 many omissions, alterations, and appendages to this ordi- 
 
 " Vol. iU.p. US, lift 
 
197 
 
 nance, how can they honestly complain of us for going, as 
 they deem it, a little further than themselves ? and with 
 what propriety are they continually assailing us and their 
 people with their doctrine of positive institutions and tin 
 immutable nature of scripture precedents ? 
 
 ii. It is answered, ' that the things enumerated above are 
 ' merely circumstantial and indifferent.' l But how do our 
 opponents know that the precise mode of applying water to 
 the baptized, is not also a mere circumstance of baptism '( 
 That they have not proved the action of total immersion an 
 essential and inherent part of scripture baptism, has been 
 sufficiently demonstrated; and for ought they have ad- 
 duced to the contrary, their dipping may be as much a cir- 
 cumstance as the other ceremonies invariably introduced by 
 them, and which are requisite to the performance of this 
 rite as administered in their communion. They first arbi- 
 trarily assume, and then fearlessly assert, that to baptize 
 is to dip the whole body, and that dipping is the essence of 
 the sacrament. Consequently, all the preparations, accom- 
 paniments, and appendages, are mere incidents varied at 
 will. But let them verify the justice of their assumption, 
 before they draw such a sheltering conclusion. Besides, 
 how can they, on their principles of interpreting positive 
 laws and institutions, prove that such circumstantials are 
 not objectionable in the sight of God. If ' what is not com- 
 4 manded by Christ or practised by his apostles, is virtually 
 ' forbidden as will-worship ;'" and ' if scripture forbids what 
 ' it does not mention,' 3 as our opponents contend, they 
 are no more warranted in their additions or alterations than 
 the Roman Catholics are in the most superstitious branches 
 of their worship ; and the latter might, with equal propriety, 
 
 1 Booth, v. i. p. 126-128. 2 Dorc's Introd. p. 19. 3 Booth, v. Ii. p. 16. 
 
 R 5 
 
198 
 
 i that all their ceremonies were but mere incidents and 
 circumstantials of their service : and if ' to come short of 
 • what is noted in the scriptures of truth, with re 
 1 positive institution, is to set aside the institution itself,' ' 
 our brethren are as guilty, in many cases before mentioned, 
 M they can conceive us to be for not dipping our converts: 
 besides, acting in opposition to their avowed principles. 
 Indeed, one of their most intelligent and respectable advo- 
 cates says, ■ that what is performed as an act of worship 
 1 or a religious duty, if it has not the authority of scripture, 
 ' is sinful and of a bad tendency 
 
 VI. We have now examined all the material evidence 
 adduced by our opponents in support of their exclusive sys- 
 tem of immersion, which they pronounce not only scriptural 
 but the only valid mode of baptism. From what has been 
 advanced, we consider it indubitably established, that they 
 have not proved, and cannot maintain, their point — that 
 their mode of baptism is supported by partial evidence, 
 distorted facts, illegitimate deductions, and' sophistical rea- 
 sonings — and which, when fairly investigated, prove no 
 better than the baseless fabric of a vision, that vanishes on 
 opening our eyes and exercising our rational facur 
 To conclude, in the language of the Rev. Mr. Watson, a 
 Wesleyan minister of great respectability and penetration: 
 4 it is satisfactory to discover that all the attempts made to 
 1 impose upon Christians a practice repulsive to the feelings', 
 ' dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicac\ . 
 4 tute of all scriptural authority, and of really prim 
 * practice.' ' 
 
 •Peaxce, p. 8. » S. Stennett, Part II. p. 1C8. ajheol. Inst. v. in. p. 444. 
 
199 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 WE SHALL ADDUCE A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVI- 
 DENCE TO PROVE THAT OURS IS THE ONLY PROPER MODE 
 OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 It has been shewn, we hope, to your entire satisfaction, 
 that the testimonies adduced by our respected opponents, 
 in favour of their exclusive scheme of immersion baptism, 
 are fatally defective — and that consequently their cause is 
 lost. Our object at present is to convince you that pouring 
 or sprinkling, or applying the element to the object, is the 
 only valid method of administering this Christian sacrament. 
 
 In the prosecution of our enquiry we shall be as plain and 
 concise as the nature of the subject will fairly admit. Occa- 
 sional repetitions, however, in. controversies of this nature 
 are often unavoidable ; similar evidence and arguments are 
 frequently necessary for the establishment of distinct and 
 even dissimilar propositions. Hence, though our preceding 
 remarks have been entirely devoted to the overthrow of our 
 opponents' scheme, and our subsequent observations are 
 chiefly directed to the establishment of our own ; yet much 
 that has been already advanced might have been arranged 
 urider this second head of our discourse — and a considerable 
 part of what will yet he adduced might have been brought 
 forward in the preceding discussion. In a subject of this 
 extensive and diversified nature such a method could not 
 be conveniently avoided. 
 
 We beg to remind you that the question at issue between 
 us and our esteemed brethren, is not which of us performs 
 
900 
 
 the ceremony of baptism in die better or more scriptural 
 maimer — but which of us is only or exclusively right For 
 if our respective modes are as opposite aa applying the per- 
 
 I to the water, and applying the water to the person — 
 both cannot be Scriptural, and therefore not valid. 'If,' 
 Lh\ Jenkins, ' the words of the apostle, (Eph. iv. 5,) 
 to be regarded, there can be but one baptism, as but 
 4 one faith. So that dipping or sprinkling must be the true 
 1 mode. Both cannot be true.' ' Our opponents assert that 
 they are exclusively right, and that we are altogether in the 
 wrong. ■ I affirm,' says Mr. Burt, ' without presumption, 
 4 that sprinkling or pouring water on the face, is not bap- 
 4 tism.' ' Dr. Gale, says, ' they who are not duly baptized 
 4 [that is, plunged under water] are certainly not baptized 
 4 at all.' 3 Dr. Gill, says, ' baptism must be performed by 
 4 immersion, without which it cannot be baptism.' 4 Mr. 
 Keach, observes, 4 that cannot be true baptism, wherein 
 ' there is not, cannot be, a lively representation of the d< 
 ' burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ.' 5 We, on the 
 other hand, feel no hesitation in asserting, with equal con- 
 fidence, that dipping, plunging, or immersing a person into 
 the water, is not scripture baptism, and that if a pre 
 conformity to scripture precept and apostolical example l>e 
 requisite to constitute a valid performance of a positive in- 
 stitution, as our opponents assert, it is not baptism at all — 
 and that all our opponents, who have not been all'used or 
 
 i>ed with water in the name of the Trinity, are still un- 
 baptized — nor will they have complied with the divine in- 
 
 aon till they have received the ordinance in this scrip- 
 tural manner. 
 
 The terms, 4 circumstantial evidence,' employed in 
 
 H. j». 1_\ a Treatise, p. 26. 3 P. I 1. P. 
 
201 
 
 the present proposition, may be thought by some to 
 concede a consciousness of invalidity in our argument. 
 * Give us,' say they, * direct testimony in support of your 
 practice and we will place confidence in the strength of 
 your positions.' But, let it be remarked, that our oppo- 
 nents have adduced no direct evidence in maintenance of 
 immersion— unless their mere assertions respecting the word 
 baptize be of this description. Excepting these unfounded 
 and gratuitous declarations, all the testimony they profess 
 to bring is as much circumstantial as what we propose to 
 lay before you. They have adduced no case from scripture, 
 in which it is unequivocally said the baptized were abso- 
 solutely put under water and taken out again in the name of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They simply infer that 
 if a person is ' baptized in a place of much water, he must 
 ' be plunged into it.' l They think it natural to suppose 
 that the Eunuch was immersed, from the circumstances of 
 the case ; 2 but they have no direct proof for it. John's 
 baptizing in Enon, because there was much water there, is 
 the plainest instance they can exhibit in support of dipping ; 
 and yet this is allowed to be only a presumptive proof. 11 
 And so of every other case, and every other judicious op- 
 jxment. The fact is, that no intelligent person, acquainted 
 with the precise nature of this controversy, and supporting 
 his respective opinion in a candid and feasible manner, can 
 have recourse to any other species of argumentation. As 
 there is no certainty obtainable, respecting the mode of this 
 sacrament, but from the circumstances of its primitive ad- 
 ministration, and as these, when fairly examined, will 
 clearly settle the question at issue, we shall apply ourselves 
 to these alone. 
 
 I Gill, p. 205. a ibid. p. 213; Anderson, p. 10. 3 Gill, p. 210, 241. 
 
208 
 
 But I come to the more direct diaciU 
 
 subject, it will be proper to i iot con- 
 
 tending fol a circumstantially precise and unvarying in 
 ut bapti>ni. We have defined onr method to be ' pouring, 
 
 * sprinkling, or otherwise applying the element to the t 
 1 didutc,' in opposition to ' dipping, immersing, or Other* 
 
 * applying the candidate to the element' — modes as opposite 
 to each other as light is opposed to darkness. We are not 
 so supercilious as to argue that the water must be poured 
 and not sprinkled, or sprinkled and not poured ; or that 
 some definite quantity must be used ; or that it must be 
 applied to some particular part of the body exclusively — 
 because on these points the scriptures are unquestionably 
 silent — and therefore it does not become us to be iriea 
 above what is written, nor to determine, respecting this or 
 any other institution, what God has wisely and graciously 
 left to the judgment or circumstances of his people. That 
 the mode universally prevalent among our opponents is un- 
 scriptural,we conscientiously believe ; and that the method 
 generally regarded by Pedobaptists is true and com] 
 
 we are equally confident. 
 
 In prosecuting our future enquiries, we shall observe the 
 following arrangement: — 
 
 i . The contradictions and difficulties of our opponents. 
 
 ii. The frequent application of the word baptize. 
 
 in. The mode of baptism among the Jews. 
 
 iv. Several instances of scripture baptism. 
 
 \ . The numbers baptized by John and Christ's disciples. 
 
 \i. The huptism of the Holy Ght 
 
 mi. The numerous difficulties allendi i !<>n. 
 
 mil The danger of dipping in many cases. 
 
203 
 
 SECTION FIRST. 
 
 THE CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR 
 OPPONENTS. 
 
 Although this particular has not a direct reference to the 
 point at which we are aiming, yet it will indirectly aid our 
 cause, by weakening that of our opponents, and by meeting 
 an objection they have frequently brought against us. They 
 would make us believe that their doctrine is so plainly esta- 
 blished, and the evidence by which it is upheld so simple 
 and tangible, that he who runs may read it, and that the 
 way-faring man, though a fool, will easily arrive at their 
 conclusions. They also affirm, that in supporting our sys- 
 tem, there is so much difficulty, labour, management, and 
 contradiction displayed, that people of ordinary capacities 
 cannot comprehend our arguments ; while superior minds 
 must detect our sophistry, and should disentangle themselves 
 from the ensnaring influence of our communion. The author 
 of Antipedobaptism and Female Communion Consistent,' 
 has the following remark :— ' On what principle, honour- 
 ' able to Pedobaptism, and to the literary character of its de- 
 ' fenders, can any one account for the numerous inconsisten- 
 ' cies that subsist among themselves V l ■ Another objection,' 
 ' says Mr. Gibbs, * to the theory of infant baptism, is the 
 ' contrariety of opinion which exists among those who yet 
 1 most cordially espouse its general principles. This implies 
 1 a deficiency of scripture evidence to guide their decisions, 
 4 as well as a want of scriptural law to regulate their practice: 
 ' nor is this an unfounded assertion; for though they all 
 1 agree in the general conclusion, that infant baptism is 
 
 i P. 62. 
 
•jot 
 
 \, it il well known that they differ material I 
 ■he premises from which they draw th ion ; 
 
 ' and that they llatly contradict each other as to many par- 
 4 ticulars connected witli this ceremony. So palpable is this 
 w difference of opinion in the history of the present contro- 
 ls , that we frequently find the most expert and zealous 
 1 defenders of Pedobaptism, not only admitting the great 
 k facts from which we reason, but strenuously opposing and 
 4 laboriously disproving the principles laid down by some of 
 * their own party.' ' This sentiment is frequently broached 
 in the writings of the Baptists; 8 and it proceeds on 
 the supposition that their system is free from similar in- 
 consistencies, and their writers from those perplexities 
 which they find or f-ncy amongst us. Now we think 
 it may be easily perceived, from what we shall lay be- 
 fore you, that our brethren have also a vast many diffi- 
 culties, and that the writings, issued in defence of their 
 scheme, are pregnant with contradictions and contriv- 
 ances — sufficient, indeed, to prove that their cause can- 
 not be upheld without a great deal of trouble. Their la- 
 boured publications, some of which were not elicited by the 
 attacks of Pedobaptists, display toil and research equal to 
 any thing adduced against them, and develope contradic- 
 tions unknown to our side of the question. A few speci- 
 mens will place this assertion in a clear point of view. 
 
 I. Their contradictions respecting the word baptize. 
 
 i. They affirm, as you have heard, in the most positive 
 language, that this term signifies always and only to dip or 
 immerse a person or thing entirely. — Let them speak for 
 themselves : — Robinson: ■ To baptize is to dip.' 8 — Gale : 
 
 • P. 25.J. See Maclean, v. iii. f. 
 » Booth, v. i. p. W| vol. li. p. 21U-220, 4S7-.M2. 3 Hist. p. 132. 
 
205 
 
 1 1 do not remember a passage where all other senses are 
 ' not necessarily excluded besides dipping. 1 I have abun- 
 1 dantly proved, from the Old Testament, that the significa- 
 4 tion of the word is always to dip* — and only to dip. 3 It 
 ' is as good sense to say a man is dipped when only a drop 
 
 * or two of water falls upon him, as to say he is baptized 
 
 * when he is sprinkled.* It is a mistake to suppose that 
 
 * words have more than one signification ; and words and 
 
 * sentences are probably never to be understood but in their 
 
 * literal sense.' 5 — D'Anvers: ' Baptizo, in plain English, 
 'is nothing but to dip, plunge, or cover all over.' 6 — 
 Pearce : ' It may be asserted, that it is never used in the 
 ' Bible to express any thing short of a total covering or uni- 
 ■ versal application.' 7 — Jenkins : ' We maintain that bap- 
 ' tizo always signifies to dip the whole body. 8 In baptism, 
 
 * it is the act of immersion, not the quantity of water, that is 
 ' contended for.' 9 — Booth : ' The word baptize in this 
 ' dispute denotes an action required by divine law ; and 
 'the simple question is, what is that action?' 10 — Rees: 
 ' Immersion, I hope, does not consist in wetting, but in 
 'dipping.' 11 
 
 ii. They affirm, with equal plainness, that the term in 
 question means other and opposite modes of action. — 
 Gale : f The word baptize, perhaps, does not so necessarily 
 ' express the action of putting under water, as in general a 
 ' thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, 
 ' whether it is put into the water, or the water comes upon 
 ' it. 18 We readily grant there may be such circumstances 
 ' in some cases, which necessarily and manifestly show the 
 
 i P. 78. 2 p. 148. 3 p. 150. 4 p. 177. 5 p. 90. 
 
 « P. 182. 7 p. 16. s c. R. p. 56. » Def. p. 108. >° V. Hi. p. 266. 
 
 11 P. 149. 12 p. 96. 
 
1 thing spoken of is not said to be dipped all over." — il< 
 io\vledges that in Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, it is used for 
 sprinkling as well as bathing.* This is confirmed by 
 Mr. Rees. 1 — Rijlund: * Almost all words, through the 
 1 poverty of language, are used in different senses.' * He 
 admits that Origen, referring to Elijah's wetting the wood, 
 mentioned in the 1 Kings xviii. 32, 35, has employed the 
 word for pouring. 5 — Booth : * A person may, indeed, be 
 surrounded with subtle effluvia — a liquid may be so 
 k poured — or it may so distil upon him — that he may be as 
 'if immersed!' 6 — Anderson: 'Baptism represents the 
 4 effects of God's operation on the mind, rather than the 
 4 way in which his agency is exerted.' 7 — Jenkins : * Bap- 
 1 tism may fairly express the state of the disciples when 
 ' overwhelmed with the Spirit, though the Spirit fell upon 
 
 • them.' 8 — Reach: ' Though the baptism of the Spirit was 
 
 • by pouring forth of the Spirit, yet they were overwhelmed 
 
 • or immersed with it ; like as dust may be poured upon a 
 ' dead corpse until it is covered all over or quite buried 
 ' therein. 9 If you pour water on a child until it is covered 
 4 all over in water, it may be truly said, that that child was 
 1 buried in water,' ,0 [or baptized.] — Cox: i A person may 
 ' indeed be immersed [that is, baptized] by means ofpour- 
 1 ing, but immersion is being plunged into water or over- 
 4 whelmed by it. " The word baptize here (Dan. iv. 33) 
 4 does not imply the manner in which the effect was pro- 
 4 duced, but the effect itself — not the mode by which the 
 4 body of the king was wetted ; but its condition, as result- 
 ' tag from its exposure to the dew of heaven. This is the 
 
 >P.lMC>fi a P. 119. 3 P. 120. <App.p. 19. Mb. p. 15. 
 • V. i. p. 97. 7 Intr. p. 36. » C. R. p. 22. • P. 4. 
 
 w P. 26. » P. 94. 
 
207 
 
 * very idiom of all language ; as we say he was burnt or 
 
 * drowned — the effect is simply expressed, without any re- 
 4 ference to the mode.' The promise of Joel (ch. ii. 28, 29) 
 4 refers to the whole of the communication and its results, 
 ' and not to the mode of that communication.' " 
 
 On these citations few comments are requisite. The 
 action, which is the entire topic of debate, is totally surren- 
 dered — therefore dipping is not essential to baptism. The 
 word baptize is allowed to mean pouring and sprinkling, w 
 well as immersing ; and to express an effect produced or 
 the condition in which a thing may be, no matter how it 
 comes so. The parade about the quantity of water is absurd, 
 since the word baptize, in this dispute, involves only the 
 action, and not the nature or abundance of the baptizing 
 element, as they repeatedly assure us ; while the impro- 
 priety of employing the terms overwhelming and immersing 
 as synonymous, must be apparent to all intelligent persons. 
 In a word, the contradictions we have noticed are self- 
 evident and of great importance. Hence, you perceive, 
 that when our opponents are pressed, they yield up every 
 position they desire to hold ; and which surrender is, ot 
 course, fatal to their arguments. — 4 I cannot forbear observ- 
 
 * ing,' says Mr. Booth, 4 in the words of a great genius, 
 44 how happy it is to have to do with people that will talk 
 44 pro and con! By this means you furnished me with all 
 44 1 wanted, which was to make you confute yourselves. 11 ' 
 
 II. Their contrivances for a decent and proper adminis- 
 tration of baptism in the days of John and by the Saviour's 
 disciples. We shall mention only three instances. 
 
 i. When the indelicacy of dipping the multitudes that 
 came to John's baptism in the open air and in a large river 
 
 i P. 41. 2 P. 92. a Vol. ii. p. 511. 
 
208 
 
 is objected to our opponents' scheme, they enquire, ' Is it 
 ' incredible that in a country where tents were, there should 
 ' be so great a number hearing John and no tents for refresh - 
 
 • ment and rest I and if there were tents, why not some m 
 1 which the men and others in which the women dressed 
 1 and undressed V Their clothes in that climate were neither 
 4 numerous nor burdensome.'* — A very comfortable con- 
 trivance, to be sure, narrated in the plainest terms by the 
 evangelists and understood by our brethren without the use 
 of those reprobated things — reasoning, inference, and 
 analogy. Perhaps, after all, they had only the same kind 
 of tents which the multitudes that followed Christ enjoyed, 
 when they sat by hundreds and fifties in ranks or companies 
 on the green grass, and took refreshment under the wide- 
 spreading canopy of heaven. (See Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 
 35, 36— Mark vi. 40.) 
 
 ii. When the difficulty of dipping with decency the three 
 thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost is urged upon 
 them, we are told, ' they might have been dipped in Be- 
 
 • thesda, where the porches were so convenient for dressing 
 1 and undressing :*' and, to lessen the labour of the twelve 
 apostles, seventy auxiliary dippers are introduced — all at 
 work at once in this said pool. 4 Passing over the assumptive 
 character of this argument, we are to suppose that there 
 were eighty-two people, old men and matrons, young men 
 and maidens, dressing and undressing, with all possible 
 despatch, at the same moment, in these five porches, or 
 about sixteen in each. Whether the difficulty of the case is 
 in any measure removed by this supposition, you are left t<> 
 determine. We have no hesitation in saying it is not. — 
 
 » Jenkln'8 C. K. p. 60. » lb. Def. p. 21. « lb. ('. K. p 
 
 « lb. Def. p. 119. Sec J. Stennett, p. 123. 
 
209 
 
 Further, this must have been a most unsuitable place for 
 baptizing, if Dr. Hammond's notion be correct, and which 
 our opponents can more easily deny than disprove. He 
 says, ■ the waters of this pool became medicinal by being 
 
 * impregnated with a healing warmth from the blood and 
 
 * entrails of the sacrificed beasts that were washed there. 1 ' 
 Nor is the opinion generally received much more favourable 
 to the notion of our antagonists ; which is, that ' the sheep 
 1 were washed in this pool before they were offered in sa- 
 ' crifice :' by which it must have been rendered unfit 6 for 
 
 * purification for religious purposes.' ' — This unfitness will 
 be still more palpable, if you consider that fair and pure 
 water was essential to this ordinance among the ancient 
 Christians. 3 
 
 in. When the Jailor and his family were baptized, our 
 brethren discover all requisite conveniences for the solemn 
 occasion. They say, * as there is a river spoken of (Acts 
 ' xvi. 13) to which Lydia and others had resorted for 
 
 * prayer, no doubt there was a house by the river, in which 
 ' their devotions were celebrated ; and no place could be 
 ' more convenient for the administration of baptism, by im- 
 
 * mersion, than that river, with the convenience of that 
 
 * house.' 4 — Of this opinion, also, is Dr. Gill. 3 — Bo the 
 Jailor took his poor prisoners, washed their stripes*,' and let 
 them out of prison—- of course under a strong escort— and 
 then he took his wife and children out of their warm beds 
 at midnight, and with second suits of clothes under their 
 arms, away they all went through the streets, probably filled 
 with people frightened by the earthquake (Act* xvi. 26), 
 
 I On John v. 4. « Calmet's Diet. Frag. No. LXV1. 
 
 3 Rees, p. 126, 1/8 ; Gale, p. 113. « Jenkiu»s Def. p. U& 
 
 a P. 401. SeeRyland, p. 11. 
 
 S 5 
 
•210 
 
 till they came to the city-gate, which was soon unbolted . 
 and out they passed and proceeded to Uie river (v. 13.) 
 Thru they went into this house, and shifted their d 
 the dark, or the turnkey held a light. Then Paul, or his 
 companion, or both, walked into the water — then the Jailor 
 »ame out and was plunged — then his wife followed and 
 plunged — and then came out their family and were 
 plunged — the turnkey still holding his torch. Then they 
 all went back into the house — took off their wet clot 
 which they wrung, tied in bundles — wiped themselves 
 dry — put on their usual apparel — returned to the city — 
 entered the great gate — and soon reached the gaol. Then 
 the Governor gave his prisoners some victuals — conducted 
 them to their cell — and locked the door upon them. Then 
 the Jailor and his family went to bed, and slept in peace. 
 All this, on the principles of Drs. Jenkins and Gill, must 
 have occurred in the space of an hour — and just in the 
 order now enumerated. 
 
 III. Their polemical management and manceuverings. 
 Under this head we shall comprehend several instances, 
 which will prove that our opponents are not totally exempt 
 from embarrassment while advocating their immersion - 
 baptism. 
 
 i. When advantage may be taken of the blunders and 
 unguarded expressions of Pedobaptists, they set to work 
 with all their powers and persevering abilities — con over 
 the dusty pages of numerous writers — extract a line or two 
 here and a paragraph there, and then string them together 
 in a book— and rise from the employment with the - 
 faction and delight of a complete triumph. Of this, the 
 works of Messrs. Keach, D'Anvers, and Booth, and a host 
 of feeble imitators, are an abundant proof. But when we at- 
 
211 
 
 tempt to strengthen our positions, by a similar process, our 
 brethren, with much gravity assure us, ' that however great 
 
 * and honourable the patrons of a mistake may be, they are 
 
 * but men ; and the authority of Christ, and the respect and 
 1 obedience we owe to his commandments, should counter- 
 
 * balance all other considerations.' ' 
 
 11. If a close and constant adherence to the letter of the 
 Bible is thought prudent for carrying a point, we are told 
 that ' the gospel alone is our rule of action* — that the New 
 
 * Testament must be the only rule by which we are to pro- 
 4 ceed in our enquiries on this subject 8 — that we should 
 4 have no other rule of faith and judge of controversies be- 
 4 sides the sacred Word of God— for, if we admit any other, 
 4 we directly give up our cause, and expose ourselves to all 
 
 * the impositions and inconveniences which are the insepa- 
 4 rable attendants of popery* — that baptism is a positive 
 
 * rite. Analogy and presumptive reasoning may be used in 
 4 matters that are not positive — but, as far as a duty is posi- 
 4 tive, we must keep close to the letter of the law : analogy 
 
 * has nothing to do with it. 5 That their principle is as fol- 
 1 lows : — A divine precept or an apostolical precedent is 
 
 * absolutely necessary to authorize the performance of any 
 
 * branch of ritual worship. 6 That if we once admit the in- 
 
 * ferential reasoning, with regard to positive institutes, which 
 ' is legitimate when applied to moral duties, you open a 
 4 door wide enough to admit all the mummeries of popery. 7 
 4 That analogical evidence, which can never amount to more 
 ' than possible presumption, or mere probability, should 
 
 * not be admitted as authority in the worship of God — and 
 
 l Gale, p. 178. « Robinson, p. 074. 3 Dore's Introd. p. 10. 
 
 < Gale, p. \f?J. • Jeukiu's Def. p. 22. 6 Booth, v. iii. p. 217. 
 
 ■ Cox, p. 111. 
 
' that no ordinance should bo recognized as divinely ap- 
 1 ported upon any evidence short of demonstrative proof." 
 But when the New Testament, understood in a literal iei 
 
 ought against the positions of our opponents, they im- 
 mediately alter their tone and mode of defence. Now 'it 1- 
 1 impossible to reason without inference.' * ' The book' [of 
 the Acts] says Mr. Robinson, ■ is full of information, and, 
 i in regard to baptism, it informs us by what it does not say, 
 ' as well as by what is reported.' s That is, we may infer 
 many things from its silence. Dr. Gale, says, * that to ap- 
 ■ jx'al to the scriptures concerning the word baptize,' (which 
 he tells us is the main branch of our dispute, 4 ) ' and to be 
 1 determined by them only in this question, is so unac- 
 4 countable a fancy, that I admire any gentleman of under- 
 4 standing should be guilty of it.' 5 In accordance with these 
 declarations, they infer, suppose, analogize. They fancy 
 that ' bathing was very common among the Jews' 6 — that 
 there were tanks or cisterns of water fit for immersion in 
 all Greek and Roman prisons, 7 and houses "—that people 
 would not visit places where there was, in eastern language, 
 much water, without dipping one another into it 9 — that the 
 Eunuch had a large retinue of servants with him, and 
 water sufficient for aspersion' — and innumerable other 
 things of a similar character. 
 
 I lere it may not be uninteresting to observe that our op- 
 ponents differ respecting the validity of historical evidence : 
 — one instance only shall be mentioned. Mr. Ivimy, the 
 • ■ditor of the Baptist Magazine, says, in words already cited, 
 1 admitting infant baptism to have existed, not only in the 
 
 i.fi, p. 317. 3 Jenkin's Def. p. 16. 3 Rob. p. 4l». 
 
 .We, p. 78. 5 lb. p. 147, 187. « J. Stennett, p. 1 
 
 Anderson's Introd. p. 37. 8 Jenkin's Def. p. 108. 
 
 o Anderson's Introd. p. 9. io Jenkin's Def. p. Hi'; Ryland, p. 11. 
 
213 
 
 ■ first century, but even in the time of the apostles, unless it 
 1 could also be demonstrated that it was practised by the 
 
 * apostles themselves, there could be no evidence produced 
 
 * that it was not a part of Antichrist, &c.' ' Professor An- 
 derson, says, * the question between us lies not in the re- 
 
 * gion of demonstration. If it [infant baptism] could be 
 
 * traced to the age of the apostles, as its advocates contend 
 1 it may ; I confess it seems to me, that it should be uni- 
 1 versally adopted.' 2 It is also amusing to remark that our 
 opponents designate ' infant sprinkling one of the trumperies 
 
 * of the Church of Rome,' and seem disposed to give us a 
 philippic for following the example of this communion. They 
 however gravely adduce the ancient mode of dipping among 
 the Papists, as good evidence 111 favour of their own par- 
 ticular practice. 8 
 
 in. It is a maxim with our opponents, and it well de- 
 serves their devout consideration, that ' what proves too 
 1 much, proves nothing at all.' 4 And to shew what would 
 be the precise meaning of the word baptize, most conso- 
 nant with their views and practice, they assure us that * bap- 
 1 tizein is of a middle signification , between epipolazein, to 
 1 swim on the surface, and dunein, to sink to the bottom.'* 
 And yet, whenever they can find a passage in which it is 
 used for drowning a person, sinking a ship, putting into the 
 water and raising no more, it is seized with avidity and ad- 
 duced as indisputable evidence that the word baptize is em- 
 ployed only in a sense that favours their practice; as we 
 have abundantly shown you from their own expressions. 
 Whereas, according to the above maxim, these citations, 
 
 I Appendix to Gill, p. 48. 2 Introd. p. 19-9(5. 
 
 N«w Evang. Mag. Compare Bin's Vind. p. 21, Dore's Pref. p. 17. 
 < Gale, p. 307. 5 Booth, v. i. p. 69. 
 
m 
 
 by proving too much, prove just nothing at all. Hut the 
 maxim would be equally correct it' it run thus : c What 
 4 proves too little, proves nothing at all.' 1 !• u when they 
 prove that the word baptize means sometimes to dip, and 
 infer that there is no baptism except by dipping, they prove 
 too little and infer too much. In the like defective mode 
 of reasoning, they establish the apostolic baptism of adults 
 (which no Pedobaptist ever denied), and then infer that 
 none but adults were the subjects of this ordinance. But 
 this arguing is sophistical — as the deduction is vastly more 
 extensive than the premises. The truth evidently is, that 
 every passage cited from Greek writers, exhibits the word 
 in dispute as expressing an action materially different from 
 one person putting another just below the surface of the 
 water, and instantly taking him up again. The original 
 authors refer to actions either defective or redundant, per- 
 formed by a different agency, or assuming a perfectly op- 
 posite character. In a word, the verb is never employed to 
 express the whole act, and nothing but the act, of a modern 
 immersion. 
 
 iv. When we find the term used to express other actions 
 than dipping, as is often the case, they manage the topic 
 most skilfully. If, for instance, it is employed for bathing 
 a sword in slaughter, daubing the face with paint, colour- 
 ing the cheeks by intoxication, dyeing a lake with the blood 
 of a frog, beating a person till reddened with his own 
 blood, staining the hand by squeezing a substance, orna- 
 menting clothes with a print, needle, or brush, the tide 
 overilowing the land, pouring water on wood and garden 
 pilots, overwhelming a ship with stones, oppressing the 
 poor with taxes, and the like — we are told, that 'they 
 
 J Gale, p. 78, lOGj Ryl. App. p. 3-13. 
 
215 
 
 * were as it were dipped' ' — or that * the word is used in an 
 ' allusive or metaphorical sense'* — or that the writers have 
 employed * hyperbolical' expressions, ' not literally true' — 
 that something must be understood * to qualify seeming ex- 
 4 travagances of expression' 3 — that ' the passages are ob- 
 
 * scure, and can afford us no assistance' * — and that, not- 
 withstanding all this, * baptizo means an action, 5 and always 
 4 signifies to dip the whole body 6 — that it is a mistake; to 
 suppose ' words have more than one signification — and that 
 1 words and sentences are probably never to be understood 
 ' but in their literal sense 1' 7 
 
 v. When they find that the word baptize is used to ex- 
 press unequivocally the descent of the element upon the 
 object, though necessitated to give up the action, they en- 
 deavour to out-general us by having recourse to the quan- 
 tity, which, however applied, places the person in a state of 
 baptism. ' The king of Babylon,' for example, ' was as 
 4 wet as if he had been dipped in a reservoir of dew, though 
 
 * it distilled in gentle drops upon him.' s Other illustrations 
 of the kind have been mentioned before. And yet, as you 
 have seen, when it serves their turn, or they feel pressed by 
 the arguments of Pedobaptists, they assure us most posi- 
 tively * that in baptism it is the act of immersion, and not 
 ' the quantity, of water that is contended for.' 9 And that 
 ' the word baptize in this dispute, denotes an action required 
 ' by divine law, and that the simple question is, what is 
 4 that action ?' ,0 
 
 vi. Their reasonings on this subject are exceedingly cu- 
 rious; an instance or two will illustrate this declaration. 
 
 » Gale, p. 96. * Bootb, vol. i. p. 97. 3 Gale, p. 79, 88. 
 
 * lb. p. 104, 1 18, 147. 5 Booth, v. iii. p. 265. 6 Jenkin's C. R. p . 56. 
 
 " Gale, p. 90. e Cox, p. 41 ; Gale, 116-118. » Jenkin's Def. p. 108. 
 w Bootb, supra. 
 
216 
 
 1 If tlu- baptizer and the baptized, in the days of Christ and 
 ' his disci | lies, wont down both into the water, and the person 
 1 baptised was dipped, then is baptism not sprinkling but 
 1 dipping. But the baptizer and the baptized, in the i 
 
 * of Christ and his apostles, went down into the water, and 
 
 * the person baptized was dipped, ergo, baptism is not 
 1 sprinkling but dipping.' ' Here we have supposition, and 
 
 rtion, and conclusion — and all this substituted for de- 
 monstrative evidence — and that, too, in an argument in- 
 volving the main branch of our dispute. Of a similar charac- 
 ter is the favourite doctrine of our brethren, * that positive 
 ' laws imply their negatives.' * For illustration, in Ps. lxxv. 
 6, we read that * promotion cometh neither from the east, 
 1 nor from the west, nor from the south/ ergo, promotion 
 cometh from the north. When Christ says, * he that be- 
 1 lieveth not shall be damned :' on the principle of our op- 
 ponents, we must come to the unscriptural and horrible con- 
 clusion, that all who die in their infancy must be damned, 
 because they cannot believe ! They also tell us, that * what 
 
 * is not commanded by Christ, or practised by his apostles, 
 ' is virtually forbidden as will-worship.' s — They also cite 
 with approbation the saying of Tertullian — ' the scripture 
 4 forbids what it does not mention.' * But Christ did not 
 render requisite, nor did the apostles ever use, baptistries, 
 artificially constructed with pumps, pipes, and sewers ; nor 
 particular dresses with leads at the bottem for the baptized; 
 nor prayer, nor psalm-singing at the font ; nor deferring for 
 an hour the baptism of an applicant ; nor a dozen other 
 things mentioned before and practised in modern dipping ; 
 ergo, all this is virtually forbidden as will worship. 
 
 ' Keacb, p. 20. * Booth, v. ti. p. 53. 3 Dore's Pref. p. 19. 
 
 « Booth, v. ii. p. 16. 
 
217 
 
 It is very gravely asserted by the Rabbi of our opponents, 
 that there is ' no proper washing but by dipping' — hence 
 you can never wash your hands properly at a pump or 
 shoot, nor your face by raising water up to it ! — that * there 
 
 • can be no dipping without washing' — so that you wash 
 your pen whenever you dip it into the ink, and your shoe, 
 if per accident you step into the mire ! — that in the baptism 
 of the Hebrews in the Red Sea, through which they walked 
 as on dry land, ' there was a great resemblance of a person's 
 1 being plunged under water' — consequently, if you walk 
 between two neighbouring rivers, it is very like being 
 plunged into them ! — Lastly he remarks, that, ' in plunging 
 4 a person, there is an application of the water to him, as 
 ' well as an application of him to the water ; for as soon as 
 ' ever a person is plunged, the water will apply itself to 
 
 * him' f — therefore, as soon as any one applies a garment 
 to his person, there is an application of his person to the 
 garment : and if your enemy strike you on the head with 
 his club, you may, according to Dr. Gill's logic, be said 
 to apply your head to his bludgeon ! 
 
 vii. The scriptural nature of dipping is urged, as unques- 
 tionable, from its greater solemnity than sprinkling. This 
 is often reiterated in conversation, though seldom printed 
 in their controversial writings. They regard this rite as re- 
 quiring a sublime and devoutly- imposing aspect. We need 
 hardly say, that this species of reasoning is a departure from 
 their usual maxims, of a positive precept or an apostolical 
 example. Overlooking other considerations, we may ob- 
 serve that this notion proceeds on the principle that the 
 simplicity of a rite is one evidence against its divinity. What 
 would our opponents have said to many of the services 
 
 i Gill, p. 223, 22G, 221), 303. 
 
 T 
 
218 
 
 among the Jewish people, and which all admit to have been 
 of divine appointment? — Naaman, the Syrian, would h 
 chimed in nicely with some of our Baptist brethren. 
 
 wrathful because the prophet did not come out to him, 
 and enjoin his doing some great thing for his recovery — a 
 plain proof, by the way, that the General was not com- 
 manded to plunge himself under water seven times sua 
 sively ; for, had this been enjoined, it is more than possible 
 he would have been satisfied with the magnitude of the 
 means to be regarded. In following up the sentiment of 
 our brethren, we must come to the conclusion, that the 
 ceremonies of the English Episcopal and Roman Catliolic 
 churches have at least one good evidence in favour of their 
 solemn and splendid worship. The rites of Christianity, 
 according to the current opinion of otir brethren in all 
 other cases, derive proofs of their divinity from their sim- 
 plicity ; but here the case is reversed. However we en- 
 quire whether the baptism of a child or adult in our assem- 
 blies is not as seriously and solemnly performed as dipping 
 a young lady into a baptistry or river, amidst the gazings of 
 a hundred ungodly people, who attend for no other purpose 
 in general than to enjoy the curious spectacle ? 
 
 viii. With respect to the design of baptism, our oppo- 
 nents express themselves very vaguely. To say nothing of 
 baptism being, or not being, a term of Christian commu- 
 nion, respecting which, their denomination is split into two 
 parts ; nor of those other points of difference among the 
 advocates of immersion, which are quite as numerou 
 those which divide Pedobaptist denominations — their 
 tern is evidently founded on the principle that baptism is 
 designed chiefly, if not exclusively, to represent the burial 
 iirist. Dr. Gill, says, * that baptism is not a sign or 
 
219 
 
 1 significative of the sprinkling of clean water, or the grace 
 1 of the spirit in regeneration, or of the blood of Christ on 
 ' the conscience of a sinner, all which ought to precede bap- 
 1 tism — but of the death, and burial, and resurrection of 
 4 Christ." — Hence the stress laid on Rom. vi. 3-6, and 
 Col. ii. 10-13, which we have already considered : and 
 yet they assure us that it is also designed to represent puri- 
 lication or washing. — D^Anvers calls it * a minister's 
 1 washing a person — a sign to the believer of the covenant 
 * on God's part of washing away his sins by the blood of 
 Christ.'" — Burt, says, baptism 'leads to the nature of 
 ' sanctification, and offers an emblem of sanctification.' 3 — 
 S. Stennett, calls it ' the type or emblem of the internal 
 1 washing of regeneration.' 4 — Maclean, * the washing away 
 ' of sin, and the filth and pollution of sin.' 5 — Booth, calls 
 it ' purification.' 6 — And Ryland, 'washing a person in 
 1 much water, washing a person all over, and abundant pu- 
 ' rification.' 7 — Gibbs, • they desire to be washed in the 
 ' laver of baptism.' 8 
 
 From these representations one would be led to conclude 
 that to bury and to wash are synonymous terms — or, at 
 least, in reference to this sacrament, properly interchangeable. 
 But that they are not, we have no less authority than Dr. 
 Cox, who says, ' It would be putting Mr. Ewing upon a 
 1 most perplexing search to require him to produce any 
 ' passage in Hebrew or Greek antiquity where washing 
 ' means burying.' 9 Consequently these words cannot be 
 fairly used to express the same act ; and that if baptism is 
 to represent a burial, it cannot represent washing. Indeed, 
 
 I l\ MB. * P. 11, 20. ■ Letters, p. 24-LV>. 4 Part I. p. 88. 
 
 I Works, v. i. p. 132, 184. 6 Vol. i. p. 179. 7 P. 2/, 34. 
 
 P. 345. 'J P. <;>. 
 
Mr. Kobinson says, ' that DOthi ;>liistry would make 
 
 'washing and baptism synonymous. ' ' 
 
 i\. Although our opponent- can derange the order of 
 scripture language, when they have an end to answer by it, 
 sou have seen before; 9 yet it is plain that thoy build 
 their system of baptizing only adults, or genuine belie 
 in Christ, on the mere arrangement of words, as * teach and 
 'baptize,' (Matt, xxviii. 19), or ' he that believeth and 
 'is baptized shall be saved,' (Mark xvi. 16), or ' the) 
 ' thatgladly received the word were baptized'(AcTS ii. 41 .)' 
 We say nothing of the confession of the Eunuch (Acts 
 viii. 37), which is evidently a human interpolation,* and of 
 course not pleadible by our brethren. But to show you that 
 they can fairly lay no stress on this arrangement of terms, 
 we will make a few references to scripture. 
 
 Mark i. 4. John is said (1) to have baptized and (2) to have preached the 
 baptism of repentance, 
 i. 1.'). We are (1) to repent and (2) to believe the gospel, 
 xiv. 22. The disciples (1) eat and (2) Christ gives them bread. 
 John i. 12. They (1) received Christ and (2) had power to become the 
 sons of God. 
 i. :>2. The angels, whose abode is in heaven, (1) ascended n 
 
 descended on the Sou of M;ui. 
 iii. :>. We mast (1 ) be born ot water and (2) of the Holy Spirit. 
 Acts il. 38. The morderers of Christ were (1) to repent and be l.i 
 
 and (2) to be forgiven and to receive the Holy Ghost. 
 Rom. ix. 10. Confession (1) is made with the mouth and (2) belief is exer- 
 cised with the heart. 
 2 Tim. i. 'J. We are (1) saved and (2) called. 
 
 Heb. xii. 22 -24. We come (1) to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an 
 innumerable company of angels, the general assembly 
 of the saints, to Cod the Judge of all, to the spirits of 
 just men made perfect, and (2) we come to Jesn 
 
 ii.itor of the new covenant, and to the Mood of 
 sprinkling. 
 
 ' P. 36. a P. 181. 3 Keach»s Prcf. p. 11 ; Booth, vol. ii. 
 
 « See Griesbach, Boothroyd, and A. Clarke, in Loc. 
 
22! 
 
 In all these passages, and in multitudes besides, the na- 
 tural order of time, place, or action, is either inverted, or 
 at variance with the hypothesis of our opponents. What 
 stress, then, can they honestly and consistently lay on the 
 arrangement of words in the institution before us—much 
 less erect a prime and distinguishing doctrine of their deno- 
 mination upon it ? — After this refutation of the Baptists' 
 argument, the following syllogism of Mr. Maclean may 
 amuse you : — ' The supreme Lawgiver has expressly en- 
 
 * joined — first, to make disciples — then immediately to 6a/>- 
 ' tize the disciples — lastly, to teach the baptized disciples to 
 ' observe, keep, or obey his laws or institutions. It must 
 
 * be admitted that church-fellowship and the Lord's supper 
 1 fall under the last head ; and if so, then, according to the 
 ' order of the commission, men can no more be admitted 
 ' to church-fellowship or the Lord's supper before baptism, 
 
 * than they can be admitted to baptism before they are 
 ' made disciples.' — But from the words of Christ (Matt. 
 xxviii. 20), we learn, that * all things whatsoever he had 
 ' commanded' his disciples were to be taught the people, 
 subsequent to their being discipled and baptized : and it 
 must be equally admitted that holiness of life and zeal for 
 God fall under the last head ; and if so, then, according to 
 the order of the commission, holiness and zeal can no more 
 precede baptism, than church- fellowship or the Lord's sup- 
 per. What a powerful argument against infant sprinkling ! 
 
 x. It is a fundamental principle with our opponents in 
 this discussion, though applied to no other, that • analogy 
 ' and presumptive reasoning may be used in matters that 
 ' are not positive, but that as far as a duty is positive, we 
 4 must keep close to the letter of the law — analogy having 
 
 t 5 
 
2fl 
 
 * nothing to do with it.' ' — Not to dilate on the ground 
 and absurd distinction of reasoning as to the h 
 moral duties, and not as to the sense of those which arc po- 
 >nsider tho present quotation: — We are to 
 all positive laws and declarations in their literal and 
 grammatical sense without analogy or presumptive reason- 
 ing about them. Consequently our brethren, if evangel 
 must * provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in their 
 k purses, nor script for their journey, neither two coats, 
 1 neither shoes, nor yet staves (Matt. x. 9, 10), nor lay 
 4 up treasure upon earth, nor care for the things of to-mor- 
 ' row (Matt. vi. 20, 34), nor invite their friends to a feast; 
 'but only the poor (Luke xiv. 12), and, on no account, 
 4 receive the appellation of Master (Matt, xxiii. 10.) Also 
 when Christ says of the bread and wine used at the sacra- 
 ment, 4 This is my body, this is my blood (Matt. xxvi. 
 ' 26, 28) ; and except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, 
 1 ye have no life in you' (John vi. 53), they must con 
 the palm to the Papists, and admit the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation. When he says, ' preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture,' we must understand it literally, and proclaim salvation 
 to all the brutal tribes ; — when he says, ' he that believeth 
 ' and is baptized shall be saved,' we must conclude that 
 Simon Magus is undoubtedly saved ; for he believed and 
 was baptized (Acts viii. 13) ; — when he adds, ' these signs 
 ill follow them that believe : in my name shall they cast 
 1 out devils 4 they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall 
 ' take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall 
 * not hurt them ; they shall lay their hands on the sick, and 
 ' they shall recover ;' we must infer that every believer shall 
 do this, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Mark 
 
 l Jeokio's Def. p. 22. See Booth, v. i. p. 82-89. 
 
223 
 
 xvi. 15-18) : and yet unless this absurd method of argu- 
 mentation be rigidly maintained by our brethren, ' it is im- 
 4 possible for the Baptists to stand their ground by fair ar- 
 4 gument in various cases when disputing with Pedobaptists 
 ' as such.' l 
 
 xi. Our opponents contend, as previously shewn," that 
 baptism is not only a positive law, but as specifically de- 
 fined and settled as any of the Mosaic institutions. To the 
 previous citations may be added Mr. Gibb's assertion : 
 ' every thing is expressed with clearness, and nothing is 
 ' left to the judgment or pleasure of the administrator.' 3 
 In answer to this position we beg to ask them a few questions. 
 
 1. Are the peisons and characters of those who are to 
 administer this rite as definitively prescribed as those of 
 the priesthood under the legal dispensation ? — Are the sub- 
 jects of baptism as clearly and minutely described in the 
 New Testament as the subjects of various ceremonies un- 
 der the law I — Is the mode of baptism as expressly and 
 particularly specified as the manner of consecrating the 
 priests and Levites, cleansing a leper, purifying the cere- 
 monially polluted, circumcising children, and worshipping 
 God in the tabernacle or temple ? 
 
 L 2. Was every part of the Hebrew ritual so plain and 
 positive that nothing but wilful mistakes could occur, or that 
 the smallest deviation from the established order vitiated 
 the ceremony / If so, will our brethren take upon them- 
 >rlves to assert, that the case is precisely the same with re- 
 spect to baptism { If not, the allusion by no means serves 
 the cause of those who make it. 
 
 3. Can our opponents point out an instance where, through 
 mistake, a wrong person officiated under the Levitical econo- 
 
 i Hooth, mpra. 2 p. 187- 3 P. 7. 
 
224 
 
 . I >r an improper subject im . or an invalid mode 
 
 of operation adopted ? If not, can they not find improper 
 ministers officiating in this sacrament in Judas and De; 
 and, omitting the mode as the point to be investigated, 
 can they find no instances where, according to their ideas 
 oper subjects, unsuitable characters were baptized even 
 ie harbinger of Christ and his apostles ? Was Simon 
 Magus a fit subject ? Was Judas Iscariot I Were those dis- 
 ciples who went back and walked no more with Chi 
 Were all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, and the re- 
 gion round about Jordan, baptized by John or the ta 
 disciples, not one of a thousand of whom was truly con- 
 fert od to God, (as their conduct towards Christ while be- 
 fore Pilate, and towards the apostles of our Lord afterward, 
 and as the judgments denounced and brought upon them 
 for their iniquity, place beyond the possibility of debate ;) 
 :~k, were these, in the esteem of our brethren, proper 
 subjects of baptism ; that is, * in a state of salvation 'orr 
 1 nerated and brought into the covenant of grace V* If not, 
 were they known to be unconverted when baptized, or 
 | baptized by mistake I Let our brethren choose 
 w hich side they please. In either case they must sacrifice 
 their position or yield their cause respecting the subject. 
 Dr. Gill, though flatly contradicted by Mr. Gibbs, tells 
 us, * that admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the 
 4 administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for 
 1 it, and has the sole power of receiving to it and of rejecting 
 4 from it.' ' But is it not notorious that among the min> 
 of the Baptist denomination there are immense grades of 
 knowledge, acumen, and piety I Is each, then, to judge of 
 character according to his own quantum of biblical infor- 
 ! J.SteMett,p.*J, s Gibb*. p. 32. * Bodj of Dit. t. lii. b. 8. 
 
mation and discernment of men I If so, will they not de- 
 termine differently — one admitting to baptism those another 
 would reject ? In fact, if what they call believers' baptism 
 be held as exclusively scriptural — difficulties numerous and 
 immense must ever encompass the sacrament in question. 
 
 xn. Our opponents retort, and say that unless we un- 
 derstand the positive divine law of baptism in its primary, 
 grammatical, and literal sense, it is impossible for Protes- 
 tants to debate succesfully with Papists, or Dissenters with 
 Churchmen. 1 In reply, we say that this is a palpable mis- 
 take : for, as you have heard before, transubstantiation, one 
 of the chief and most objectionable dogmas of popery, is 
 advocated exclusively by the mode of interpretation here 
 adopted in support of believers' baptism — understanding 
 the sacred text in its literal and grammatical sense. Extreme 
 unction also stands in the same situation ; and all Protestants 
 are induced to combat these absurd sentiments by reasoning, 
 analogy, and inference. Nor is it requisite that Dissenters 
 should have recourse to the contracted measures adopted 
 by our brethren to maintain the great principles of noncon- 
 formity. If an open, candid, and consistent, interpretation 
 of the holy oracles, will not support their secession, they 
 can have but little fair and tenable ground on which to 
 erect die great and glorious cause of dissent. Between 
 * keeping close to the letter of the law/ and a vague iatitu- 
 dinarian application of biblical expressions, there is a wide 
 intervening space, which the honest and intelligent ex- 
 pounder of the sacred scriptures will not fail to occupy : — 
 on this, we feel no hesitation in saying, the ingenuous Pe- 
 dobaptist takes his stand ; and on this arena he feels a plea- 
 sure in joining issue with his Baptist opponents. — We will 
 
 » Booth, r. ii. p. 47^472; Kyland's Append, p. 22. 
 
320 
 
 conclude this section on the difficulties and contradictions of 
 the Baptists in the language of one of their recent apolo- 
 -cribing to the holy scriptures a rite which is 
 'evidently of human invention, which involves so much 
 1 perplexity and contradiction in the mode of defending it, 
 4 and which, by being carried into general practice, is pro- 
 1 ductive of results so palpably repugnant to every idea 
 1 which reason itself dictates as consistent with a divine 
 ' constitution of things among men ; they virtually impute 
 ' to the Christian revelation an imperfection of character 
 1 which has furnished the infidels of our age with some of 
 ' their most powerful objections against its claims to a di- 
 1 vine origin.' ' 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 From what has been previously advanced respecting the 
 import of the word baptize, it might be thought needle* 
 enter further into the discussion. It should, however, be 
 observed, that the foregoing considerations were designed 
 to prove merely that its applications were various and op- 
 ]>osite. Our present intention is to convince you that it is 
 frequently used in a sense perfectly consistent with our mode 
 of administering this sacrament — by applying the element 
 to the object in the shape of pouring, sprinkling, staining, 
 and the like. Though in this particular we shall Imj led to 
 travel over a considerable portion of our former dissertation 
 on the veil) baptize, the importance of the present discussion 
 
 -, p. 242, 243. 
 
227 
 
 is an ample apology. To have before our eyes a number 
 of passages from various authors, supporting our positions, 
 must be deemed of no trivial influence in our calculations. 
 It, however, is proper to remind you, that the scriptural 
 mode of baptism cannot be determined simply by the use 
 of this word. After what has been said, it must strike the 
 dullest apprehension, that a term of such vague and general 
 import, can never of itself settle a question which has been 
 so long and so ably litigated by contending parties. The 
 circumstances of the New Testament baptisms must be 
 carefully examined; and conclusions drawn from them 
 fairly and ingenuously. By this means, one may arrive at 
 the truth ; and, in the exercise of an unprejudiced spirit, 
 settle the dispute. To prove that the use of the word bap- 
 tize perfectly harmonizes with our scheme is the design of 
 the ensuing remarks, we shall refer you, first, to Greek 
 writers in general — secondly, to the Septuagint and Apo- 
 crypha — and, thirdly, to certain texts in the New Testa- 
 ment : being as concise as the subject will admit. 
 
 I. THE GREEK WRITERS IN GENERAL. 
 
 i. Aristophanes. — ' Magnes, an old comic of Athens, 
 ' used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and baptized it 
 ' with tawny colours.' l He applied the colours to his face. 
 1 — Dress not with costly clothes which are baptized with 
 ' the richest colours.' 2 Several colours must be applied to 
 the cloth. — ' Lest I baptize you with a Sardinian dye.' 8 — 
 ' Lest I beat you till I make you red with blood.' 4 'Here 
 the colouring element is applied to the body. 
 
 ii. Aristotle. — ' The Phenicians, who inhabit Cadiz, 
 * relate that, sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four days 
 
 ■ Gale, p. 86. « lb. p. 84. . p. 40. « Ibid. 
 
m 
 
 1 with the wind at Mflt, they came to a land uninhal;. 
 ' whose BQMl H ■ lull of sea- id it is not bapt. 
 
 1 at ebb — but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered 
 ! and overwhelmed." Here, a- Dr. Gali . the word 
 
 to signify the land was under water, by the water 
 
 * coming upon it, and not by its being put into the water/ — 
 k It it is pressed, it baptizes the hand which sustains and 
 
 * prt Ilea 1 the hand is tinged by an application of 
 the colouring matter to it. 
 
 in. Dim, Cassias. — 'Those from above baptizing the 
 1 ships with stones and engines.'* Here the baptizing ma- 
 terials came from above down upon the ves« 
 
 iv. llouitr. — k He, the frog, breathless fell, and the lake 
 ' was baptized with blood.' 3 The blood was applied to the 
 water, and not the w r atcr dipped into the blood. 
 
 v. Josephus. — ' When a person was defiled by a 
 1 dead body, they put a little of these ashes into spring 
 4 water with hyssop, and baptizing part of the ashes with it 
 
 * they sprinkle them — and they are clean.' 6 That the water 
 was poured on the ashes is plain, from Numb. xix. 17: 
 1 They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer, and run- 
 ' ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel.' 
 
 vi. Libanus. — 4 He who bears with difficulty the bur- 
 1 den he already has, would be entirely baptized by a small 
 
 * addition.' 7 Here a person is baptized, not by dipping 
 him into evil, but by the burden on his back. 
 
 vii. Origen. — ' How came you to think that Elias, when 
 ■ he should come, would baptize ; who did not in Ah 
 
 * time baptize the wood upou the altar, which was to be 
 
 * washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's appearing in 
 
 • Gale, p. 96. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 86. « Ryland's App. p. 12, 
 
 \, p. 46. 6 Ryland'* App. p. 9. " Cox, p. 46. 
 
229 
 
 1 lire. But he orders the priest to do that, not only once, 
 1 but says, do it a second time, and they did it a second time, 
 ' and do it the third time, and they did it the third time. 
 ' He, therefore, that did not himself baptize then, but as- 
 ' signed that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, 
 1 when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come V 
 Thai, the word is here used four times for pouring, may be 
 BND by referring to 1 Kings xviii. 32-35: ' Fill four bar- 
 1 rels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on 
 1 the wood.' — This Dr. Ryland admits ; l but tries to 
 evade the action, by enlarging on the quantity ; and here, 
 by the bye, Origen designates John's baptism pouring — and 
 nothing else. 
 
 vin. Plutarch. — ' As plants thrive and flourish when 
 ' they are moderately watered, but wither and pine away 
 4 if you drench them too much ; so the mind, if moderately 
 ' exercised with labours proportionable to its abilities, grows 
 1 more vigorous ; but too much toil baptizes it.' 2 Here 
 young persons are baptized by too much toil — as plants 
 are often drenched by pouring too much water upon them. 
 The act is indisputable — the quantity is foreign to our 
 investigation. 
 
 ix. JElian.— 1 Having baptized with precious ointment 
 ' a garland woven of roses.' 3 The garland was surely not 
 dipped into a box of ointment, but the ointment was poured 
 or sprinkled on the garland. 
 
 x. Athenaus. — 'I have been baptized with wine.' 4 Not 
 bathing in it, but intoxicated — the wine was applied to him, 
 for he drank it. 
 
 xi. Bentleifs Epigrams. — ' You baptize your head, but 
 
 I Ryland's App. p. 15. ■ Gale, p. 102. 3 Ewing, p. 248. 
 
 « Ibid, p. 44. 
 
230 
 
 * you shall never btptisc ium your I 
 with gay attire, but cannot i 
 
 baptizing material is applied to the head. — ' Who first I 
 ! tized the muse with viperish gall V ' Who lirst tinged or 
 imbued the mind by applying the element to it? — ' B 
 
 * people, O Nycilla, sny that you baptize your hair, which 
 4 you bought completely black out of the market 
 
 you dye your hair while on your head, which 
 done by staining it black — not by dipping it into the colour- 
 ing ingredient-. 
 
 xii. Iamblichus. — * Baptize not in the periranterion.' 4 
 This was a small vessel like those kept at the doors of Roman 
 Catholic chapels 6 — the act here is evidently sprinkling. 
 
 xiii. Julius Pollux. — * The girl observing the mouth of 
 
 * the dog (which had eaten the murex) stained with an Oft- 
 4 usual baptism.' 6 The murex is a small shell-fish. The 
 mouth of the dog was baptized by an application of the 
 colour to it. 
 
 xiv. Justin. — ' Sprinkling with holy water was in 
 ' by demons in imitation of the true baptism, 
 'by the prophets (Is. lii. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 86), that 
 ' their votaries might have their pretended purification 
 ! water.' 7 Here sprinkling and baptism are used synony- 
 mously. 8 
 
 xv. Potter's Antiq. — * The priests of Cotys were called 
 ' Baptists from staining their bodies with certain colon i 
 Here, also, the colouring element is applied to the body. 
 
 xvi. Suidas. — ' Being carried before a tribunal, hi 
 1 scourged by the executioners, and, flowing with blood, 
 
 I Earing, p. 258. » Ibid. ' Ibid. * lb. 248. 
 
 Potter'* Ant. vol. i. p. 224. Ed. 
 1 Taylor's Lett. p. A » Booth, v. Hi. p. 260. * V. I. p. 46)). 
 
•2:31 
 
 * baptized the hollow of his hand.' ' That is, some of the 
 flowing blood fell into the hollow of his hand, and thus 
 baptized it. 
 
 These passages are sufficient as specimens of a great many 
 more. In all of them the word baptize is used for pouring, 
 sprinkling, or otherwise applying the element to the sub- 
 ject. Consequently we do no violence to the current sense 
 of the verb, when we designate an application of water in 
 this sacrament ' A Baptism ;' and this is all we are now 
 aiming to establish. 
 
 II. THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. 
 
 Here we beg to premise, that as every text in which 
 the word under consideration occurs in these books has 
 been briefly noticed already, and as several of them will 
 claim our attention hereafter, we shall cite no more than will 
 establish our position ; — that the term baptizing may be 
 properly used for pouring, sprinkling, or applying, in con- 
 tradistinction from dipping or submersing. The cases we shall 
 select will show its various actions — in giving a colour, pu- 
 rifying, overwhelming, and wetting. Having also shown 
 that the prepositions connected with the verb may be fairly 
 construed according to the supposed action intended, we 
 shall, as before, render them in consonance with the appa- 
 rent design of the original writers. For this, also, we have 
 rhe sanction of our opponents' practice. 
 
 i. Judges v. 30.—' To Sisera a prey of baptized [attire], 
 4 a prey of baptized [attire] of need!e-work on both sides.' 
 Here the garment is baptized by the needle, the colours 
 being applied to the cloth. Josephus uses the word in a 
 similar sense : * A girdle embroidered with the same bap- 
 
 1 Ewing, p. 
 
m 
 
 'tisms and flowers as the former, with ■ mixture of gild 
 'interwoven." The former he describ 
 ' with flowers of scarlet and purple and line-twined linen.' * 
 (See Exod. xxxix. 5.) The method was unquestionably 
 by applying the colours to the cloth, as in modern tapistry.' 
 Should it be supposed that an allusion is here made to dye- 
 ing, it could be only to such a process as lays the colouring 
 ingredients on the cloth by carved prints or brushes, and 
 which practice is still common in our own country, and 
 absolutely necessary in producing variegated apparel. This 
 in fact was the primitive mode of dyeing ; and clearly de- 
 velopes the actions of the verbs baptizo and lingo when em- 
 ployed in reference to this operation. President Goguet, 
 in his ' Origin of Laws, Arts, and Sciences, &c.' tells us, 
 that the origin of dyeing consisted in pressing the juices of 
 various herbs and fruits on the cloth, or by staining it with 
 certain earths of different colours. 
 
 ii. 2 Kings v. 10, 14. — ' And Elisha sent I tMM 
 
 * Naaman, saying, Go and wash at Jordan seven times. 
 
 * Then went he down and baptized himself seven times at 
 
 * Jordan.' Here remark the Syrian General was commanded 
 only to wash, which may be done in various modes, 4 and 
 that not all over, but only the place affected (v. 1 1.) That 
 nothing great was enjoined, we learn from his sen 
 
 (v. 13) ; consequently seven plungings in Jordan were not 
 enforced; and that the Jewish mode of cleansing a leper 
 was commanded, we may gather from the piety of the pro- 
 phet, and the number of applications of water to the un- 
 clean. The divine precept runs thus: 'And he shall 
 ' sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy 
 
 i Ant. lib. iii. ch. 7. s. 4. * lb. «. 2. 3 See Shaw's Travelf, p. 228. 
 
 « Maclean, vol. iii. p. 113. 
 
233 
 
 . n times, and shall pronounce him clean' (Lev. xiv.17.) 
 That this haughty and indignant soldier did no more than 
 was inculcated by the man of God, we may conclude from 
 the state of his mind and his unwillingness then to do any 
 thing. That he stripped and dived seven times from the 
 bank of the river, when only told to wash, bathe, or wet the 
 place diseased, may be easily conceived. We have here 
 then clear circumstantial evidence for the use of the word 
 baptize in the sense of applying the water to the person in 
 the shape of an aspersion. 
 
 nr. Isaiah xxi. 4. — ' My heart panted : fearfulness bap- 
 ' tized me.' This language is predictive of the calamities 
 which befel the impious king of Babylon ; and the accom- 
 plishment of it is recorded by the sacred historian : i In the 
 1 same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote 
 ' over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the king's 
 ' palace : and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 
 fc Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts 
 ' troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, 
 4 and his knees smote one against another. In that night was 
 * the king of the Chaldeans slain,' (Dan. v. 5,6, 30.) 
 Although the verb here expresses principally the effects 
 produced on this wicked monarch, yet, as far as the cause 
 is seen and the action discoverable, our position is firmly 
 supported* He was overwhelmed by the ominous pheno- 
 menon on the wall, and died by the strokes of the sword 
 — probably bathed in his own royal blood. 1 The vision 
 appeared to him, and the murderous weapons of war were 
 applied to him by the soldiers of Cyrus. In neither instance 
 was there any action analogous to dipping him in a reser- 
 voir of water— all his calamities came upon him. 
 i Rollings Anc. Hist. b. iv. Oil. 1, s. I. 
 
 u 5 
 
iv. Dan. iv. 33. — * And his body was baptized with 
 1 the dew of heaven.* (See al<o chap. v. 21.) That the 
 ex- monarch of Babylon was baptized by the dew falling 
 upon him, throughout the night in the open field, no one 
 presumes to question. The quibbles of our opponent- 
 specting the probable quantity, 1 by no means affects tin- 
 case, unless they are prepared to give up the action or mode 
 of dipping, and at once concede that a copious showi-r- 
 bath will answer every end of modern immersion. Tin 
 dispute, as far as the word is concerned, embraces only tlu 
 action. Hence they assure us, that, ' in baptism, it is tlu 
 1 act of immersion, and not the quantity of water, that is 
 
 * contended for;" and that * the word baptize, in this 
 
 * dispute, denotes an action required by divine law ; and 
 
 * the simple question is, what is that action V 3 Why, here 
 most unquestionably, applying the element to the object in 
 the form of sprinkling ! 
 
 v. Judith xii. 7. — ■ She went out in the night into the 
 1 valley of Bethulia, and was baptized at a fountain of water 
 
 * in the camp.' The expression here, ■ epi tes pegesj ren- 
 dered ■ at a fountain,' is the same as that in John iv. 6, 
 
 * epi te pege? being wearied with his journey, sat thus ■ on 
 
 * the welV — not in it. It appears that there was only one 
 fountain in this valley — that an army of more than 200,000 
 men lay encamped about it — that such an important source 
 of existence would be guarded with the utmost vigilance 
 (chap. vii. 2, 3, 27 ; viii. 9) — that Judith was a woman 
 of great rank and beauty — and that her sole object was a 
 ceremonial purification. So far our object is plain. Let 
 our opponents then imagine, that this lady, either naked or 
 attired, should plunge herself over head and ears into this 
 
 I GiM>«, p. GC 2 Jenkiu's Def. p. 1CB. 3 Booth, v. iii. p. 285. 
 
2^5 
 
 fountain of water, or that her waiting women (ch. viii. 32) 
 should do it by her. No such kind of purification was 
 known under the law, nor any where required by the di- 
 vine Legislator. If she had pure water sprinkled on her by 
 a clean companion, she would have fulfilled all the scrip- 
 tures required — and this was undoubtedly done. 
 
 vi. Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. — ' He that baptizeth himself 
 1 because of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what 
 4 availeth his washing V To understand the precise action 
 involved in the word in this place, reference must be made 
 to Numb. xix. 19, where the method of such a purification 
 is specifically defined : ' And the clean person shall sprinkle 
 
 * upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh 
 1 day; and on the seventh day he [the clean person] shall 
 ' purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in 
 
 * water, and shall be clean at even.' It further appears from 
 v. 20, that if the water of separation were sprinkled upon a 
 person, he was perfectly clean — nothing more was to be 
 done to him nor by him ; and from v. 21, that it was to be 
 a perpetual statute, that he who sprinkled or touched the 
 water of separation was unclean, and must wash both his 
 clothes and himself. From this we gather that the person 
 defiled was cleansed entirely by sprinkling, and that the 
 purifier, becoming unclean by performing this rite, was to 
 wash himself and his clothes for purification — this being the 
 only resource left him. Josephus speaks of purifying the 
 house and its inhabitants after a funeral, as if both were 
 performed in the same way ; ' but as the house was not 
 dipped, we have no reason to conclude that the people 
 were; and as that was sprinkled, we infer they underwent 
 only a similar lustration. Our opponents, indeed, admit, 
 
 » Contra Apion, b. ii. s. tf. 
 
sprinkling formed part of the baptism; 1 but a 
 inspection of the case shows that this, in fact, wa 
 whole of it. 
 
 111. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I lore | very few references will prove that the word bap- 
 tize is sometimes employed to express such modes or ac- 
 tions as are consonant with our method of baptizing, by 
 sprinkling or pouring, or applying the element to the object. 
 This is all we have at present in view. We shall l)egin with 
 the j lected as the basis of these discoun 
 
 i. M vtt. iii. 1 1. — * I, indeed, baptize you with water — 
 1 he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with lire.' 
 To understand the import of this word, in the former d 
 of the sentenee, w r e must enquire into its application in the 
 latter. This is easily done — for the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, as witnessed on the day of Pentecost, at Caesarea, 
 as expressed invariably in the Old and New Testament, and 
 as conceded in numerous places by our opponents, war- 
 always, by descending upon, or by an application unto, the 
 person baptized. Now, unless John baptized his con 
 and followers by pouring, sprinkling, or applying water, 
 he has employed the verb in a most unaccountable manner, 
 giving it two directly opposite senses in the same verse — 
 pouring upon the person and plunging him into the water. 
 But as this cannot be imagined, we have not only the most 
 conclusive proof of its meaning to pour, sprinkle, or apply 
 the element to the object, in one part of the verse — but if 
 John were not the most inconsistent speaker in the world, 
 of pouring, sprinkling, or applying the element to the object 
 in both. And thus our antagonists would reason in other 
 
 I Gale, p. HUj Recs, p. l'JO. 
 
237 
 
 similar cases, and that necessarily. For example, the word 
 aion is twice used in Matt. xxv. 46, to express the dura- 
 tion of future happiness and misery. Here the eternity of 
 punishment is always argued from the fact, that the word in 
 both cases must mean alike — eternal felicity being univer- 
 sally assumed. 
 
 ii. Mark vii. 4, 8. — ' And when they come from the 
 
 * market, except they baptize, they eat not. And many other 
 ' things there be which they have received to hold, as the 
 
 * baptizing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables,' or 
 couches. Now, had the natural purification of cups and 
 pots been only intended, we could easily perceive how it 
 might have been done by dipping them. But that brazen 
 vessels used for cooking food over a fire, some of them very 
 cumbersome and weighty, like modern copper kettles and 
 boilers, should be submersed for cleansing, is what we can- 
 not so easily fancy — especially if we consider the scarcity 
 of water in Jerusalem. Much less can it be supposed that 
 their tables, calculated to accommodate large parties, were 
 washed by dipping them into water. And, if the word dine, 
 as D'Anvers affirms, ' never signifies a table, but a bed,' l 
 on which several persons reclined together at meals, after the 
 eastern fashion — the case becomes still more improbable, 
 even amounting to a practicable impossibility. It should, 
 however, be remembered, that the word baptize is here 
 employed for a ceremonial purification only, which, as you 
 have seen before, required only an aspersion or affusion. 
 We have, then, another instance in our favour. That the 
 Pharisees and all the Jews, whenever they came from the 
 market, and before they ate, should plunge themselves over 
 head and ears in water, is what few will believe. Though 
 
 i P. SOft. 
 
288 
 
 ftlbtd themselvus from head to fret, like 
 
 the superstitious Kemmouts, 1 by applying the water to the 
 
 body, the action, which is the only point in debate, would 
 \clusively in our favour. Our opponents indeed, find 
 that puzzling. Hence, Dr. Gale would ren- 
 der it, ' what they buy in the market, unless it be washed 
 1 they eat not.'* But this does not solve the difficulty — 
 for though vegetables might bear a dipping under w. 
 we presume this mode was not adopted with flour, honey, 
 milk, oil, &c. which were all marketable articles. Even the 
 Dr. himself admits, that ' to talk of dipping a thing that is 
 4 not capable of being dipped, is nonsense.' ' 
 
 in. 1 Cor. x. 2. — * And were all baptized unto 
 1 in the cloud and in the sea.' This, our opponents tell us, 
 was ' a type of gospel baptism ;' 4 or that Christian baptism 
 is like that administered in the Red Sea. How that 
 done we can have little difficulty in determining. There is 
 the most positive evidence that the children of Israel a 
 neither dipped nor plunged, wholly nor partially , into Moses 
 or the water. They went through the midst of the sea on 
 dry land. ( )ur opponents presume to assert that ' the 
 ' Israelites \\ ere surrounded by the water, covered above by 
 
 * the cloud, and yet on dry land.' 5 This is very unlike the 
 baptism of our brethren, being deficient in the main point 
 of dispute, namely, the action of dipping ; for, as Maclean 
 observes, ' here was no action performed by one man upon 
 
 * another, as our Lord enjoins — nor was there a close con- 
 ' tact of the water with their bodies." 1 If the Hebrews ^\ en- 
 baptized by water at all, it was by an aspersion, as we learn 
 
 Met. Frog. N"- 188. See GUI, 
 
 . p. 91. * Kmch's Met. p. 184. » Jeukin's Dcf. p. :>4. 
 
 l.iii. p. 188 
 
239 
 
 from Ps. lxxvii. 16, 17 : ' The depths also were troubled, 
 ' the clouds poured forth water, the skies, also, sent out a 
 ' sound.' Mr. Wilson, in his Scripture Manual, says, ' the 
 4 term baptized, must refer to their situation in the midst 
 ' of the sea.' ' Hence if their's was not a dry baptism, it was 
 like Nebuchadnezzar's — by a copious sprinkling — the ac- 
 tion being exclusively on our side. One is rather amused 
 at Dr. Gill's remark, where he says, ' there was a very great 
 ' resemblance [in this instance] of a person's being bap- 
 
 * tized or plunged under water.' 2 
 
 iv. Rev. xix. 13. — ' And he was clothed in a vesture 
 ' baptized with blood, and his name is called the Word of 
 1 God.' This passage may be illustrated by another referring 
 to the same glorious person in similar circumstances : ' A.nd 
 ' their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments and I 
 ' will stain all my raiment,' (Is. lxiii. 3.) The Son of God 
 is represented as clothed in a garment not dyed in a vat of 
 human gore — but as splashed with the blood of his expiring 
 enemies. To suppose this passage refers to the scarlet robes 
 worn by Roman generals, 3 destroys the energy of the en- 
 raptured speaker. Besides, were the Jews thus arrayed ? 
 Or was the Roman toga coloured with blood ? Or for what 
 purpose could the robe be said to be stained with blood if 
 it were not that of his enemies? Was it the blood of his 
 friends ? Dr. Gale says, ' St. John represents the person in 
 4 this vision to have been clothed with a vesture which was 
 ' dipped, or as it were dipped, in the blood of his enemies. 
 
 * Origen cites these words from v. 1 1 to v. 16, inclusively, 
 
 * almost verbatim, as they are in our editions, but reads er- 
 ' rhantismenon, sprinkled, instead of bebammenon, dipped.' l 
 This is important, for it shews that this learned father con- 
 
 l P. 20. ■ F. - 3 Cox, p. M. 4 P. 149. 
 
— ^ 
 
 240 
 
 ridded the words as synonymous and properly interrha: 
 able. Mr. Walker, in his ' Doctrine of Baptisms,' observes 
 that k Montanus and Be/.a render the word by tinctum or 
 " tinct<i, meaning to dye or stain, as doth, also, the Arabic 
 4 version. The Latin, Vulgate, iEthiopic, and Syriac, by 
 • aspersion or conspersion, to sprinkle or besprinkle with 
 ■ blood.' l Here, then, is another instance where the word 
 baptize is employed to express the action of sprinkling or 
 pouring, or the application of the element to the object, and 
 not of the object to the element. 
 
 IV. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 We have now adduced sufficient specimens of the use of 
 the word for pouring or sprinkling, or applying the element 
 to the object, to prove that no violence is done to the term 
 when we designate our mode of administering this sacra- 
 ment a baptism. For though, as we have repeatedly as- 
 sorted, the verb under review in general expresses an effect, 
 oricondition rather than an operation, what we have ad- 
 vanced must have convinced you, that this effect or condi- 
 tion is produced by sprinkling or pouring, as well as by 
 an immersion. This point we shall consider as irrefragably 
 established. There are, however, two or three objections 
 which we shall anticipate and repel. 
 
 i. Our opponents argue that the verbs bapto and rhan- 
 tizo are sometimes used in such connexions, and under 
 Mich circumstances in the Septuagint, as to prove that they 
 are of different, if not of opposite, applications. We do not 
 for a moment hesitate to concede this point to our antago- 
 , though we are far from supposing our position affected 
 by the concession. That bapto and rliantizo are frequently 
 i p. It, Mi 
 
241 
 
 used sipwnymourfi/, has been rendered unquestionable; 
 but the former term, being of a more diversified application 
 than the latter, includes other actions besides affusion and 
 aspersion, as we have repeatedly observed. Hence in some 
 connexions it means to dip, dye, drown, sink, &c. — in 
 others to paint, stain, pour, sprinkle, &c. The sense of it, 
 in the passages referred to, is simply to wet, so as to admit 
 of a subsequent aspersion ; and, like this vernacular verb, 
 includes a variety of actions : — as a person may be wetted 
 by going into a bath, or by being out in a shower. As we 
 wet an article by dipping or sprinkling it, so a thing may 
 be baptized either by plunging or affusion. To ground 
 the practice of submersion or aspersion on the mere sense 
 of the term, would be fallacious. Regard it as synonymous 
 with the verbs to wet, wash, colour, cleanse, or consecrate, 
 which may be effected by various modes of action, and 
 every difficulty vanishes — the application of it by the 
 Greek translators of the Pentateuch is justified, and the 
 objection of our opponents falls to the ground. 
 
 ii. Again they argue, * If your deductions are correct, 
 we are left in a state of utter uncertainty respecting the pre- 
 cise import of words altogether, and of what God would 
 have us to do in this institution.' ' — To which we reply, 
 1. That this is not always nor often the case with respect 
 to language — the import of specific terms being generally 
 manifest in all connexions ; but where words are generic, 
 expressive of action indefinitely, or which primarily denote 
 an effect or condition, the mode of operation being unim- 
 portant, is often obscure, and can be learned only from 
 analogy or inference, and sometimes not at all. — 2. That this 
 objection applies as much to our opponents as to ourselves. 
 
 i See Booth, v. i. p. 84, 85 ; Rob. p. 36; Gibbs, p. 58-G1. 
 
2 12 
 
 \\ i is i\c ibown, from their writing, in ;i manner we : 
 quite satisfactory, that the tarmi in question, both verbs and 
 prepositions, ire of diverse significations, or are need in 
 connexions where they necessarily exhibit different and op- 
 posite actions, and a great variety of effects — so that the 
 objection recoils with all its force upon the objectors. — 
 .'*. That if our opponents can base their immersion system on 
 nothing more wide or stable than a definite 4 use of general 
 terms, it can never stand the test of examination. That this 
 is the case with the scheme of our brethren, will be pal- 
 pable to those who have attended to the foregoing observa- 
 tions, and who have witnessed their aversion to any philolo- 
 gical investigation of the grounds of their practice. 
 
 in. They may object further, ' If your positions be 
 correct, your mode of baptism by sprinkling, pouring, or 
 applying the element to the object, cannot be established 
 as exclusively scriptural any more than dipping.' We an- 
 swer, without hesitation, that it can ; and that from evi- 
 dence infinitely preferable to a reliance on vague and inde- 
 finite verbs and mutable prepositions — we mean from cir- 
 cumstantial evidence, which is the best, not only in courts 
 of law, but even in the historical facts of the gospel. Nor 
 let it be supposed that this is a species of testimony of which 
 our brethren never avail themselves. They have no other 
 for observing the first day of the week instead of the 
 seventh — for admitting females to the Lord's table — for 
 the perpetuity of the sacraments — and indeed for most other 
 ordinances among them : and to see that they joyfully 
 avail themselves of it, when presenting the least semblance 
 of argument in their favour, you have only to refer to their 
 arated allusions to the baptism of John at Jordan and 
 Enon, and of Philip and the Eunuch in the desert < >f 
 
24:* 
 
 course they can never consistently object to a similar species 
 of evidence from us, when so common in their own com- 
 munion. We have proved that the terms of the institution 
 and the narratives of its first administration by no means 
 establish the mode of our opponents ; and that the cases 
 they have cited, as most in their favour, are as relevant to 
 our method as to their own. We have, in fact, completely 
 overthrown their exclusive scheme of baptism ; and dis- 
 posed of every material argument they have advanced in sup- 
 port of it. Having thus cleared the ground of every plausible 
 objection, we shall now, from circumstantial evidence of 
 the most conclusive character, prove to you, that sprinkling, 
 pouring, or applying water to the baptized, was the only 
 primitive mode, and such as alone is valid in our age and 
 country. We say sprinkling, pouring, or applying the 
 water to the baptized ; for, as previously observed , we are 
 not contending about minute and frivolous regulations on 
 which the scriptures are silent. If the general features of 
 the administration accord with the revealed will of God — 
 or, in other words, if the element be applied to the person, 
 and not the person to the element, we are satisfied. 
 
 SECTION THIRD. 
 
 THE MODE OF BAPTISM AMONG THE JEWS. 
 
 That rites and ceremonies designated baptism were com- 
 mon among the Jews, may be inferred from the preceding 
 observations. The cases of Naaman, Judith, Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, the Israelites in the Red Sea, and of the Levitical 
 purifications, which are repeatedly designated baptisms, are 
 
•Jll 
 
 indisputable. From the frequent ablutions among at least 
 ;i part of the chosen tribes, before our Saviour's incarnation, 
 the Jews were called Ilemero, or Daily Baptists. 1 It is 
 contends!, also, that one rite in the admission of proselytes 
 to a participation of Hebrew privileges, was by baptism.* 
 Dr. Gill remarks, that * there were divers bathings, baptisms, 
 1 incumbent on the Israelites, and so upon such proselytes 
 ' who were upon an equal footing with them, and equally 
 1 under obligation to obey the ceremonial law — which con- 
 ' nttsd of divers washings, baptisms. 1 * Dr. Gale also says, 
 4 that the Jews, on account of several kinds of pollution, 
 
 * used to purify themselves by washing, cannot be questioned; 
 
 * the divers washings [Greek baptisms~\ mentioned in the 
 1 Epistle to the Hebrews, (c. ix. 10,) make it incontesti- 
 
 * ble.' * ' Therefore, it appears with superior evidence, from 
 4 the testimony of these competent and unexceptionable 
 ' witnesses, that baptism was well known, as a ceremonial, 
 4 purifying rite, prior to the Christian era.' 4 A particular 
 consideration of those ceremonies, thus designated baptism, 
 by persons who designed to be fully understood, will be 
 of very material importance in ascertaining how it WSJ 
 likely John the Baptist and our Lord's disciples, while 
 acting under the Levitical dispensation, as they evidently 
 did till the Saviour's resurrection, administered baptism. 
 The passages in the New Testament, which more imme- 
 diately direct us to this investigation, are the following: — 
 
 ii. 4, 8. ' And when they come from the market, except they baptize, 
 they eat not ; and many other things there be which they 
 have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups M 
 brazen vessels and tables.* 
 
 1 Wall, vol. i. p. :54; Calc, p. M ; J. Stennett, p. M. 
 a Lijrhtfoot's Works, v. ii. p. 11", fol. 3 Ciill's H. Mr. 
 
 « P. 266. ■ Antiped. £xam. roJ . u. p 
 
245 
 
 Heb. ix. 10. ' Which stood only la meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, 
 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time <>t 
 reformation.' 
 
 The former text refers to those purifications which were 
 traditional, and common in the days of Christ. The latter, 
 to such as were appointed by God himself. Both, how- 
 ever, may be fairly combined in this dissertation, as being 
 both designated baptism. The question now is, how were 
 these administered ? The following remarks will answer 
 this question, and indirectly establish our views respecting 
 the scripture mode of this sacrament. 
 
 I. * Jewish washings,' says Robinson, * instituted, or not 
 ' instituted, may be conveniently classed under four heads : 
 
 i. ' Common, for cleanliness, health, or pleasure, as the 
 ' case of Pharoah's daughter (Ex, ii. 5), and Bathsheba 
 ' (2 Sam. ii. 2.) 
 
 ii 4 Traditional, as in Mark vii. 1-9. 
 
 in. ' Ritual, as the consecration of thepriests (Ex.xxix. 
 ' 4) ; daily (Ex. xxx. 17) ; clothes stained with blood in 
 ' offering sacrifices (Lev. vi. 27) ; utensils (v. 28) ; clean- 
 
 * sing a leper (Lev. xiii. and xiv.) ; various uncleannesses 
 
 * (Lev. xv. and xviii.) 
 
 iv. ' Extraordinary, as of Naaman (2 Kings v. 10- 
 ' 14) ; at the giving of the law (Ex. xix. 10) ; after a vic- 
 tory (Numb. xxxi. 19-23); before entering the Jordan 
 ' (Josh, iii 5.)' ' 
 
 As neither Mark nor Paul refer to the common washings 
 mentioned in the first class, and as those of the second 
 comprehend a part of the data on which we shall rest our 
 evidence, those mentioned under the third and fourth di- 
 visions only demand consideration. 
 
 II. Let it then be clearly observed that the word to 
 
 » Hist. p. 81-85. 
 
 x 5 
 
246 
 
 iprinUe is frequently used in the sacred writings and in r<. - 
 lerence to ritual worship, as synonymous with term* that 
 unequivocally express an entire and universal purification ; 
 and thi' effects are equally significant and efficacious. It i- 
 employed by the inspired penmen for — 
 
 i. To cleanse. — 4 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 
 * you and ye shall be clean — from all your filthiness and 
 1 from all your idols will I cleanse you' (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) 
 
 ii. To purge. — ' Purge me with hyssop [with which 
 
 * the blood, water, and oil, were sprinkled] and I shall be 
 ' clean (Ps. Ii. 7.) Moreover he sprinkled with blood both 
 
 * the tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry, and almost 
 
 * all things under the law are purged with blood' (Heb. 
 ix. 21, 22). 
 
 in. To sanctify. — ' The blood of bulls, and of goats, and 
 1 the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
 4 the purifying of the flesh' (Heb. ix. 13). 
 
 iv. To wash. — * Having our hearts sprinkled from an 
 1 evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water' 
 (Heb. x. 22). 
 
 Consequently, when we read in the scriptures of persons 
 beingceremonially cleansed, purged, sanctified, and washed, 
 we are not certain that they were subject to any thing more 
 than a sprinkling, unless the circumstances of the case ren- 
 der it apparent. 
 
 III. It is also plain beyond contradiction, that an appli- 
 cation of the cleansing element to any one part of a person 
 or thing, in the form of sprinkling, pouring, or other- 
 was always considered a valid and universal purification. 
 Hence we read that a leper (Lev. xiv. 7), a person de- 
 filed by touching a dead body (Numb. xix. 13, 20), the 
 Jews as a nation (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), the Levites, or ser- 
 
247 
 
 vants of the sanctuary (Numb. viii. 7), a house (Lev. xiv. 
 51), the mercy seat (Lev. xvi. 14, 15), the tabernacle 
 (Heb. ix. 21, 22), tents, vessels (Numb. xix. 18), and the 
 heart (Heb. x. 22), were universally cleansed, purged, sanc- 
 titied, or washed, ceremonially, by a mere sprinkling — or by 
 the application of the purifying element to a very small part 
 of them. Kings, priests, and prophets, were wholly con- 
 secrated to their respective offices by pouring the holy oil 
 on their heads, though it might have touched no other part 
 of their person. An excellent commentator observes, that 
 4 Aaron and his sons were the Lord's priests, though the 
 
 * blood of consecration was only put upon the tips of their 
 ' ears, and on their thumbs and great toes (Lev. viii. 24). 
 ' In the Lord's supper, eating a little bread and drinking a 
 4 little wine, sufficeth to exhibit the thing signified — and we 
 4 need not, nay, we should not, fill ourselves with either — 
 
 * and yet it is called a supper.' l We read, that the con- 
 gregation of the children of Israel was sanctified, as an 
 assembly, or mass of individuals, by sprinkling blood on 
 comparatively a few of them (Ex.xxiv. 7, 8 ; Heb. ix. 19.) 
 This sentiment is illustrated and confirmed by one of our 
 opponents. Speaking of dipping the pen in ink, he says, 
 
 * though the whole is not dipped all over, yet the part par- 
 4 ticularly referred to is, and the pen may be truly said to be 
 4 dipped, according to that known rule: — What is true of 
 4 any one part, may be said of the whole complexly, though 
 4 not of every part of the whole separately/ * Hence the 
 sprinkling or baptizing any part of the body, according to 
 a rule well known among our brethren, is baptizing the 
 whole of it — so that applying a few drops of blood on the 
 unclean sanctifies them wholly. 
 
 Matt. Henry on Bapt. p. 139, 140. ale, p. 114. 
 
IV. i ipparent that most of the ritee which Paul 
 
 igOAtei baptisms were for the removal of local di» 
 
 and partial defilement Consequently the purification! 
 
 <|Uisitc were only local and partial. When our Lord O 
 mended the young man born blind to go and wash in the 
 pool of Siloam, the cleansing of his eyes was only in- 
 tended (John ix. 7.) Naaman expected the propln 
 put his hand over the affected place, and recover the leper 
 (2 KiMis v. 11.) This method is very apparent in Liv 1 1 - 
 icus xv. which describes partial uncleannesses in the person 
 and apparel, and prescribes bathing the bo<!\ -hing 
 
 the clothes in accordance with the nature and extent of the 
 pollution. To imagine otherwise, would be to oppose the 
 analogy of the Mosaic institutions, to run counter to the 
 reason of things, and to make that necessary, which the 
 scriptures have not. Indeed a plenary immersion must 
 often have been impracticable in the wilderness, when- 
 pure water was so alarmingly scarce, as to be designated a 
 land of drought and without water (Deut. viii. 15 ; Jtt. 
 ii. 6) — where the people murmured and rebelled for want 
 of water (Ex. xvii. 3: Numb. xx. 2) — where the nobles 
 themselves dug for water (Numb. xxi. 18)— and where, at 
 the command of God, Moses smote the rock at Rephidim 
 (Ex. xvii. 6), and at Kadesh (Numb. xx. 11), to procure 
 supplies, to prevent them from perishing with thirst. That 
 they in general obtained from the rocks, rains, wells, 
 springs, or purchased with money (Numb. xx. 19 ; xxi. 22) 
 sufficient for drink, for culinary purposes, and for such ab- 
 lutions as we believe to have been instituted, is not to he 
 doubted ; but that they always had enough pure, fair, run- 
 ning water, uncontaminated by natural or moral defilement, 
 for the daily immersion of at least two millions of people, 
 
249 
 
 is what, without good authority, fuw will accredit: l and as 
 such a total dipping was, in most cases, impracticable, so far 
 all partial pollutions must have been needless. With equal 
 propriety might Isaiah have commanded Hezekiah to plais- 
 ter himself all over with lumps of figs for a boil on some 
 particular part of the body (Is. xxviii. 21), as for the 
 priests, without a divine injunction, which was not given, 
 to have obliged every man, woman, and child, to wash 
 themselves and their clothes entirely for a few pimples in 
 the face, or a little filth on the hem of their garment. 
 
 V. It is also very remarkable that all the laws of Jewish 
 purification were given to the Hebrews in a place where, 
 as said above, there was comparatively no water, and when 
 the performance of this rite, in the sense understood by our 
 opponents, must have appeared impracticable to every per- 
 son that heard them, and must have really been so for at 
 least forty years : 9 and yet what Moses enjoined, in this 
 respect, was never once objected to as impossible or even 
 difficult, nor, that we learn, was i* ever neglected through 
 a scarcity of water, at any period, place, or under any 
 circumstances. When the Legislator commanded them 
 all to bathe, cleanse, wash, or sanctify themselves, they un- 
 derstood him to mean something that was then and there 
 feasible ; but the immersion of their whole body as often 
 as the law rendered purification requisite, which Mr. Booth 
 says was ' daily,' 3 and that for two millions of people, and 
 during forty years in this desert — this waste, howling wil- 
 derness — was a thing impracticable. In fact, the local cir- 
 cumstances of the Hebrews at the time the laws of purifi- 
 cation were given, are the best means we possess of under- 
 
 > Im Manner's <>!»s. ch. x. obs. 38j and Josephas Contra Apiou, b. ii. s. t». 
 2 Citlmct's Diet. Frag. No. 103, 11G. 3 Booth, vol. i. p. 2'>'» 
 
260 
 
 tdtng tlu- import of the \wu\> employed — thai is, in tht- 
 
 I ■.icumstances mu.M have ranged ihefl) t<» un- 
 derstand them. But to refer to the lanj i: — The 
 words employed by Moses by no means imply a total iin- 
 mer>ion. We read of Balking the body ceremonially in 
 tlu- following lexts: Lev. xv. 5, 8, 1 1, 13, l 21 . 
 xvi. 26, 28; xvii. 15, 16; Numb. xix. 7, 8, 19. — In all 
 tbeae passages the Hebrew word is rach vrz, which me 
 >imply to wash. 1 It is translated in every place by i 
 in the Septuagint, and by lavo in the Latin. \\ 
 Washing the body for Levitical lustration in the ensuing 
 : Ex. xxix.4; xl. 12, 32; Lev. xiv. 8, ( J : xv. h>; 
 xvi. 14,24; xvii. 16: xxii. 6. — In all these we have the 
 same Hebrew original, with similar Greek and Latin trans- 
 lations. For washing the face, hands, feet, and clothe*, 
 the expressions are sometimes changed ; but that is of no 
 moment in the present enquiry. To contend that the divine 
 Lawgiver commanded the people to plunge themselvet 
 one another under water for legal impurities, is not only 
 opposed to the circumstances of the case, but even to the 
 plain letter of scripture. 
 
 VI. Let us now consider the several texts Mr. Robinson 
 has referred to, as exhibiting the various kinds of ceremo- 
 nial washings or ablutions among the Jews. These we 
 shall cite at length for your fullest satisfaction : — 
 
 Exod. xix. 10. • And the Lord said auto .Moses, (Jo unto the people tad 
 
 tify them to-day and to-inorrow, and let theui wush their 
 clothes.' 
 xxix. 4. ' And Aaron and his sons shalt thou bring onto the ,!oor <>i 
 the tabernacle of the congregation, and sdi.dt wash them 
 with water.' 
 xxx. 18, ly. 'Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot ■ 
 
 brass, to wash witlial ; and thou shalt put it beween the 
 
 ' See Taylor's Heb. Con. in Loc. 
 
251 
 
 tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou 
 khalt nut water tlierein ; for Aaron and his sons shall 
 wash their hands and their feet thereat.' 
 
 Iiv. vi. 27, 88. ' And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any 
 garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled 
 in the holy place; and the earthen vessel wherein it is 
 sodden shall be broken ; and if it be sodden in a brazen 
 pot, it s.iall be both scoured and rinsed in (or with) 
 water.' 
 \iv. 7, 8. ' And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed seven 
 times, and shall pronounce him clean; and he that is 
 to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave oft" his 
 hair, and wash himself in (or with) water, that he may 
 be clean.' 
 
 xv. :>. ' And whosoever toucheth his bed, shall wash his clothes, and 
 bathe himself in (or with) water, and be unclean until 
 the even.' (See v. 6, 7, &c.) 
 
 Numb. xix. VJ. ' And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean ou the 
 third day and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh 
 day, he [that purified the unclean, v. 22] shall purify 
 himself in (or with) water, and shall be clean at even.' 
 
 .Josh. iii. 5. ' And Joshua said unto the people sanctify yourselves \ for to- 
 morrow the Lord will do wonders among you.' 
 
 Numb. xxxi. ' Whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath 
 19-2tt. touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your cap- 
 
 tives; and all your raiment, and all that is made of 
 skins, and all work of goat's-hair, and all things made of 
 wood ; every thiug that may abide the fire, ye shall make 
 it go through the fire, and it shall be clean ; neverthe- 
 less it shall be purified with the water of separation j 
 and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through 
 the water; and ye shall wash your clothes on the 
 seventh day, and ye shall be clean.' 
 
 The passage, in 2 Kings v. 10-14, has been cited and 
 considered already. We have now quoted all that is ma- 
 terial to our present investigation. 
 
 VII. From these citations it is plain that the personal 
 ablutions, which Paul designates baptisms, may be divided 
 into two heads — what people did to themselves and what 
 otliers did to them — or, in other words, what was self- 
 operated and what was ministerial. 
 
•j.yj 
 
 i. What people did to themselves was to wash their 
 clothes and bathe themselves in or with water. Whether 
 this bathing and washing consisted in a total or partial 
 wetting, you will judge from the preceding evidence. That 
 they were only partial is plain ; and this would answer every 
 end of the Legislator, and best accord with the circum- 
 stances of the Hebrews. As stated before, these ceremo- 
 nial purgations must have been very frequent, both in the 
 wilderness and in the Holy Land, among such a vast con- 
 gregation of people as the Israelites. In the desert, water 
 was a very precious article, as we gather from the frequent 
 murmu rings of the people for want of it. And in Judea, 
 the scarcity must often have been excessive, as will be more 
 fully established hereafter. (See 1 Kings, xvii. and xviii. 
 Is. xliii. 20; Jer. xiv. 1-6). The repeated and almost 
 daily saturation of the garments would soon have rendered 
 them ragged and colourless. But to pass over the apparel 
 and to come to the people, who, we will suppose for a 
 moment, contrary to fact, did absolutely dip themselves 
 over head and ears in water every time they became pol- 
 luted, according to the laws of Moses — but this bears no 
 analogy or affinity to the baptisms of our opponents— which 
 consist in the ' action performed by one man upon another.' ' 
 Let us hear their explicit statements on this point : ' Except 
 
 * in the single circumstance of dipping, none of these wash- 
 
 * ings bear the least resemblance to Christian baptism ; and 
 
 * this circumstance is a mere accident, and may as well be 
 
 * taken from Pagan rituals as from the ceremonies of the 
 
 * Jews ; that is to say, it is so vague and far-fetched, that 
 
 * it deserves, in this point of view, no consideration at all.' * 
 
 * A fact it is, beyond all contradiction, that this same prose- 
 
 > Maclean, v. Hi. p. 188. - Hob. Hist. p. ■. 
 
253 
 
 1 lyte washing, which men have thought fit to call baptism, 
 ' is no baptism at all. It was a person's washing himself, and 
 * not the dipping of one person by another. It would ap- 
 ' pear that a proselyte waslied himself ; but this is not bap- 
 ' tism. l A law for one man to dip himself is not an au- 
 ' thority for another man to dip him.' 2 From this state- 
 ment it is plain, that if a man dip himself under water a 
 thousand times, he is not thereby baptized ; for this simple 
 reason, that baptism necessarily consists in the ' action per- 
 1 formed by one man upon another.' Nor is Mr. Robinson 
 singular in his judgment in this case ; for self- immersion is 
 not only never now practised by our opponents, but is 
 universally exploded as improper and invalid. This rite is 
 administered only by a person who has been previously 
 baptized, and who is recognized as a Christian officer in 
 the church. We must, therefore, look to the transitive act 
 exhibited in the above quotations, to discover what Paul 
 meant by baptism in his Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 ii. What people did to each other. The apostle positively 
 calls these purifications ' baptisms,' which God imposed on 
 the Jews until the time of reformation. In this designation 
 our opponents accord. We also know that these washings 
 or ablutions were of two kinds — a person bathing himself 
 in or with water — and another applying water to him, by 
 pouring or sprinkling. Now, as you have heard, our op- 
 ponents unequivocally assure us that the first is not bap- 
 tism — consequently the second alone is baptism. The 
 priests, or the people who were clean, sprinkled upon others 
 oil, blood, or water, either pure or impregnated with the 
 ashes of the red heifer : therefore sprinkling, pouring, or 
 applying one or all of these elements, is what Paul means 
 
 j Rob. p. 36. a p. 3<j. 
 
 Y 
 
26 1 
 
 by the tone baptism; and ai our brethren have thus ex- 
 cluded washing and bathing one's Belf, osa part ofbapti 
 wt are driven to eonclode with Mr. Maclean' and Dr. 
 
 Gill, 1 that the diversity consists in the various eleOH 
 employed and the different effects produced. An 
 Baptist writer justly observes, ' that sprinkling upon the 
 * people either by blood (as Er. xxiv. 8 ; xxix. 2\ : ! . 
 1 xiv. 7, &c), or by water mixed with the ashes of a 
 1 heifer (NUMB, xix ; Heb. xi. 13, &c), because it w 
 1 type of cleansing by Christ for sin, is metaphorically put 
 4 for it, (Is. lii. 15; Heb. x. 22 ; xii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 2.) ,s 
 When, therefore, Dr. Jenkins says, * the divers washings 
 4 in the Jewish service did imply washing in water; and 
 4 as their being wholly unclean supposed the need of a total 
 
 -hing, so it is reasonable to think the ablution a 
 4 total immersion ; for that the sprinkling was no part of the 
 4 baptism, you may read Numb. xix. 21 : the water ( I 
 4 paration did not cleanse :' ' — it must be manifest to every 
 attentive hearer, that the good Doctor had but very superfi- 
 cially examined this subject; and, through want of more 
 light on the point, was misleading his readers. In fact, he 
 contradicts the plain and unequivocal sense of scriptu: 
 VIII. The isolated text (Ex. xxix. 4), which speaks of 
 ishing Aaron and his sons at the door of the ta- 
 bernacle, in no degree militates against our doctrine, but 
 rather cenfirms it. That Moses performed an act upon 
 Aaron and his sons which, in ceremonial technicalities, is 
 called washing, is evident. The question however is. what 
 that act was I No sea of brass was then erected for the ser- 
 actuary, nor do we read of any other \ 
 
 i Vol. iii. p. lift. » P. I » K. arl.'s Met. p. 183. 
 
 * Defence, p. 11.:. • Supra, p. 
 
255 
 
 sufficiently large lor totally submersing the High Priest 
 and his grown-up sons ; neither is it likely that those, whose 
 \l persons were never in the least to be indelicately ex- 
 posed in the service of the altar but at the peril of their 
 lives (ch. xxviii. 4'2, 43), should be stripped naked, dipped, 
 lathered, and washed by Moses in the sight of all the con- 
 gregation, summoned expressly to witness the ceremony, 
 (Lev. viii. 4-6.) There is no question but the priests and 
 Levites were washed by Moses in the same manner. How 
 he acted with regard to the latter we learn from the follow- 
 ing text; — ' Take the Levites from among the children of 
 ' Israel and cleanse them, sprinkling water of purifying 
 " upon them ; and let them shave all their flesh, and let 
 * them wasli their clothes, and make themselves clean,' 
 (Numb. viii. 6, 7.) Here all that Moses did was sprinkling 
 them with water; and as the above passage is admitted by 
 our opponents to be the only one in the Old Testament re- 
 presenting one person actually and literally washing an- 
 other, for ceremonial purposes; 1 as we read of no in- 
 stance where one person dipped another; 2 and as what is 
 denominated washing, sanctifying, purging, and cleansing 
 one another, was in every other case performed by sprink- 
 ling, pouring, or otherwise applying the element to the 
 object ; we submit that it was done by Moses in the same 
 way. (See Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) We conclude, therefore, 
 that the baptisms mentioned by the apostle are ' called 
 ' divers, because they were performed on different occasions 
 ' and for various kinds of uncleanness ;' 3 and consisted in 
 sprinkling, pouring, or otherwise applying to the people, 
 blood, oil, or water, either pure or impregnated with ashes ; 
 and that the other rite common among the Jews, consist- 
 
 ■ Rob. p. 35. « lb. p. 39. ;i Maclean, v. iii. p. 190. 
 
in bathing or washing themsc V with water, was 
 
 not baptism at all. 
 
 IX. Remark further, that as baptism under the gospel 
 
 nalogous to anointing or consecrating under the law, 
 
 ill be shown hereafter ; so, of course, anointing under 
 
 the law is figurative of baptism under the gospel ; and is, 
 
 doubtless, included by the apostle in the expression, 
 
 1 divers baptisms.' We find that priests (Ex. xxviii. 41), 
 
 kings (1 Kings i. 34), and prophets (Is. lxi. 1), were 
 
 thus baptized or consecrated to their respective offices ; 
 
 N were things, as the altar (Ex. xxix. 36), the tabernacle 
 
 and the ark (Ex. xxx. 26), the laver and his foot (Ex. 
 
 xl. 11): Jacob also anointed the pillar he set up (Gen. 
 
 ;ii. 18) ; the Jewish nation, as a kingdom of priests and 
 
 a holy people, were consecrated to God, (Exod. xix. 6.) 
 
 The language put into their mouths, and to be sung by 
 
 each in the solemn assembly on the sabbath, was, ■ I shall 
 
 * be anointed with fresh oil' (Ps. xcii. 10) ; and God, re- 
 ferring to his gracious interference on behalf of his people, 
 said, * Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no 
 
 * harm,' (Ps. cv. 15.) This anointing was typical of the 
 influence of the Spirit. 1 Now, we find similar phi 
 ology under the gospel dispensation : — 4 He which i 
 
 * blish.-th us with you in Christ, and hath anointed OS, 
 
 4 God; who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest 
 'of his Spirit in our hearts,' (2 Cor. i.21,22.) ' Wei. 
 ' an unction [or anointing] from the Holy One ; but the 
 ' anointing which we have received of him abideth in you 
 4 — the same anointing teacheth you all things,' (1 Jon\ 
 ii. 'JO, 27.) From this we gather, that anointing with 
 oil under the law, and with the Holy Spirit under the 
 I Dr. J. Owen's Works, v. ii. p. 1G3> v. iii. p. 4<M. 
 
257 
 
 gospel, are of a like import, as type and antetype ; and as 
 the baptisms of water and of the Spirit are one in design, 
 as a figure and the reality, we may fairly conclude, with- 
 out strong reasons to the contrary, that pouring water is 
 truly scriptural baptism. This element, being cheaper than 
 costly oil, was substituted for it; and sprinkling, being a 
 more expeditious mode than pouring, was often adopted 
 instead of it — though the intentions were the same. 
 
 X. Dr. Gale says, ' the vast brazen sea which Solomon 
 ' caused to be made, held near a thousand barrels of water : 
 ' the bulk of it argues that the priests were to go into it.' ' 
 This inference, however, is gratuitous. Cisterns, tanks, 
 and reservoirs of water, are often made for purposes widely 
 diiFerent from that of going into them. This sea was, at 
 least, nine feet deep, and ' stood raised upon the figures 
 * of twelve oxen in brass, so high that either that they must 
 ' have had stairs to it, or cocks at the bottom to draw off the 
 ' water from it.' 2 Now, if the priestly purifications re- 
 quired pure or fair water, as our opponents admit, and if the 
 blood and filth, contracted by the officers in slaying the 
 sacrifices, would have polluted the water — a case that no 
 person of judgment would ever dispute — the consequence 
 of dipping themselves into this vessel (and which, after all, 
 was no baptism) would have been, that every time a priest 
 bathed himself, all the foul water, to the amount of a thou- 
 sand barrels, must have been drained ofl*, and the poor 
 Gibeonites and Nethinims, with leathern bottles, must 
 have filled it afresh from some neighbouring spring before 
 another priest could have washed himself therein ; and as 
 these personal lustrations must have been performed by one 
 
 I P. 138. See Gill, p. 4Kj and Anderson, p. 20. 
 ■- Mutt. Henry on 1 Kifl 
 
 Y 5 
 
or <y ilay, the drawers of wati 
 
 have had no sinecure oilice. Then there would h.i 
 the difficulty of getting in and out of this i 
 That the priests and Levites would not have done this 
 naked, will be evident to all ; and that they would hardly 
 have climbed up, and popped themselves under water in 
 their clothes, and then have climbed out, and have gone 
 to work again, dripping with water, is equally apparent. 
 But the brazen sea was to be used in the same way and for 
 the same purpose as the laver of the tabernacle. "What 
 mode was adopted with it, we read in the plainest terms: 
 — ' And he set the laver between the tent of the congre- 
 1 gation and the altar, and put water there to wash withal. 
 
 * And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands 
 4 and their feet thereat. When they went into the tent of 
 4 the congregation, and when they came near unto the altar, 
 
 * they washed as the Lord commanded Moses,' (Exod. xl. 
 30-33.) This view of the case is confirmed by Josephus . 
 — ' Now he appointed the sea to be for washing the hands 
 ■ and the feet of the priests, when they entered into the 
 
 * temple, and were to ascend the altar.' l — So much for 
 dipping into the brazen sea ! 
 
 XI. As a further confirmation of our assumption, let it 
 be remarked, that the order of the priesthood, the species 
 of the sacrifices, and the mode of purification prevalent 
 among the Greeks, as described by Archbishop Potter. 
 were evidently of Hebrew original. No person can pt •: 
 the chapter referred to, without perceiving the analogy, 
 and concluding that this was the fact. Now, purifications 
 among the Greeks, as among the Jews, were of two kinds : 
 — what the people did to themselves, and what was done 
 
 » Ant. b. 8, e. i, s. 6, i- of Greece, v. ii. b. .% c. 4, i». 247-265. 
 
259 
 
 to them by the priests. As to the former, they washed their 
 elothes and the whole body. When this could not be con- 
 veniently performed, they washed their hands and feet as a 
 substitute. This self- ablution, however, on the evidence 
 of our opponents, was not baptism, but only a preparation 
 for it. As to the latter, we learn that the priest purified the 
 people by sprinkling them. Pure or salt water only was to 
 be used. This was kept in a small vessel, called the peri- 
 ranterion, at the entrance of the temples. Atriple aspersion 
 was administered. This was done with a torch, or branch 
 of laurel or olive. The design was to free from guilt and 
 cleanse from pollution. This was really their baptism, and 
 accords with the practice of John the Baptist, a Jewish 
 priest, and with that of the apostles of our Lord, as we 
 have proved before. This is confirmed by Justin Martyr, 
 an eminent Christian writer, born about sixty years after 
 the death of Christ. His words, though quoted before, we 
 shall recite in this place. He says, ' sprinkling with holy 
 * water was invented by demons, in imitation of the true 
 1 baptism signified by the prophets, that their votaries might 
 ' have their pretended purifications by water.' From this 
 passage it appears, that the lustrations of the heathen were 
 borrowed from the purifications of the Jews — both are de- 
 signated baptism, and both were administered by sprinkling. 
 How the Greeks baptized, you have just heard. Virgil, 
 who died about ten years before the birth of Christ, tells 
 us, in the plainest terms, how it was performed by the 
 Romans : — 
 
 • A verdant branch of olives in his hands, 
 
 • He moved around and purified the bami>: 
 
 • Slow as lie passed, the lustral waters 
 
 •Then closed the rites, and thrice invoked the dead.' ! 
 
 » Pitt's Virril, Stk. VI. v. OP. .See Juvenal's 64b II. v. l.'.r 
 
" 
 
 We CtO hardly read this passage without calling to mind 
 the following text : — ' And a i in shall take h\ 
 
 v and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon die tent and 
 1 upon all the Vessels, and upon the persons that were there, 
 * and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one 
 4 dead, or a grave' (Numb, xix. 18.) The analogy here 
 implete. From what Mr. Robinson has written on 
 pagan lustration, 1 it is not dedueible that any other mode 
 than sprinkling was ever adopted by any nations, the most 
 ancient or remote. Tins accounts for the silence ol 
 enemies of the gospel, respecting the mode of Christian 
 baptism, as administered by the apostles, by sprinkling— 
 whereas, had they gone about the different countries of the 
 world dipping their converts under water, a practice so 
 novel would surely have called forth observations and op- 
 position — as was the case in almost every thing in Chris- 
 tianity that differed from the modes of gentile worship — 
 and particularly so, if the manner of performing it had been 
 equally difficult, indelicate, and dangerous, as is modern 
 immersion, in many well authenticated instances. 
 
 XII. The only passage referred to by Mr. Rob: 
 which has the least appearance of opposing our schemi 
 Numb. xxxi. 23, where it is said that the spoils of war which 
 could not stand the fire, were to 'go through the water.' 
 This text, however, refers to an extraordinary purification, 
 and therefore is no regularly applicable rule for purifica- 
 tions generally. It involves the sanctilication of things as 
 well as of men, and consequently does not peculiarly effect 
 nal ablutions. Still, however, we do not imagine the 
 phrase to make for immersion. It should be noticed that 
 the water to b ;.s that of separation, 2 which | 
 
 »P. 41 Mb. p. 35. 
 
•2(>J 
 
 made by putting the ashes of a red heifer into a vessel and 
 pouring running water upon them (Numb. xix. 9, 17.) The 
 size of the vessel is not specified, but from its general use 
 was probably not very large, being carried about in the 
 wilderness. It is evident that this water of separation was 
 always sprinkled upon the persons and things to be con- 
 secrated. 1 Thus the Levites were purified (c. viii. 7), and 
 so were those who had touched one slain with the sword in 
 the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a 
 grave, with his tent and vessels (c. xix. 13-21; xxxi. 19.) 
 This last case is a key to the one under consideration, as 
 the circumstances are similar. The water of separation was 
 to purify twelve thousand Israelites who had fought, and 
 thirty-two thousand captives taken in the engagement and 
 after, (c. xxxi. 12, 19, 32) ; as, also, all the inanimate 
 spoils of war — gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, lead, and all 
 hings made of skins, goat's hair, and wood ; utensils, in- 
 struments, garments, tents, chariots, and waggons ; with 
 jewels of gold, chains, bracelets, rings, ear-rings, and ta- 
 blets, (v. 50.) That these spoils must have been immense 
 we may gather from the fact that the Hebrews took from 
 the Midianites 675,000 sheep, 72,000 beeves, and 61,000 
 anes. And the present made to the treasury of the Lord 
 was valued at 16,750 shekels. We, then, enquire whether 
 it was possible that all these immense, and many of them 
 cumbrous spoils of war, were absolutely plunged into the 
 vessel which contained the water of separation ; or, literally, 
 were made to go through the water ? Impossible ! Indeed 
 we cannot suppose that by going through the fire it was in- 
 tended casting the metals into the flames, especially the tin 
 and lead, as the preservation and not the destruction of the 
 
 1 Joseplms, Ant. b. 4, c. 4, s. <i. 
 
262 
 
 ;ii ti. ect of the operation. They were to be 
 
 purified by lire in some way or other, but how is not cer- 
 tain. It is, moreover, plain that the expression, 'purified 
 1 with the water of separation,' and ' going through the 
 r,' mean one and the same process, which was un- 
 questionably sprinkling. The sense of the text is, that the 
 articles which would stand the lire, were to be first purified 
 by lire, and secondly with the water of separation ; and 
 those which would not, were to undergo the purification of 
 water only. 
 
 XI II. The Jewish baptisms in the days of our Lord 
 require a brief consideration. The following texts compre- 
 hend their practice. ' For the Pharisees and all the Ji 
 1 except they wash their hands oft eat not, holding the tra- 
 1 dition of the elders, and when they come from the market 
 
 * except they baptize they eat not, (Mark vii. 3, 4.) And 
 
 * when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not 
 1 first baptized before dinner, (Luke xi. 38.) Why do thy 
 
 * disciples transgress the tradition of the elders ? for they 
 
 * wash not their hands, when they eat bread,' (Matt. xv. 2.) 
 Here the word baptize is twice used for the purification of 
 the Pharisees and all the Jews, whenever they came from 
 the market, and before they ate bread. Our opponents say 
 that 'the baptism mentioned Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38, 
 1 does not signify the washing of the hands, but the bathing 
 ' or immersion of the whole body.' ' So then, all the ladies 
 and gentlemen, their servants and children, who were Jews, 
 and especially if belonging to the sect of the Phari- 
 actually plunged themselves over head and ears in water 
 every time they came from the market, though it occurred 
 half a dozen times a day, and always before they sat down 
 
 ' Maclean, vol. Hi. p. 190. 
 
268 
 
 to dinner or took a luncheon between meals ! But the fact 
 is, that their baptizing themselves consisted in nothing more 
 than washing their hands, as the above collation of passages 
 most clearly demonstrates. Nor is there any impropriety in 
 the phraseology ; for, as Dr. Gale assures us, that * what is 
 
 * trueof anyone part, may be said of the whole complexly." 
 Consequently, baptizing their hands, is baptizing them- 
 selves. But then, perhaps, our brethren will reply, they 
 dipped their hands to wash them — since Dr. Gill says, 
 
 * there is no proper washing but by dipping.' ' — In answer 
 we say, certainly not. This was a ceremonial cleansing, 
 and not a removal of natural defilement. Hence we read 
 that Elisha ' poured water on the hands of Elijah,' 
 (2 Kings iii. 11.) Homer, who flourished about fifty 
 years after Elijah, refers to a similar practice amongst 
 the Greeks : — 
 
 ' Then came a nymph, 
 •' With golden ewer charged and silver bowl, 
 ' Who poured pure ualer on my hands, and placed 
 • The shining stand before me.' 3 
 
 If this ancient custom were altered in the days of Christ, 
 our opponents will prove it. The practice is still common 
 in the east. Sir J. Ker Porter was at an entertainment given 
 by the prime minister of Persia. ' A silver plated jug,' he 
 says, ' with a long spout, accompanied by a bason of the 
 
 * same metal, was carried round to every guest, by an at- 
 ' tendant, who poured water from thejug on our right hands, 
 1 which we held in succession over the bason.' * It is even 
 continued among the Jews to the present time as a religious 
 ceremony ; for, in their synagogue worship, those Levites 
 who are descendants from the singers in the temple, are 
 
 1 P. 114. ! i». :m , 3 Odyssey X. 887-870. 
 
 * Trav. in Georgia, v. i. i 3m al>o Wall, v. iii. p. 96. 
 
264 
 
 Called next to the descendants of the prii id or hear 
 
 the law, and to ])our wider over the Iianch of the Cohenim, 
 or priests, before they go to the benediction. 1 Even Dr. 
 ( ampbell, cited with so much triumph by our oppoo 
 in this controversy, explains ' washing the hands oft, by 
 
 * pouring water upon them 1 ■ — a method probably sug- 
 
 d at iirst by the scarcity of pure water in arid dim 
 Hence Abraham ordered a little water to wash the feet of 
 his heavenly visitants (Gen. xviii. 4) ; and which water was 
 probably poured (epi tois podas) upon the feet, (Luke vii. 
 4 1.) In this way Christ must have washed his disciples 1 feet, 
 while they probably reclined on their couches after supper .' 
 For it is not likely that twelve persons who wore sandals 
 should dip their feet successively in the same bason of water, 
 and that Peter, who appears to have been the last, should 
 have desired that his hands and his head might be washed 
 in this polluted element. Here, then, we have baptizing a 
 person by washing his hands, and this performed by pouring 
 water upon them. And if pouring water on the hands be 
 a valid and entire baptism of the person, -surely pouring it 
 on the head cannot be deemed partial or defective. 
 
 XIV. The baptismal purifications of the Jews in the days 
 
 of Christ, may be further elucidated by the following pas- 
 
 : ■ And there were set there six water-pots of stone, 
 
 * after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing 
 
 * two or three firkins a piece,' (John ii. 6.) According to 
 Dr. Jennings, these vessels held * about twenty gallons each.' 4 
 That the guests at the marriage in Cana, could not immerse 
 themselves entirely in these stone water-pots is unq'< 
 tionable. It is also evident, that immediately previous to 
 
 i Adams's Rel.W. Displ. v. ii. p. 300. - In Uc. 
 
 ict's Diet. Frag. No. 104. « Jewish Anti-i 
 
265 
 
 the miracle of our Lord, they contained very little or no 
 water, as he ordered the waiters to fill them. Now, had 
 they been used that evening as bathing-tubs, the Saviour 
 would not have shocked the company, by ordering the ser- 
 vants to draw wine out of them for their potations. If 
 they were employed for holding what the Catholics call 
 holy-water, largely provided against the wedding, and 
 which was poured, as in the cases above mentioned, or 
 sprinkled on the visitors — all appears delicate, and in har- 
 mony with the customs of the people and the times. This 
 mode of purification, also, was after the manner of the 
 Jews — such water-pots being general, at least in respect- 
 able houses, and this mode of purifying out of them com- 
 mon. Mr. Maclean says, ■ though the Jews were blamed 
 
 * for their superstition in holding things unclean that were 
 ' not so, yet they are not accused of using any other me- 
 
 * thod of cleansing than the law prescribed.' 1 When our 
 opponents talk of every family having baths for ceremonial 
 baptisms/ they appear to forget that the inspired writer 
 has said they were stone vessels of comparatively small 
 dimensions, placed in the room where the people usually 
 sat, and which precluded the possibly of immersing them- 
 selves or one another into them. Here, then, is purification 
 or baptism again by pouring or sprinkling, or by applying 
 the element to the object. 
 
 XV. Though the baptizing of cups and pots, brazen 
 vessels, and couches (Mark vii. 1-9), has been slightly 
 noticed before, it may not be improper here to revert for a 
 moment to this subject. You will then carefully bear in 
 mind that the ceremony in question was not performed in 
 compliance with the dictates of decency, as such articles 
 
 i Vol. Hi. p. l'JO. 2 Gill, v. ii. p. 215, 460. 
 
266 
 
 bad been cleansed from ordinary pollution long b 
 baptisms referred to above were introdiieed. What the 
 evangelist means, was i ceremonial purification superadded 
 to common washings and entirely independent of them. It 
 is called the tradition of men and the tradition of tl 
 and was, of course, irrespective of ordinary washing ol 
 tic furniture. 1 This is still more apparent from the I 
 as one of our opponents justly observes, that ' whatever I 
 1 washings or baptisms were, they were traditional and cen- 
 ' sured by Christ.' 2 But as the Son of God would n 
 have censured the Jews for mere cleanliness, we must again 
 conclude, that the same species of baptism was applied to 
 their utensils as was common among themselves. The 
 mode of purification was not censured, but the frequency 
 and objects of the administration. How articles were < 
 monially consecrated or cleansed, we have seen before, and 
 shall here recite the text : — l And a clean person shall take 
 ' hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the 
 ' tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that 
 1 were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one 
 4 slain, or one dead, or a grave,' (Numb. xix. 18.) Not- 
 withstanding all our opponents have cited from the later 
 Rabbis, we cannot conceive how beds or couches were 
 lustrated otherwise. At any rate, there is not the least inti- 
 mation of their being immersed for ceremonial purification 
 in the days of our incarnate Lord or under the Mosaic 
 dispensation. 
 
 XVI. Josephus, speaking of the Essens, one of the 
 
 three sects of the Jews existing in his day, says, ' After 
 
 * morning prayer, every one of them are sent away by their 
 
 ' curators to exercise some of those arts wherein they are 
 
 » Dr. Campbell in Loc. « Rob. | 
 
2G7 
 
 ' skilled, in which they labour with great diligence till the 
 
 * fifth hour: after which they assemble themselves together 
 
 kin in one place; and when they have clothed them- 
 
 * selves in white veils [or garments], they then bathe their 
 4 bodies in cold water; and after this purification is over, 
 
 * they every one meet together in an apartment of their 
 ' own — after a pure manner, into the dining room/ l Now 
 a superficial observer, reading this passage, would im- 
 mediately conclude, as some of our opponents appear to 
 have done, 2 that these all plunged themselves or one another 
 under water every day. But that this was not the case is 
 apparent from the following circumstances : — The lan- 
 guage as understood by a Jew, as employed in the Pen- 
 tateuch, and as adapted to Judea, does not necessarily con- 
 vey the necessity of a total immersion. To wash themselves 
 (apolountai) with water, being all that is expressed or in- 
 tended. It is said, in a subsequent section, that after hav- 
 ing been on trial a year, the candidate for communion ap- 
 proaches nearer this way of living, and is made partaker 
 of the water of purification 3 — language which does not 
 exactly comport with the idea of dipping into it. This lus- 
 tration was peculiar to the fully initiated candidates for 
 Essenism, and was not therefore common to all the Jews, 
 as were the baptisms mentioned at the head of this section. 
 It also took place after they had put on their white veils or 
 garments, and in this same dress they all immediately 
 dined together, 4 which would hardly be done had they 
 dipped one another. The purification was to be repeated 
 by a senior every time he happened to touch a junior, and 
 on other nameless occasions 6 — so that these people, espe- 
 
 i Hist. Wars, b. 2, c. 8. i. ft. » Booth, v. i. p. 250. 
 
 3 Sec. 7. ' Sec. y. s Sec. 10. 
 
nally the old men, must haw been immersed, at least, th. 
 times a day; anil, when they were ill, perhaps half a 
 dozen — and all this in the land of Judea, while engaged 
 in their husbandry or handicraft employments ! How much 
 more consistent with every idea we can form of the J« 
 their character, customs, and country, is it to suppose they 
 were ati'usedor sprinkled with pure water ; which probably 
 was kept in suitable places — call them fonts, if you pi. 
 — for such a purpose. If they had even gone into baths 
 for cleansing, it does not prove that they dipped themselves 
 or each other under water. The greater purifications of 
 the Mahometans, which are supposed to have been bor- 
 rowed from the bathings of the later Jews, 1 consist in 
 simply going into a bath, ancle or knee deep, and apply- 
 ing the water to their persons in the ordinary manner. 
 They never dip themselves or each other under water for 
 any ceremonial lustration. 
 
 XVII. To these expositions an objection has been raised 
 by our brethren ; who say it was not at all probable that 
 Christ should sanctify to an evangelical purpose any of 
 those rites and customs which were of Jewish origin, and 
 particularly such as were not of divine appointment* In 
 reply, we observe that John the Baptist, our blessed Re- 
 deemer and his disciples, in many cases, did act in con- 
 formity to the rites and customs of the Hebrew economy, 
 which was in full force till the glorious morning of the 
 Saviour's resurrection. Nor have our brethren adduced a 
 single valid argument for making the ancient mode of bap- 
 tizing an exception to their general rule. Our Lord not 
 only complied with the prescribed rites of Moses and other 
 ceremonies of heavenly origin ; but he also adopted and 
 
 > Hob. Hist. p. 56. * J. Stennett, p. 62; Ryland, p. 4. 
 
7m 
 
 spiritualized modes and customs of which no such institu- 
 tion can be adduced. He engaged in the peculiar formu- 
 laries of synagogue worship, the establishment of which, 
 for aught we learn, was wholly of men, 1 (Luke iv. 16-30.) 
 He observed the feast of dedication, appointed by the sole 
 authority of Judas Maccabeus, 2 (1 Macc iv. 52-55 ; 
 John x.22.) He consecrated the ancient custom of washing 
 each other's feet to an expressive token of Christian charity 
 and humility, (Gen. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xxv. 41 ; John 
 xiii. 5-16; 1 Tim. v. 10.) He set apart a portion of the 
 paschal feast, to be eaten as a standing memorial of his 
 death 3 (Mark xiv. 22-25) ; and, in imitation of John, a 
 Jewish priest, and the Rabbis, he gave his disciples a form 
 of prayer, composed, according to Wetstein, Whitby, Gill, 
 and others, out of the synagogue service used at that pe- 
 riod. 4 He also selected twelve disciples in respect of the 
 twelve tribes of Israel, and seventy others, as according 
 with the seventy elders and members of the Sanhedrim, 
 to be his followers and assistants in the work of the minis- 
 try, (Luke ix. 1 ; x. 1.) It is also evident that the terms 
 and phraseology, prevalent in the Levitical economy, are 
 retained in the New Testament — hence we read of sacri- 
 fices, oblations, ablutions, aspersions, perfumes, synagogue 
 (Jas. ii. 2, Gr.), passover, temple, circumcision, altar, 
 sabbath, unleavened bread, and the like, in an evangelical 
 sense. * It is well known, 7 says Dr. Campbell, * that the 
 ' names, teacher, elder, overseer, attendant or minister, and 
 * even angel or messenger of the congregation, were, in re- 
 ' lation to the ministry of the Jewish synagogue, in current 
 
 ' Prldeanx's Con. v. ii. p. 480-A& 
 
 ; lb. v. iii. p. 265 ; Josephus, Ant. b. 12, c. 8, s. 7. 
 
 a Sec Ainsworth on Ex. xii. 8 ; Dodd. Expos, sect. 148, note e. 
 
 « Mendham on the Lord's Prayer, p. 17. 
 
 z 5 
 
* hm;' ' and Dr. Pyo Smith observes, ' that Jem 
 
 1 himself drew much of the language and manner ol 
 4 discourses from tlu: current phrases and formularies ot 
 
 tgogue.' * And though the Saviour condemned cer- 
 tain traditional observances as superstitious and mtk 
 void the law of God (Matt. xv. 3-8), it cannot be too 
 much to say, with the facts before us, that he sanctified 
 priestly method of purification or consecration common 
 among his ancient people, whether divinely appointed or 
 not, to be the standing method of Christian baptism. Nor 
 let any one suppose, that this species of arguing ope: 
 door for any denomination to introduce the priestly orders, 
 the state religion, or the pompous ceremonies of the Jewish 
 hierarchy into the present dispensation. To adopt from the 
 preceding economy what it appears our Lord and his dis- 
 ciples selected and sanctified to a gospel purpose, is all wv 
 contend for or can admit into our churches. This is not 
 only a safe, but also a fair way of reasoning on the subject. 
 
 XVIII. From this rather elaborate investigation, the fol- 
 lowing deductions appear to be natural and legitimate. 
 
 i. That purification and baptism under the law as well 
 as under the gospel, were one and the same thing in design, 
 and their modes of performance alike. The first is plainly 
 ; ted by the apostle, as you have seen before, and is also 
 admitted by our opponents, who call baptism ' a mini- 
 1 trashing a person, and God's washing away his sins by the 
 4 blood of Christ ;' ' and say, that ' it leads to the nature of 
 
 * sanctification, and offer* an emblem of it;' 4 and that 
 
 * a washing all over, and abundant purification.' 
 
 It. That the ministerial baptisms or purifications among 
 
 » Lett, on Eccl. HUt. Lect. X. » Messiah, v. i. p. 602. 
 
 :ivere, p. 16, 18. «" Durt, p. J4, '.t>. » Kyland, p. I 
 
271 
 
 the Jews, did not consist in people's bathing themselves, 
 but in what one person did to another ; and this was al- 
 ways and only an affusion or sprinkling with blood, oil, or 
 water — and that there is no instance where one person is 
 said to have immersed another under water for consecra- 
 tion or purification — therefore sprinkling is truly baptizing. 
 
 hi. That among the Jews, to baptize another person, 
 was to pour or sprinkle the element on him — neither more 
 nor less. This mode of lustration was borrowed and prac- 
 tised among the Greeks and Romans, and the Heathens 
 generally. The remark of Justin, cited above, is corrobo- 
 rated by Tertullian, who says, ' Here we see the aim of the 
 ' devil, to ape [or imitate] the things of God ; since he also 
 ' sets up a baptism for his disciples.' l Consequently, their 
 procedure in this matter illustrates the method of the Israel- 
 ites, and affords a clue to unravel the operations of John 
 the Baptist and the disciples of our Lord. 
 
 iv. That the harbinger of Christ and his own disciples 
 would naturally consecrate their followers by pouring or 
 sprinkling — since they could have been acquainted with no 
 other practice — since their mode was evidently no novelty 
 — and since we have no account of any new practice 
 being enjoined. 
 
 SECTION FOURTH. 
 
 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 
 
 The circumstances to be examined unquestionably prove 
 that the apostolic mode of baptism was not by dipping, im- 
 mersing, or otherwise applying the person to the water. 
 
 ' Wall's Hist. v. i. p. 10. See Gale's Court of the Gentiles, passim. 
 
2H 
 
 From what has been advanced you are doubtless convu 
 that the terms employed to express this rite by no m 
 prove, that any person was ever put under water m the 
 administration of this ordinance by John the Baptist or the 
 disciples of our Lord. You have, also, seen that tin 
 pmnopi used to designate this ceremony, are as much m 
 accordance with pouring and sprinkling as with dipping and 
 immersing. That Jewish baptisms, which were of constant 
 occurrence before and during the days of Christ's personal 
 ministry, were performed by pouring or sprinkling. We 
 shall now adduce further circumstantial evidence to esta- 
 blish our position. This may be easily deduced from the 
 administration of this rite in the primitive church, and even 
 from those cases which apparently most favour the scheme 
 of our opponents. We purpose, first, to offer a few | 
 liminary considerations, and then to investigate those nar- 
 ratives of baptism, in which the circumstances afford us 
 any intimations respecting the definitive action at issue be- 
 tween us and our esteemed brethren. 
 
 I. It may be observed, as a general remark, that in all 
 the baptisms of the New Testament no delays were ever 
 necessary or ever made. Whenever persons were brought 
 over from a profession of Judaism or Gentilism to the 
 adoption of Christianity, they were baptized immediately. 
 We read of no postponements on account of numbers, sex, 
 size, delicacy, health, dresses, want of water, or any thing 
 of the kind. Wherever the apostles preached with success, 
 then and there they baptized their converts — whether the 
 >n were hot or cold, wet or dry, day or night ; whether 
 the people were old or young, male or female, in sickness 
 or in health. To the mode they adopted, there arose no 
 obstacles from time, place, audience, or circumstances. 
 
273 
 
 Hence Mr. Robinson justly remarks, ' there was no inter- 
 1 mediate state of scholarship ; baptism was administered 
 * immediately on conviction of the truth of the report.' l Thus 
 when many of the Samaritans of Sychar believed on our 
 Lord (John iv. 39, 41), and were baptized immediately 
 on accrediting the truth of the report, pure water, though 
 fetched from Jacob's well, which was distant and deep, was 
 procured — but, whether for immersion, we leave you to 
 judge. So when the three thousand were converted, un- 
 der Peter's sermon, every requisite was then and there 
 ready for an apostolic baptism, though water was exceed- 
 ingly precious in the city of Jerusalem. Nor do we read 
 of any changing of apparel, or laying aside of garments, as 
 Christ did when about to wash only the feet of his disci- 
 ples (John xiii. 4), nor of clothes made on purpose, with 
 weights at the bottom to make them sink, nor of cloaks to 
 throw over the shoulders of the baptized to hide their ap- 
 pearance on coming np out of the water — nor of wax or oil- 
 skin drawers, or leathern boots above the middle, for the 
 minister. The people were baptized and went immediately 
 to their friends or engaged in their ordinary occupations. 
 But this is not the case with those whose method is im- 
 mersion — nor, in fact, is it possible. Dresses must be manu- 
 factured expressly for the occasion — delicacy and sickness 
 must be consulted — water of a certain depth and in a proper 
 situation must be procured— apparel must be shifted — many 
 preparations must be made — all of which consume con- 
 siderable time and occasion delays unknown to the apos- 
 tles. Does not this indicate a great difference between 
 scripture baptism and modern dipping ? And would not 
 the New Testament narratives of baptism appear natural 
 
 i Hist. p. 234. 
 
074 
 
 .ind easy on the principle that pouring or sprinkling was 
 original mode. 
 
 II. In the baptisms administered by John to the multi- 
 tudes that followed him, and of the three thousand baptized 
 on the day of Pentecost, we perceive insuperable ob- 
 stacles to the system of dipping. Most, if not all, of t! 
 people were from home when baptized, many of them, in- 
 deed, at a very considerable distance, (Acts ii. 5-11.) 
 When they went to hear these celebrated preachers, most of 
 them, no doubt, prompted by curiosity, they could have 
 had no intention of being baptized, as they had none of 
 being induced to solicit it. And, surely, in the case of John 
 the Baptist, they could not have anticipated being put under 
 water, since it is universally agreed that such a thing had 
 never been done before. Their conviction of the truth of 
 the report and baptism were, as far as practicable, effected 
 at the same time. In fact, most of those pricked to the 
 heart, under the criminatory sermon of Peter, were among 
 the most ungodly of their kind, and were mere visitors in 
 the city. Antecedent preparation for baptism with them 
 was entirely out of the question. Neither do we read of 
 their having second suits of attire with them — nor of their 
 borrowing change of raiment from their neighbours, who, 
 being themselves mostly unconvinced, were not likely to 
 lend them three thousand suits, to be saturated in the water, 
 or to be worn away by persons of whom they knew nothing 
 personally, and whom they despised on account of their 
 credulity. To dipping here, the obstructions are immense. 
 But, on the supposition that affusion or aspersion was the 
 mode, every difficulty is immediately removed. 
 
 III. As our opponents assume, that the people baptized 
 by John and our Saviour's disciples, had change of raiment 
 
275 
 
 with them, we will, merely for the sake of argument for 
 the moment, admit the assumption. But what must have 
 been the consequence of using it in out-of-door dippings, 
 and particularly in the wilderness, or on the banks of the 
 Jordan I Why, they must have taken off every article of 
 dress they had on, first before they went into the water, and 
 again after they came out — and so must have been naked 
 twice before the multitude. To have removed part of their 
 apparel, if their inner garments remained on, would have 
 answered no end proposed in changing at all. This, you 
 will observe, must have been the case with all the blushing 
 damsels and portly matrons who came to John's baptism : 
 and then, as they would not be very likely to bundle up 
 their clothes, wet and streaming with water, we must next 
 suppose that they, one and all, spread them on the ground 
 or bushes to dry, and remained to watch them till the rays 
 of the sun had absorbed the saturation. All this must have 
 been the case with those who were baptized out of doors, 
 especially in the desert by John the Baptist, and such as 
 subsequently retired to rivers to receive this sacrament. The 
 erection of a parcel of tents for shifting their clothes, is a 
 mere fancy of our opponents, adduced to remove, if pos- 
 sible, an insuperable difficulty that stares every child in the 
 face, and which our brethren can find recorded in the New 
 Testament no more than the baptism of infants. We con- 
 clude, therefore, that John baptized out of doors — at least, 
 by pouring or sprinkling — for this removes all difficulties. 
 IV. Should our friends, to remove the foregoing per- 
 plexities, argue that the people were immersed without 
 bringing a second suit of clothes with them, we then reply 
 that this by no means mends the matter. Many of John's 
 converts came from Jerusalem, which was many miles dis- 
 
m 
 
 t.int from the Jordan, where he, vre will suppose, immersed 
 them all. Now, on this assumption, one or other of the fol- 
 lowing difficulties must have arisen. The people must 
 been dipped in their clothes or naked. If in the former 
 state, then, of course, they must have had to walk or rid* 
 on their asses, or mules, or in their carriages, dripping with 
 the water of Jordan, all the way back to the city, to the 
 injury of their health and the amusement of those young 
 people who were not believers or had never heard the 
 preacher for themselves. But as we never read of the vul- 
 gar laugh at what must have been a curious novelty, ac- 
 cording to our opponents' own showing, and as we have no 
 account of the people contracting colds or rheumatisms from 
 it, we conclude that this method was not adopted. If in 
 the latter state, the mixed multitudes must have been plunged 
 naked before each others faces — as private baptisms were 
 then never practised. If our friends contend for this we shall 
 let them. Observing, however, that if it were true, it sup- 
 poses an indelicacy, especially in the case of ladies, of which 
 they find no precedent or account in the word of God. 
 Besides, this result is inevitable, that to baptize people now 
 fully dressed is unapostolical, and, according to their prin- 
 ciples, must be abandoned ! 
 
 V. It is a remarkable circumstance, that in those bap- 
 tisms which were administered in cities and houses (as 
 nearly all Christian baptisms were), we never read that the 
 minister or his converts went into, or down into, the water, 
 or came out of, or up out of, the water — which would have 
 been the case had they been submersed. When people 
 were baptized in country places at rivers, brooks, or run- 
 ning streams, which are always in channels lower than tin 
 circumjacent land, it was necessary, for facilitating the ope- 
 
277 
 
 ration, especially if many were baptized, or capacious ves- 
 sels were not at hand to convey the element to a distant 
 place, that they should go to, or down unto, the water for 
 the reception of this rite — though they were only aspersed 
 or affused with it. And thus much and no more the scrip- 
 tures declare. But, if in house or city baptisms, the converts 
 had been dipped, it would have been said they went into, 
 or down into the pool, bath, or tank, and were submersed, 
 and then came out, or up out, of the water — for going into, 
 or down into the water, would have been as requisite for 
 immersion in this case, as in the preceding, or as going down 
 into a modern baptistry — yet this is no where recorded. 
 Therefore, as the people must have gone down to the river 
 for affusion— which they did — and as they must have gone 
 down into the bath for immersion — which they did not — 
 (the words of scripture being judge) we conclude that all 
 were affused or aspersed, and none of them plunged. This 
 exposition accounts for the different phraseology of the in- 
 spired writers, and harmonizes with the various narratives 
 of scripture baptisms. 
 
 VI. It is also evident, that our Lord's forerunner and 
 followers baptized all who were brought or made willing 
 to submit to this sacrament. We read of no person being 
 refused on account of age, sex, character, or circumstances. 
 The. Jewish nation, oppressed by the Roman yoke, and 
 expecting a temporal deliverer in the Messiah, and supposing 
 John to be this divine person (Luke iii. 15), they came to 
 him and were consecrated unto his doctrine. John, how- 
 ever, having assured them that he was not the Christ, but 
 that he was soon to appear — when, therefore, the Son of 
 God commenced his ministry, they hastened to him and 
 were consecrated unto his doctrine, even more numerously 
 
 Aa 
 
278 
 
 t han they had been unto John's. Now, it is said, that ' all the 
 * people were baptized' of John (Luke iii. 21) ; and that 
 Christ, by his disciples, baptized more than he, (John iv. 
 1,2.) Of all the multitudes that applied, we read of none 
 that were refused. Certain Pharisees and lawyers, indeed, 
 rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, would not 
 submit (Luke vii. 30) ; but none who were disposed to 
 comply were rejected. We may, therefore, conclude that, 
 with very few exceptions, all the Jews were baptized. The 
 exhortation which John gave to the people generally, and 
 to the publicans and soldiers in particular (Luke iii. 1 1-14), 
 in no wise militates against this assumption, since, with- 
 out even a promise of compliance with his injunctions, they 
 were all baptized, (Luke iii. 16.) Nor does the case of 
 the three thousand who, after hearing Peter's sermon, were 
 pricked to the heart, and gladly received the word preached 
 to them (Acts ii. 37, 41) ; since it only proves how many 
 were baptized and what means induced such a number to 
 submit. There, however, is not a word about any being 
 refused. Nor does that of Cornelius — since his first re- 
 ceiving, the Holy Ghost was evidently intended merely to 
 remove the prejudice of Peter against admitting Gentiles into 
 the visible church, (Acts x. 44-48.) Here, again, none 
 are refused. The only passage exhibiting the appearance 
 of terms or restrictions in baptizing, is the supposed question 
 of the Eunuch and the answer of Philip, in Acts viii. 37 ; 
 but which is almost universally allowed, by competent 
 judges, to be an interpolation — and, therefore, ought not 
 to be in the sacred writings.' In a word, we may defy our 
 Baptist brethren to adduce a single instance where any per- 
 sons applying for baptism for themselves, or for others, 
 
 1 See Griesbacb, Boothroyd, A. Clarke, 4c. ia Loc. 
 
279 
 
 were refused. And as we have seen that all, with an incon- 
 siderable exception, did apply — we say all, or nearly so, 
 were actually baptized — some of them, probably, more than 
 once or twice — first, by John (Luke iii. 21), then by our 
 Lord'? disciples, during his life-time (John iv. 1,2); and 
 again after his resurrection, (Acts xix. 3-5.) At least, a 
 due consideration of these passages renders it likely. That 
 all were not plunged under water appears to us unques- 
 tionable ; and will be proved more at large under the next 
 particular. We must now examine a few instances of scrip- 
 ture baptism, and we shall select those chiefly in which the 
 circumstances of the administration are detailed, and on 
 which the dipping hypothesis is mainly erected. 
 
 VII. The Ethiopian Eunuch, (Acts viii. 27-40.) — 
 As this is a case on which our opponents lay the greatest 
 stress in supporting their exclusive mode of baptism, and as 
 it offers the only instance of Christian baptism in the New 
 Testament, where the circumstances of the administration 
 are largely noticed, 1 we have placed it first in our enume- 
 ration. It is roundly and repeatedly asserted that Philip 
 put the Eunuch entirely under water. The grounds of this 
 assertion, are the meaning of the terms employed, especially 
 the prepositions eis and ek. In reply, we beg to offer the 
 following remarks, to show that he was not immersed, but 
 only affused or sprinkled by the deacon. 
 
 i. The Greek terms, as we have abundantly proved, are 
 as favourable to our view of the case as to that of our op- 
 ponents — the verb boptizo meaning to pour, sprinkle, or 
 apply, the water, as well as to dip or immerse the body — 
 and the prepositions eis and ek, implying no more than that 
 they went to the water and returned from it. The first pre- 
 
 i Booth, vol. ii. p. 506. 
 
.ion being translated to or vnto five hundred and 
 thirty-eight times in the NVw Testament, and the latter 
 from one hundred and eighty-six times — this point is placed 
 lx?yoncl debate. Dipping, therefore, cannot be estabh- 
 from the terms employed ; while the circumstances, when 
 duly weighed, make such an action highly improbable. 
 
 ii. The place where this rite was administered, leads 
 one to conclude that sprinkling or pouring was the method 
 adopted. It is called a desert, (Acts viii. 36.) Nov. 
 desert, according to the definition of one of our opponents, 
 4 is a part of the earth little inhabited or manured, wanting 
 
 * pleasant rivers, elegant trees, fruits, &c.' l Hence tin 
 wonderful diffusion of gospel blessings, among heathen na- 
 tions, is thus expressed by the prophet : — ' In the wilder- 
 ' ness shall waters break out and streams in the desert.' (Is. 
 xxxv. 6.) Had there been much water in this place, as the 
 remark of Mr. Keach implies, it would have been culti- 
 vated, and not have remained a desert. We conclude, there- 
 fore, that the place was unfavourable to dipping. (See Ps. 
 lxiii. 1.) This is corroborated by an historical fact. When 
 Cambyses was about to invade Egypt, in theyear627, B.C. 
 and had to pass this very spot or near it, * he contracted 
 
 * with the Arabian king, that lay next the borders of Pa- 
 
 * lestine and Egypt, to supply him with water while he 
 ' passed the deserts that lay between these two countries ; 
 1 where accordingly it was brought on camels' backs ; with- 
 
 * out which he could not have marched his army that way.' v 
 A parallel case is mentioned by the Jewish historian : When 
 Caesar was marching his army from Ptolemais to Pelusium. 
 through the land of Judea, and probably by the rout partly- 
 taken by the Eunuch, it being a dry country, Herod sup- 
 
 1 Keach*fe Met. p. 127. a Rollln's Anc. Hist. b. 4, | 
 
281 
 
 plied it with water and other provisions thither and on its 
 return, to the delight of Augustus. 1 
 
 in. This water is also without a scripture name, while 
 every material spring, fountain, or well of the Holy Land, 
 has some significant appellation. The expression of the 
 Eunuch is remarkable : ' See, water V (* here is/ being in 
 italics, and consequently not in the original), since it implies 
 that it was approached without being distantly seen, and 
 created a pleasing surprise in the traveller's mind. When 
 we hear a Baptist bard chanting — 
 
 * The silver stream ran fall in sight;' 2 
 
 we can only smile at the simple fiction of his partial muse. 
 It was probably either a well with a stone trough provided, 
 as was common, by some philanthropist, to prevent travel- 
 lers from perishing in their journeys through this dry and 
 desert land ; 3 or as Jerome, who lived many years in that 
 neighbourhood, says, * This water was a brook at the foot 
 * of Bethsur, or Bethsoron. We often pass over such little 
 4 brooks in our common road.' 4 
 
 iv. Let it be remarked further, that had Philip and the 
 Eunuch gone down into the water and come up out of the 
 water, it by no means proves that Philip immersed the 
 black gentleman. Maclean says, * we do not affirm that 
 ■ going down into the water is the same with baptism or im- 
 4 mersing. Philip and the Eunuch might go to their necks 
 1 in water, and yet not be baptized.' 5 This is palpable, 
 since Philip went into the water as well as the Eunuch, 
 and yet was not baptized. This rite was something done 
 
 ' Hist. Wars, b. 1, c. 20. s. 3. ■ Fellows, p. 28. 
 
 5 Harmer** Obs. c !• obs. 5; and c. 9, obs. 52. < Script. Reasons, p. 65. 
 
 • V. Hi. p. 118. See also Gill, p. 213. 
 
 Aa 5 
 
,»hile in the water, and perfectly irrespective of going 
 and coming out of it. 
 
 v. Besides, to say that they would not have gone into 
 the water, had it not been for the purpose of dipping, , 
 base the immersion-scheme on a mere conjecture. AV< 
 ate not to assert, that neither of them went into tin. 
 water at all — let our opponents prove as well as assert the 
 contrary, and then enlarge on the necessity of keeping I 
 to the letter of scripture, and avoid all inferential reasoni: 
 Further, might they not have gone into the water without 
 either of them going under? Have not our brethren done 
 so frequently? Is it not done every day of our H 
 Might they not have gone into the water up to their ancles 
 or knees, and then might not the deacon have poured or 
 sprinkled some on the head or face of the Eunuch ? Nor 
 would this kind of consecration have surprised the Chan - 
 cellor, as being an unscriptural or a new-fangled method. 
 He had been reading just before this sentence: * So shall 
 'he sprinkle many nations' (Is. lii. 15): — a sprinkling, 
 therefore, was what he might have expected — probably the 
 very expressions led him to solicit baptism. With this 
 species of purification also, as a proselyte of Judaism, he 
 in u st have been perfectly familiar ; whereas the action of 
 one man putting another under water, was a thing he had 
 never before seen or heard of, and what therefore he was 
 very unlikely to solicit. 
 
 vi. To contend that the Eunuch had water enough in 
 his chariot for a sprinkling, is all imagination. 1 Our op- 
 ponents might as well conclude he had enough for his nu- 
 HM rona retinue, with which they are pleased to honour him, 
 and for his several horses ; and that he enjoyed the tooting 
 " Jenkins's Dcf. p. 119; Kyland, p. 11. 
 
288 
 
 gratification of riding amidst leathern bottles of this element 
 — sitting as stately as Neptune upon the waves ! There is 
 no intimation that he had even any, and therefore if only a 
 few drops were required, they must go where it was to be 
 obtained — nor is there a word said about his having a jug 
 to fetch any in. Our friends, who object to inference in other 
 cases, are pleased to avail themselves of it here by whole- 
 sale. They also forget in this place what they have repeat- 
 edly told us, that pure, fair, or running water, or, as Jose- 
 plius says, ' water taken from perpetual springs,' ' was always 
 essential to Jewish consecrations and Christian baptism. 
 Dr. Gill, however, tells us, that wine and water, mixed, 
 was the usual drink of those countries ;* and if this were 
 mixed before-hand, as is most probable, it would have 
 been quite unfit for baptism. Consequently, whatever he 
 might have had in his warm leathern bottles was no more 
 fit for this sacrament than if it had, by a miracle, been all 
 turned into wine. 
 
 vn. But there is another insurmountable objection to the 
 dipping of the Eunuch — namely, the inconveniency and 
 indelicacy of its accompaniments. This black Chancellor 
 must have been either dipped in his travelling dress and 
 have rode on his way rejoicing, saturated to the skin, with 
 the water running about his carriage, to the injury of all 
 its appurtenances and to the endangering of his life — which 
 no person in his senses will believe ; or he must have been 
 baptized naked before a large retinue of servants, which our 
 opponents, as before remarked, are pleased to place about 
 his highness ; 3 or, lastly, he must have shifted his clothes 
 twice, and have been in a state of nudity twice before his 
 attendants. Dr. Jenkins tells us, though not from his own 
 
 i Ant. b. 8, c. 9, s. 1. - 1\ 419. * JiMikinsV Dcf. p. 119. 
 
> I 
 
 knowledge, that his servants helped him ' to change hil 
 1 raiment, took notice of the whole transaction; and their 
 4 curiosity excited enquiry about the liberties taken In 
 * Philip/ * Now, that a black man — for he was an Ethio- 
 pian (Acts viii. 27) — and one of a nation celebrated for 
 the darkness of their skin (Jer. xiii. 23) — a gentleman, a 
 chancellor — and, above all, a eunuch — should have done 
 all this, and that we should be called to believe it, without 
 the least scripture authority, exceeds all our credulity. \\ • 
 therefore unhesitatingly conclude, that he was not put under 
 water, but that he was baptized by affusion or aspersion. 
 The leading terms of the narrative are in perfect unison with 
 this interpretation ; and the circumstances of the case must 
 place this view of the subject beyond all doubt in every in- 
 genuous mind. 
 
 VIII. The blessed Redeemer, (Matt. iii. 13-16; 
 Mark i. 9, 10; Luke iii. 21-23.) — It is strongly con- 
 tended that our Lord was put under water by John the 
 Baptist. This is advocated from the supposed sense of the 
 word baptize, the meaning of a Greek preposition, and the 
 circumstances of the case. A few considerations will show 
 the fallacy of all these testimonies. 
 
 i. The terms will not prove it. Baplizo, as we have 
 amply established, meaning either to dip or pour, immene 
 or sprinkle — and can be interpreted only by the connexion. 
 It is not said our Saviour went into the water; but this is 
 assumed by the expression he came up out of the water. It 
 should, however, be remembered that the Greek preposition 
 apo, in Matt. iii. 16, is translated from three hundred and 
 seventy-four times, and out o/only forty-six times, in the 
 New Testament ; and that one of our most learned oppo- 
 i lb. p. 120. 
 
28S 
 
 nents has observed that it might be generally, if not always, 
 thus rendered.' Consequently, we can derive no satisfac- 
 tory evidence as to the mode of our Lord's baptism from the 
 leading terms of the narrative ; and therefore shall not con- 
 clude that he was plunged under water until our brethren 
 have adduced some more convincing evidence. 
 
 ii. But even admitting that our Lord did go into the 
 water, and, while in it, was baptized by John, can our 
 brethren tell us how it was done ? A total submersion of 
 the body does not necessarily follow a mere immersion of 
 the feet and legs. The ancient carved and sculptured re- 
 presentations of baptism, as given by Robinson 2 and Tay- 
 lor, 3 place the candidates sometimes in the water and some- 
 times not, while the officer appears pouring the element on his 
 head, in the character of anointing or consecrating to office. 
 This method, in respect of adults, is still adopted in the 
 Greeek church. Nor would such a previous walking into 
 the edge of a river be thought any thing very significant in 
 a country where the people, as Matthew Henry says, * went 
 ■ bare-legged.' Going into the water, or being put into it, 
 as practised by infants in the Greek and other eastern 
 churches, is only a preparatory rite, in the form of ablution, 
 and not baptism itself, which consits in a subsequent pour- 
 ing or sprinkling. But we say there is not a particle of 
 solid proof that our Lord went into the water at all — and 
 consequently none that he came absolutely out of it. He 
 went to the water necessarily; for John was baptizing with 
 the running stream, and when some of it had been poured 
 on his head, he immediately retired. 
 
 in. But we have internal evidence that John baptized 
 our Lord by pouring or sprinkling. ' The harbinger,' says 
 
 1 Ryland's App. p. 28. I Hist, plates. « Letter 1st, plates. 
 
286 
 
 Mr. Taylor * was informed that Jesus baptized, and all 
 1 men came to him, (John iii. 34.) Part of his answer is, 
 44 He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God 
 " God giveth not the spirit out of a measure (ek metrou) unto 
 M him," as water is given at baptism by his forerunner to 
 1 those upon whom it is poured. And this is fixed to the 
 ' subject of baptism, by the occasion of the story, which \\ M 
 1 a question of debate between the disciples of John and cer- 
 1 tain Jews about ritual purification. To no other period of 
 
 * our Lord's life, than his baptism, could these words spoken 
 4 by John refer in those early days of his ministry, when lie 
 4 had as yet done comparatively nothing ; and what but the 
 
 * action of giving could recall, by association of ideas, the 
 Baptist's mind to the recollection of giving out of a 
 measure V l 
 
 iv. It may tend further to confirm our view of the Sa- 
 viour's baptism, if w r e remark that Aaron and his sons, being 
 types of our Lord in his priestly office, were, as such, bap- 
 tized by Moses. 8 The elements employed were three — 
 water (Lev. viii. 6), oil (v. 12), and blood, (v. 23, 24.) 
 The mode of application, in the first instance, as we have 
 already proved, was pouring or sprinkling — in the second, 
 it was pouring only — and, in the third, it was staining, or 
 applying a colour. As the anti-type of all this, our Lord 
 was baptized with water by John (Matt. iii. 13); with 
 an unction by the Father (Is. lxi. 1 ; Luke iii/23) ; and 
 with blood by his enemies, (Luke xii. 50.) In reference 
 to this three-fold element of baptism, it is said, * this is h«- 
 
 * that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; and 
 4 there are three that bear witness in earth"— the Spirit, (or 
 
 * unction,) and the water, and the blood — and these agree 
 
 » Taylor, Lett. 1st, p 37, 88. 2 Kcach's Met. p. 34S. 
 
287 
 
 1 in one,' (1 John v. 6, 8.) Now, as the consecration of 
 the type was, in every instance, by applying the element 
 to the object, it is but fair to infer, without valid reasons to 
 the contrary, that this of the anti-type was similar. Indeed, 
 we are certain, that Christ was baptized with the Spirit and 
 blood, by pouring or applying the elements — and have no 
 hesitation in concluding that the water of baptism was 
 brought in contact with his sacred person in a similar manner, 
 v. Moreover, as in the case of the Eunuch and of all others 
 baptized in the open air, if the principles of our opponents 
 are correct, our Lord must have been dipped naked, and 
 stood exposed to the multitude present all the time — or he 
 must have been dipped in his ordinary apparel, and, drip- 
 ping with water, must have retired to his lodgings, which 
 were probably distant — or he must have changed his clothes, 
 and thereby have exposed his sacred person twice — before 
 and after the immersion. And if this occurred in the month 
 of November, as one of our opponents believes, and if the 
 weather at that season of the year is sometimes as wet and 
 as cold in Judea, as it is in this country ; ' the evil must have 
 been greatly augmented, and the probability of his being 
 immersed very much diminished. These are difficulties which 
 are insurmountable. The indelicacy of the case is so at all 
 events. Besides it does not appear that our Lord had a 
 change of raiment, at least, with him. In fact, circum- 
 stances lead us to conclude, he had only one suit in the 
 world — and therefore the usual plea of taking a second 
 dress is unavailing here. (See Luke ix. 3; Matt, xxvii. 
 35.) Upon the whole, we have no hesitation in saying 
 that the Saviour was affused or sprinkled by the Baptist, 
 and not dipped at all. 
 
 I Gibbs, p. 176. 
 
288 
 
 VL Ptmiming this deduction to be correct, it n 
 evident, that for our opponents to be continually telling 
 their ignorant hearers, who feel a little reluctant to be 
 jKjpped under water, that, unless they submit to it like 
 ( ttirigt, they will not fulfil all righteousness — is to produce 
 an inference without premises, and an argument without a 
 foundation ; since Christ was never dipped at all in baptism. 
 Resides, to fulfil all righteousness, the Son of God was cir- 
 cumcised when eight days old, regularly kept the passover, 
 and observed all the other Jewish institutions — to fulfil all 
 righteousness like Christ, therefore our brethren should do 
 the same. Even in baptism, the case, on their own show- 
 ing, was singular. He was baptized without saving faith, or 
 repentance, or any recorded answer of a good conscience. 
 To follow his example fully, none should be dipped till 
 they are thirty years of age — and a river, if not the Jordan, 
 should always be the place of administration. Perhaps, our 
 opponents, who make the supposed immersion of Christ a 
 topic of such universal application, can tell us into what 
 name Christ was baptized, and what was the form of words 
 need on that interesting occasion? 
 
 IX. Cornelius and his family. The account is rela : 
 in Acts x. 44-48, on which we shall be rather concise. 
 
 i. We remark that there is something significant in the 
 
 1 of Peter: ' Who can forbid water V But is ever 
 
 such language used in reference to dipping in a brook or 
 
 a baptistry ? It is, however, very appropriate, when applied 
 
 to a servant's bringing some in a vessel, as is done in our 
 
 administration of this rite. There is, also, another circum- 
 
 < in this transaction of a most decisive character. When 
 
 i saw the Holy Ghost descend in a visible manner, on 
 
 nturion and his family, as he fell upon the disci j 
 
289 
 
 the day of Pentecost, he immediately concluded that they 
 might be baptized with water, (Acts xi. 15, compare 
 Acts ii. 3.) This ostensible outpouring of the Spirit 
 brought to his recollection the words of Christ respecting 
 the baptism of John. Hear his language : — * And as I 
 k began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at 
 * the beginning : then remembered I the words of the Lord 
 ■ how he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye 
 1 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.' (Acts xi. 15, 16, 
 compare Acts i. 5.) But whence could arise this instanta- 
 neous association in the apostle's mind, on the system of our 
 opponents ? What resemblance was there to create such 
 an idea, if John immersed all the people ? Are any two 
 acts more directly opposite than the descent of the Spirit on 
 the heads of a family, and plunging such a family into a 
 river ? That the Spirit descended, we know — it being a 
 fact universally admitted ; but what intimation was this to 
 Peter that the people should therefore be dipped ? Sup- 
 posing, however, that water-baptism, as administered by 
 John and the apostles of Christ, was by causing the element 
 to descend upon them out of the hand or out of a measure, 
 the whole narrative becomes consistent and natural ? You 
 will also observe that the outpouring of the Spirit and bap- 
 tism by water are denominated one and the same thing, 
 and are so blended in this narrative, that it is impossible to 
 conclude that they were not precisely similar in action. 
 Hence we conclude that both were by an affusion or an 
 aspersion. 
 
 ii. Here it may not be out of place to observe, that the 
 case of Cornelius affords us the only instance where it is 
 said the Holy Spirit was given to persons previous to water- 
 baptism. For this extraordinary method a reason may be 
 
 Bb 
 
290 
 
 found in the reluctance of Peter to receive into the viable 
 communion of the church any who were recog 
 ( ientiles. Most of his colleagues were infected wit 
 lar prejudice, (Acts xi. 1-3.) To remove this impression 
 and to justify his proceeding, the Spirit was poured out in 
 his presence, and fully satisfied his scrupulous conscie; 
 Nor should it be forgotten, that the baptism of belie v 
 as contended for by our opponents, and of believers I 
 their seed, as advocated by many Pedobaptists, is no doc- 
 trine of the New Testament. That real believers and their 
 seed were baptized, we do not question 3 but we do deny 
 that it was confined to them. In the case of adults * convic- 
 tion of the truth of the report' necessarily preceded bap* 
 — since none would have been baptized without it. 
 that the apostle looked for real conversion or regenerat 
 as a necessary qualification for the reception of this ordi- 
 nance, we deny — and, were it within the range of our 
 present investigation, we could easily disprove. The New 
 Testament baptisms were never deemed a test of char;. 
 but only an exhibition of grace and truth. The illustration 
 and confirmation of this sentiment we trust soon to witness 
 from the pen of a gentleman pre-eminently competent to 
 do it ample justice. 
 
 X. The Samaritans, Paul and the Jailor. — These 
 baptisms, to instance no others, are all so circumstanced, as 
 to force the conclusion that they were not dipped, but 
 simply affused or sprinkled. As these cases involve nothing 
 very material to this part of our enquiry, we have pi 
 them together, and shall treat them but briefly. 
 
 i. The Samaritans, (Acts viii. 10-12.) Of these it is 
 manifest that a great number was baptized. It will al 
 recollected that pure or running water, or such as had not 
 
291 
 
 been polluted by natural or moral defilement, was neces- 
 sary in every individual baptism. Now, if the candi- 
 dates had been all dipped, at least three hogsheads of 
 water were requisite for each full-grown person, and no 
 small quantity for the little folks. Let it, however, be re- 
 marked, that the term Samaria, in the time of Christ and 
 afterwards, meant a country and not a city. 1 The words of 
 Luke, in Acts viii. 5, are literally, ' Then Philip went 
 ' down to a city of Samaria.' 2 This is supposed to have 
 been the ancient Sechem or Sychar where, about five 
 years before, our Lord and his disciples had spent two 
 days, (John iv. 5, 40.) Assuming this to be the truth, 
 we may derive circumstantial evidence in support of our 
 scheme. Now Sychar, like the city of Nahor, (Gen. 
 xxiv. 11, 13, 43), Ramah (1 Sam. ix. 11), and other 
 towns erected in the neighbourhood of wells or fountains, 
 and generally on elevated ground, was supplied with pure 
 water from Jacob's well, which was distant from the city 
 and of considerable depth, (John iv. 27.) That water 
 sufficient for immersing all these Samaritans, ' from the least 
 * to the greatest,' was not fetched on this occasion, we may 
 fairly infer, and therefore conclude that the people were 
 baptized in the usual way by pouring or sprinkling. This 
 assumption renders all the circumstances of the case feasible 
 and consistent ; and though the identity of this city may 
 be disputed, yet there can hardly be a question that the 
 many who believed in our Lord on his visit to this place, 
 were baptized immediately on believing the truth of his re- 
 port \ when the difficulties of immersion would have been 
 nearly as great as in the present instance. 
 
 ii. The Apostle Paul, (Acts ix. 8-19.) — That this per- 
 
 1 Calmet's Diet, in Loc. 2 Comp. Bible in Loc. 
 
son, after the exhaustion of three days fasting, blindness, 
 and unparalleled perturbation of mind, should, without 
 B specific command of God, which was not given, ha\( 
 been plunged naked or dressed into a river or reservoir of 
 cold water in the depth of Winter (25th of January), 
 fore he ate a morsel of victuals, is what few will be credu- 
 lous enough to conclude. It would have partaken of so 
 iuueh inconsideration and even of cruelty, that Ananias 
 certainly would not have done it without an especial in- 
 junction, which, as said before, was never given to him. 
 It is particularly said that he was to arise or stand up to be 
 baptized — a mode of expression every way unsuitable to 
 the action of dipping— 'for which a person should rather 
 have lain down or inclined towards the * liquid grave. 
 Upon the whole we infer, that the apostle was baptized by 
 sprinkling or pouring. In this case the ceremony would 
 have consumed but a very short period, would not have 
 added to Paul's consternation, already overwhelming, and 
 in fact would have comported with all the requisites of the 
 original institution and practice. 
 
 in. The Philippian Jailor, (Acts xvi. 25-34.) That 
 this man * and all his,' were plunged by Paul or Silas, 
 pears very improbable. lie had heard the apostles con- 
 
 M about Christ perhaps half an hour, and that at mid- 
 night. He then * disturbed the sweet repose" of his 
 and children, who had long been with him in bed — got 
 them out of their rooms — and they were baptized the very- 
 same hour. If they were baptized by dipping, it 
 either in a bath, as Dr. Ryland supposes,* or in a neigh- 
 bouring river, as Dr. Jenkins imagines. 4 That there was no 
 
 ' Boot!], vol. i. p. 26. " B«| ISU. 
 
 > Jenkin's Defence, p. Rfc 
 
293 
 
 bath in this eastern prison for the purpose of washing the 
 prisoners on entering, may be inferred from the fact, that 
 Paul and Silas had been sent to their cells without the ad- 
 vantage of it. And the improbability of the whole posting off 
 in the dark to some neighbouring river with second suits of 
 clothes on their arms, has been exhibited before. In fact, 
 no one would have fancied they were immersed whose 
 mind had not been prejudiced greatly in favour of dipping. 
 As our's has not been, we assume that the Jailor and his 
 family were baptized by affusion or aspersion. This 
 conclusion renders the detail of St. Luke harmonious 
 and natural. 
 
 XI. We have now mentioned all the cases in which the 
 circumstances of scripture baptism are more or less narrated, 
 and feel no question but that we have your verdict in favour 
 of our deductions. In examining this subject, you perceive 
 that we have taken broad and extensive grounds of argu- 
 mentation, as the only valid method of properly eliciting 
 the facts of the case. Our opponents, however, in main- 
 taining their point, are very much limited in their data. 
 One of them has stated, in a very few words, the entire 
 basis of their system : — * The acceptation of the Greek 
 ' word — the circumstances of our Lord's baptism (Matt. 
 1 iii. 16) — and those of the Eunuch (Acts viii. 38, 39) 
 1 —as also the allusions, in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, 
 4 to a burial and resurrection.' ' — And this, in fact, is the 
 whole. How far it will support their cause, we leave you 
 to judge. That a shadow of evidence cannot be obtained 
 from any of them, we think has been sufficiently established 
 — -nor do we remember a case of immersion-baptism men- 
 tioned in all the compass of the Old or New Testaments. 
 
 Maclean, v. iii. p. 21. 
 
 Bb5 
 
294 
 
 SECTION FIFTH. 
 
 HERS BAPTIZED BY JOHN AND THE AI'UH 
 
 Under the last particular it was observed, that none wh<> 
 desired to receive baptism by the forerunner or follow <: 
 Christ were ever refused — that no conditions were made 
 likely to restrict the applicants to any considerable amount 
 — and that several circumstances conspired to induce the 
 people en masse to apply first to John for baptism and then 
 to Christ. This being assumed, we purpose now to show 
 that the numbers consecrated by John during the period he 
 preceded Christ as a minister of religion, and by the disci- 
 ples of our Lord on the day of Pentecost and subsequent!) . 
 were, on account of their numbers, not submersed, but 
 simply affused or sprinkled. We shall begin with, — 
 
 I. The Baptism of John. — 4 Then went to him Jeru- 
 1 salem, and all Jades, and all the region round about Jor- 
 4 dan. and were baptized of him in (or on) the Jordan, 
 1 confessing their sins,' (Matt. iii. 5, 6. See Mark i. 5.) 
 As you have repeatedly heard, it is a principle with our 
 opponents, in positive institutions, not to reason, infer, or 
 analogize on the Word of God, but to take it literally, and 
 understand it as plain people do, in its grammatical a 
 and according to our vernacular translation — since tin \ 
 argue, that otherwise common readers of the Bible would 
 be obliged to pin their faith on the sleeve of their teacher. 
 To pass over the difficulties which such a mode of under- 
 standing the Holy Oracles would create at every step, and 
 in particular, and to take our friends on tolerably fair 
 grounds, we will suppose with our plain fellow-country- 
 men, that all or nearly all the people, old and young of 
 
206 
 
 course, living in Jerusalem and Judea, and in the region or 
 countries round about Jordan, were baptized of John by 
 total immersion in the river of Jordan, just as it is practised 
 by our brethren in Great Britain. On this conjecture two 
 or three enquiries may be raised : — 
 
 1. Whether John alone administered this sacrament, or 
 whether he \va9 assisted in it by his disciples 1 To this we 
 reply, that there is no more express account of John's be- 
 ing aided in this operation by his followers, than there is of 
 infants being baptized by him — nor yet half so much — for 
 we may from the terms employed infer, that he did the 
 latter, but no intimation is given of the former. There is 
 not, however, any circumstance which indicates that John 
 was aided in his work by his disciples ; and unless our 
 friends have recourse to supposition and induction, which 
 they deny us in similar cases, because fatal to their scheme, 
 they are forced to conclude, that he, single-handed, bap- 
 tized all the multitudes that came to him, (Luke iii. 7.) 
 Further, when the comparative numbers of those baptized 
 by Christ and John are mentioned, it is said, ' Jesus bap- 
 4 tized not, but his disciples.' And this is adduced to ac- 
 count for his consecrating more than John, (John iv. 1,2) 
 This reasoning, however, would have been invalid, had 
 John been assisted by his disciples. Besides, what Mr. 
 Booth says on another occasion cannot be inapplicable 
 here. * It is plain/ says he, 1 ■ that this language (Gen. 
 4 xvii. 9.3,) ascribes to Abraham the whole performance of 
 4 this rite, exclusive of any assistant ; for it was the pa- 
 4 triarch himself who took Ishmael and every male in his 
 4 own house, and circumcised them. That all this was 
 * performed by Abraham in one day, we have no doubt, 
 
 i Vol. i. p. 253. 
 
296 
 
 ' because the facts rest upon divine testimony.' Tin- | 
 ■hall therefore consider established. 
 ii. The next question is, How long was John em; 
 in baptizing this immense number? You will bear in 
 mind that all these jx>ople are said to have been bapti :ed 
 prior to the baptism of Christ. ' Now when all the people 
 1 were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also h 
 1 baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened. 
 (Luke iii. 21.) In Matt. iii. 5, 6, and Mark i. o, it ii 
 expressly said that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, 
 and the region round about Jordan, were baptized t> 
 our Lord visited the Baptist. It should be further remem- 
 bered that John was the son of a priest (Luke i. 5), and 
 « -unsequently a priest himself, (Numb, xvi. 40.) Now as 
 such he could not have entered his priestly office, part of 
 which, as we have seen, was baptizing, till he was thirty 
 years of age, (Numb. iv. 3-47 ; 1 Chron. xxiii. 3.) In 
 this opinion we are supported by the declaration of a cele- 
 brated opponent, who says, ' When John was about thirty 
 * years of age, in obedience to the heavenly call, he em. 
 ' on his ministry.' ' Now, as said before, all, or nearly all, 
 these people were baptized previous to the baptism of 
 Christ, who, ' when he began to be about thirty years of 
 age (Luke iii. 23), was baptized by his harbinger. But 
 John was only six months older than our blessed Saviour 
 (Like i. 36), therefore all this work was done in about 
 the space of six months. This position we shall also 
 dei in valid. 
 
 in. The third question is, How many did John baptize S 
 Tins, indeed, cannot be answered precisely : but if we may 
 avail ourselves of the best information to be obtained, as 
 I Rob. p. 2. 
 
297 
 
 our opponents do in similar cases, John must have baptized 
 an immense number: the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, 
 and all the region round about Jordan were baptized. Now 
 we learn, from good authority, that about forty years after, 
 and subsequent to a long series of oppressions by the Ro- 
 mans, after much intestine warfare, and doubtless many 
 emigrations to distant places, when Titus besieged Jerusa- 
 lem, 1,100,000 persons were slain in this city alone, 
 nearly 300.000 perished in other parts of the country, and 
 about 100,000 were carried away captive by the con- 
 querors ; the Christians, who were very numerous, ac- 
 cording to our Lord's direction (Luke xxi. 21), escaped 
 the catastrophe by a seasonable flight ; ' and no inconsi- 
 derable number remained still in the land, and who in the 
 reign of Adrian, on account of a furious revolt, were 
 slaughtered to the number of 500,000 ; multitudes were 
 sold as slaves, and others were banished from the land.* 
 Whence we may reasonably conclude, that at the time 
 John was baptizing, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region 
 round about Jordan, comprehended, at least, 2,000,000 of 
 inhabitants. Nor is this computation taken from profane 
 authors in any degree incompatible with the statements of 
 scripture. In the time of David, there were in Israel 
 1,100,000 men of war above twenty years of age, and in 
 Judah 470,000 ; the tribes of Levi and Benjamin not being 
 numbered, (1 Ciiron. xxi. 5.) Jeroboam, king of Israel, 
 brought 800,000 men against Abijah, king of Judah, who 
 met him with 400,000, (2 Ciiron. xiii. 3): and Asa's 
 army, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, con- 
 sisted of 580,000 soldiers, (2 Ciiron. xiv. 8.) And though 
 
 NewtOH on (lie Propli. Pise. 30, p. II. Kd. Loud. {823. 
 '-• Adam's Kel. \V. Displayed, v. ii. p. 2fW. 
 
2!)s 
 
 tlic numbers before the captivity, \ct when 
 ndend that not only a large portion of the trib< 
 Judah and Benjamin returned to Judea, but also of the 
 other ten tribes (Acts xxvi. 7 ; J as. i. 1), we may fairly 
 conclude, that after a lapse of five hundred years, the Jews, 
 then so called, were as numerous as the tribes of Judah 
 and Benjamin had ever been; and which, upon a mode- 
 rate calculation, could not have been less than 2,000,000 
 of people, as before supposed. Indeed the Jews pre.-ent at 
 the Passover, in the year 65, were 3,000,000;' and a 
 little later, a still greater number had congregated in the 
 metropolis on a similar occasion;' which would make the 
 total amount at least 4,000,000, double the number before 
 assumed. However, as many of these probably came from 
 distant countries, let us suppose that 2,000,000 of people 
 came under the influence of John's baptism. 
 
 All these, then, according to the letter of the sacred his- 
 torian, and according to the literal mode of interpretation 
 adopted by our brethren, were baptized by immersion, du- 
 ring the space of six months, by the single-handed efforts 
 of John the Baptist. We have said 2,000,000, for the - 
 of round numbers; the few individuals who would not 
 submit, and others who might not have applied, or were 
 baptized at Enon afterwards, are not sufficient to affect the 
 argument founded on this calculation. 
 
 iv. Now, the fourth question is, Whether this was prac- 
 ticable .' You will observe, that John had to prearh, 
 travel, repose, and take refreshment, during this period, 
 well as to plunge the people. Nor have we any account of 
 his being a man of more than ordinary vigour of constitu- 
 tion or muscular strength of body, neither do we leani that 
 
 I HUt. of the Wars, b. 2, c. 14, ». 3. Ik b. I e. 9, s. 8. 
 
299 
 
 the people dipped were less robust or more eas 
 than the generality of candidates for immersion in th 
 present day. Suppose, then, we take the numbers for 
 granted, and conclude that John actually baptized them all. 
 In that case, he must have stood in the water up to his 
 knees or middle, from morning till night, for the full space 
 of six months, and must have plunged over head and ears 
 and pulled up again about 12,800 every day, sabbaths ex- 
 cepted — about 1,070 every hour, and nearly 18 every 
 minute ! That all this was impossible, we need not argue — 
 every child present must perceive it. 
 
 v. But lest it should be thought we had formed our basi.- 
 of argumentation on too large a scale, we will, with Dr. Cox, 
 consider the language as expressive of an indefinite number, 
 though comprehending * great multitudes.' ' We will, then, 
 suppose that John baptized but the tenth of the probable 
 inhabitants of the country ; and surely this cannot be consi- 
 dered an extravagant calculation. We will also suppose 
 that all were adults, men and women, giving themselves up 
 to the discipleship of the Baptist. To have accomplished 
 this, he must have stood in the water twelve hours every 
 day for six months, sabbaths excepted, and have dipped 
 over head and ears and pulled up again 1,280 between the 
 rising and setting sun— about 107 every hour — and nearly 
 2 every minute. The difficulty of doing this must be ap- 
 parent on more accounts than one : — His garments must 
 have rotted — his saturated flesh must have peeled from 
 his bones— and the cold water must, without a miracle, 
 have caused a fatal rush of blood to his head. But let us 
 refer to numbers. Now, as this reasoning rests on facts and 
 experience rather than theoretical calculation, let us hear 
 
 I P. 113. 
 
300 
 
 the decisions of practical men : — Dr. Jenkins says, that 
 'any man of common Btrength and alertness might dip 
 
 1 thirty-seven in two hours." — Mr. Burt is very bold and 
 saitb, l I question not but one minister may, with the 1j 
 1 ingof God, unmexge in the sacred names used in bapt, 
 • and raise again from the water, fifty in an hour for five 
 ' hours successively; and that he would find a vast deal of 
 ' pleasure therein.'* Of course Mr. Burt means in this 
 conjecture, for it is nothing more, that the blessing of God 
 includes some extraordinary, if not miraculous, assistance. 
 Nor did he probably contemplate that the minister might 
 ever be a little weak brother and his subjects very large and 
 weighty. But, after all, this would be only a trifle com- 
 pared with the labours of ' poor John the Dipper I' 
 
 vi. We may, however, be questioned in return, 
 Whether the baptism of so many people, in so short a time, 
 by a single individual, would have been practicable on the 
 supposition, that they were all baptized by affusion or as- 
 persion, as administered by the great body of Christians in 
 the present day ? We answer in the affirmative, for the 
 
 has been demonstrated. Dr. Robertson, in his His- 
 tory of America, tells us, that ' a single clergyman, in one 
 1 day, baptized 5,000 Mexicans.' : — Mr. Robinson, in his 
 History of Baptism, says, that ' in the font of the Vatican 
 1 Church at Rome, Pope Liberius, on a holy Saturday bap- 
 1 tized, of both sexes and of different ranks, 8,810 cate- 
 L rhumens.' * — Pope Gregory cited by the hut 
 
 historian, that ' Austin baptized more than 10,000 persons 
 'in England on a Christmas day;' 5 and, according to 
 
 Booth, Francis Xavier, a missionary among the In- 
 
 « TV 5 Worki, t. lv, p. 66 
 
 * P. LIS. * P. 116. 
 
301 
 
 ts, baptized 15,000 of them in one day. 1 Admitting 
 the truth of these statements, two things are manifest, our 
 opponents being umpires of the question,' that neither the 
 clergyman, Liberius, Austin, nor Xavier, baptized by im- 
 mersion ; and secondly, that John could have baptized all 
 we have supposed with perfect ease by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 vii. But we have said John was a Jewish priest, as Za- 
 charias was before him. Now as our opponents positively 
 deny the existence of proselyte baptism before his day,"* 
 the only baptism which God had appointed under the law 
 to be performed by the ministers of religion on the candi- 
 dates for purification or consecration, was pouring* sprink- 
 ling, or applying the element — this we have proved from 
 scripture and the declarations of our opponents. You have 
 seen that the congregation was sprinkled en masse, or the 
 water was aspersed upon them as a body. This mode our 
 opponents affect to ridicule when advocated by modern 
 commentators as likely to have been adopted by John in 
 respect of the multitudes he baptized. 4 But they should 
 bear in mind that Aaron and every high, and probably every 
 inferior priest, did the like at God's command, for a pur- 
 pose avowedly similar to those of a New Testament bap- 
 tism. Nor are we aware that there is any thing more 
 laughable in it than there is in a young preacher of modern 
 times dipping the folks by dozens in a river or baptistry. 
 
 viii. It may be also proper here to notice, that we have 
 no fresh specification of the mode of baptism in the writings 
 of the Evangelists ; consequently we must infer that it was 
 to be done as appointed by Moses. Nor could John, with- 
 out injunctions unknown to us, and on which, of coursC 
 
 1 Vol. i. p 266. - Supra. 3 Booth, v. ii. p. 16JMI " 
 
 « Ibid. v. i, p. 237-2 17. 
 
 c c 
 
.10-2 
 
 we cannot reason, have acted differently from his predeces- 
 : and yet Im receivi -d the sanction of the Saviour. 
 it numbers initiated by him, and the more full d 
 lopment of the original design of this institution, l>\ 
 means affect the mode of his operations. This method wai 
 divinely appointed (Heb. ix. 10), and consequently r 
 from heaven (Matt. xxi. 25), with all the doctrines and 
 duties which the precursor of the Messiah delivered and 
 inculcated, and which, rather than the manner of his conse- 
 cration, was evidently intended by baptism in the last-cited 
 passage. 1 If there were any alterations introduced, it de- 
 volves on our brethren to prove it: and as they talk and 
 write so largely on positive precepts as well as apostolical 
 examples, let them adduce their warrantry for changing 
 the mode of baptism current for at least fifteen hundred 
 years. But as this is impossible, they must allow us to as- 
 sume that it was never altered, and that John sprinkled 
 the people as his forefathers had done in their generations. 
 ix. But still it may be objected that John's baptism 
 was an entirely new ordinance peculiar to the age and oc- 
 casion of his ministry, and that any reference to the Mo- 
 saic rites cannot fairly illustrate the manner of its admini>- 
 tration. For this purpose Matt. xxi. 25, is cited : — ' The 
 * baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or of m< 
 or is it an institution of God or the invention of mortal- [ 
 This question the persons addressed were unable or unwil- 
 ling to answer — so that the passage does not prove it to be 
 of human or divine origin exclusively. We will, however, 
 admit that this was from heaven. (See John iii. 31.) 
 But then the language does not determine whether it 
 the result of an entirely new revelation of God to John, 
 i See Gill, p. HI 
 
303 
 
 specifying the subjects, mode, and design of the ceremony, 
 or the adoption of a religious ordinance long before in use 
 among the Jews. The doctrines he preached were as 
 much from heaven as the rite he administered, and were 
 probably included in the term baptism ; but they had been 
 revealed and promulgated during many preceding genera- 
 tions. The present ministry of the gospel is unquestion- 
 ably from heaven, though instituted eighteen hundred 
 years ago. The phrase from heaven, signifies only of di- 
 vine origination. (See Rom. i. 18; Jas. i. 17; Rev. iii. 
 12.) We have no positive precept or apostolic testimony 
 that it was a new thing in the earth when John entered on 
 his mission ; nor is he said to have introduced it as a re- 
 ligious service among the Jews. And even had this been 
 the case, it would not have disproved its prior observance. 
 Moses is said to have given circumcision to the Hebrews 
 (John vii. 22), though it had been administered hundreds 
 of years before among the progenitors of that chosen 
 people. He merely, at the command of God, adopted it 
 among his Levitical institutes as he found it among the 
 Hebrew tribes. Consequently the question proposed — 
 even conceding a reply, as before suggested — in no degree 
 affects the arguments previously given. It might have come 
 from heaven long before John was born — when adminis- 
 tered by him so extensively, might be called his baptism, 
 as sacrificial offerings are designated the laws of Moses ; 
 and, in its general design, the character of its subjects, and 
 the mode of its performance, might perfectly harmonize 
 with the typical purifications, initiations, or consecrations 
 under the Mosaic economy. 
 
 x. Here it may not be irrelevant to our object to observe, 
 that the Disciples of St. John the Baptist, a sect residing in 
 
804 
 
 Bast, have perpetuated or adopted ;i plan ol I 
 which corroborates our position — that .John acted in con- 
 
 lity With the supposed customs of the Jewish pp. 
 These people reiterate, in a solemn and public manner, the 
 mode of John's baptism once a year. The followin 
 Norberg's account : — ' ( >n the day when John instituted 
 1 his baptism, they repeat this sacred ordinance. They 
 ' proceed in a body to the water, and among them one who 
 
 * bears a standard ; also the priest, dressed in his camel's 
 ' hair ornaments, holding a vessel of water in his hand, be 
 1 sprinkles each person singly as he comes out of the river, 
 'saying, I renew your baptism in the name of our father 
 ' and saviour John, who, in this manner, baptized the 
 ' Jews in the Jordan and saved them : he shall save you 
 ' also. — Last of all, he immerges himself in the water for 
 " his own salvation.' ' — Here we have the people in the 
 water before their baptism and the priest after — while the 
 only transitive act is sprinkling, which is alone designated 
 the baptism. Mr. Wolfe, the missionary, found a people 
 in Mesopotamia, who also call themselves The Followers 
 of John the Baptist. ' The priests or bishops baptize child- 
 1 ren thirty days old. They take the child to the brink of 
 4 the river — a relative or friend holds the child near the sur- 
 4 face of the water, while the priest sprinkles the element 
 
 * upon it.' * — We do not lay much stress on these customs. 
 However, they may be considered as neutralizing similar 
 evidence adduced by our opponents; and they provi 
 Mr. Watson justly remarks, • that we have, in modern 
 ' times, river-baptism without immersion.' 3 
 
 II. The Baptism of the Three Thousand on the 
 
 I Loc. irnal, v. ii. p. til. 
 
 •itntcs, v. ill. p. 
 
305 
 
 Day of Pentecost. — That these people were baptized 
 by pouring or sprinkling, and not by dipping or immersing, 
 will be rendered plain from the following considerations : 
 i. The time occupied in baptizing them was too limited. 
 On the most liberal calculations, the apostles could not 
 have begun to baptize till the middle of the day. Peter did 
 not commence his sermon to the multitude till the third 
 hour of the day, or about nine o'clock according to our 
 reckoning, (Acts ii. 15.) His discourse, of which Luke 
 has ^iven us an outline in the second chapter of the Acts, 
 was evidently protracted and elaborate. Then there was 
 time employed in the subsequent enquiries and responses 
 — in explaining the design of this ordinance and all the 
 preparations for it — which would have consumed little short 
 of three hours ; and as night came on, about six o'clock in 
 the evening, when we may suppose they would have been 
 led in their operations, they could have had no more 
 than about six hours in which to perform this ceremony : 
 or, as Mr. Burt's calculations intimate, only five hours 
 were consumed in the administration. 1 For the sacred his- 
 torian renders it plain, that they were initiated into the 
 church on the very day of their conviction (Acts ii. 41) ; 
 and as our brethren assure us, that ' baptism in scripture 
 1 always preceded adding to a visible church,' 2 and that 4 the 
 4 apostolic churches were composed of baptized believers 
 ' and none ever admitted to their communion who had not 
 1 been baptized' 3 — we are necessitated to conclude that the 
 three thousand were, in this manner, initiated into the 
 church at Jerusalem in the afternoon of the day of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 ii. Let us suppose, then, that all these people had been 
 ' Treitise, p. 22. 2 Maclean, v. iii. p. 206. 3 Gibbs, p. 19. 
 
 c c 5 
 
906 
 
 baptised by the twelve apostles alone — for this is the D 
 probable interpretation — two hundred and fifty 
 would have fallen to the lot of each administrator, who, 
 on the principle of our opponents, must have imnn i 
 about forty- two per hour during six hoi -ively, or 
 
 fifty per hour during live hours without intermission, at 
 5 immersion pronouncing the sacred names used in 
 baptism — a task, no doubt, very laborious, and performed 
 but with immense pains and assiduity. There must 
 have been twelve distinct places or accommodations for 
 this baptizing, which we shall presently show you were not 
 easily procurable in Jerusalem, especially by the disciples 
 who were almost universally detested, and whose conv 
 being mostly visitors during the feast of Pentecost (Acts 
 li. 8-11), could have commanded no private or public con- 
 veniences for such an immersing. 
 
 in. If it be asserted, though it cannot be proved, that the 
 seventy brethren assisted the twelve apostles, 1 we reply that 
 while this proportionably diminishes the manual labour of 
 each within the compass of practicability, allotting but 
 thirty-six candidates to each dipper, it greatly enhances tin 
 difficulty in another respect, since not less than eight \ -1 
 convenient if not distinct places suitable to such an occ;. 
 must have been obtained under all the inauspicious circum- 
 stances mentioned before. That is, eighty-two places con- 
 ng fair and pure water sufficiently large and deep for 
 dipping men and women with despatch and delicacy, must 
 have been provided immediately, and on the spot, b\ 
 poor persecuted disciples and their equally detested, if not 
 anathematized, converts, in the city of Jerusalem. TTie 
 !>le obstacles to the accomplishment of which must 
 the dullest mind in this congregation. 
 » Jeukln's D J. Stennett, ;> 
 
307 
 
 iv. But this dipping of the three thousand, was a small 
 part of the business to be performed in five or six hours. 
 If our opponents' prerequisites to baptism are scriptural, the 
 apostles must have examined the fitness of all these can- 
 didates for the reception of this rite, and which, according to 
 modern practice, must have consumed thrice the time re- 
 quisite for their immersion. This labour must have been 
 greatly enhanced by the circumstance, that the apostles 
 knew little or nothing of their moral character previously, 
 except that they had by their vote at least become the mur- 
 derers of the Holy One and the Just ; and which was no 
 great recommendation in their favour. 1 To reply that as a 
 multitude thy gave sufficient evidence of genuine conver- 
 sion to God, will avail nothing; since a crOwd, exclaiming 
 under a sermon from a Baptist brother, ' men and brethren 
 what shall we do ? ' would not satisfy his mind that they 
 were, according to his hypothesis of believers' baptism, pro- 
 per subjects for this ordinance, nor would he know in the 
 confusion of the outcry who had absolutely offered the 
 supplication. No, he would examine them at length, one 
 by one ; and as he acts on apostolical example, he must 
 conclude that Peter and his colleagues did the same. Nor 
 would it avail our opponents to say that the apostles, be- 
 cause able to discern the spirits which influenced false 
 teachers, (1 Cor. xii. 10), were able to determine in- 
 tuitively the spiritual state of these three thousand ; since 
 what they did in this respect, all believers are to do, (1 Jn. 
 iv. ]),* since they were often mistaken, as in the case of 
 Simon Magus, and since God alone can read the heart, 
 ( I Kixgs viii. 39.) In fact this point is conceded by our 
 
 ' Booth, vol. i.p. 388. 
 2 Dr. Pye Smith's Messiah, vol. iii. p. 17 
 
308 
 
 brethren. 1 Consequently the apostles had to catechise tl 
 
 three thousand people individually and minutely on their 
 change of heart, knowledge of the gospel, moral char; < 
 purity of motives, grounds of hope and the like, besides to 
 dip them under water and take them up again in a solemn 
 manlier in five or six hours. 
 
 v. Then there is another obstacle to the immersion of 
 the three thousand on the day of Pentecost — and in the 
 time above specified. These people were baptized in their 
 ordinary clothes — or they fetched a second suit for the oc- 
 casion—or they were baptized naked. If they were dipped 
 in the clothes they had about them while listening to Peter, 
 they must have retired to their homes streaming with water, 
 and as their garments were * light and naturally loose,' their 
 saturated state would have made them stick to the body of 
 both the men and the women all the way to their lodgings. 
 Or if they ran home directly after the sermon and fetched 
 a second dress to be baptized in, they must have changed 
 their apparel twice somewhere — our brethren suppose in 
 the porches of the pool of Bethesda, where, as we have 
 shown, sixteen persons must have been dressing and un- 
 dressing in each at the same time — some pulling off their 
 dry clothes and others their wet — and have been twice in a 
 state of nudity before each other — and then the three 
 thousand wet suits must have been bundled up and taken 
 •Way to dry — or they must, in the last place, have been 
 baptized naked, and if the pool of Bethesda were the place, 
 all of them, men and women, before each other's v\ 
 ( )ne of these things, on the principle of our opponents, must 
 have occurred. But as all of them are equally incredible, 
 we conclude they were aflfused or sprinkled only. 
 
 3 Booth, v. ill. p. 156. 
 
309 
 
 vi. Let it bo further remarked, that in all ceremonial 
 purifications, of which baptism was certainly one, pure, 
 fair, clean, running or living water was required — not water 
 simply free from natural pollution, but void of all moral 
 contagion. This is intimated by the apostle, * and our bo- 
 dies washed with pure water,' or, as Josephus expresses it, 
 1 water drawn from perpetual springs,' 1 (Heb. x. 22.) It 
 is also acknowledged by our opponents : — Dr. Gale says, ' a 
 4 fountain or running stream in the remotest times was 
 1 always judged purest and most proper for purification.' 2 
 Rees tells us, that ' the early Christians went to a river, 
 1 brook, or pool of fair water, and there discharged a good 
 ' conscience towards God.' 3 Also, that 'a single rivulet 
 1 having pools of fair and deep water would have been as 
 * fit for John's baptism as if he had twenty.' 4 Therefore 
 these three thousand must have been dipped into a running 
 stream, and only one at a time, and the water must have 
 been fair or pure ; or each one of them must have been 
 dipped into a separate tank or bath, and these vessels, if 
 used repeatedly, must have been filled afresh for each can- 
 didate ; since moral pollution was supposed to attach to 
 the cleansing element. 5 This is plain from the baptisms 
 under the law, to which reference has been made already. 
 As the priest, by placing his hands on the head of the scape 
 goat in the name of the congregation, transferred their guilt 
 to the victim, so purifying the person with water trans- 
 ferred the moral pollution to the element. Now if there 
 were no running streams of fair and pure water in or near 
 Jerusalem, sufficiently large and deep for dipping the three 
 thousand people; and if these were not at the command 
 
 1 Ant. b. 3, c 9, s. 1. 2 p. in, 3 p. [78, 4 p. 126. 
 
 ■ Banter*! Often. Coat No. 598 ; 0111, p. 213. 
 
of the apostles, or some of the baptized, then at least eight 
 
 thousand hogsheads of pure water niu.^t have been procured 
 and consumed on the occasion. "Whether tbtfl ■ probable. 
 we shall proceed to examine. 
 
 vii. That there must have been a great difficulty in ob- 
 taining water in quality and quantity adapted for such an 
 extraordinary immersion is evident from the best accredited 
 evidence of different and impartial writers. We are in- 
 formed, that pure or fair water, and such as people might 
 drink, was exceedingly scarce and precious in Jerusalem 
 and its vicinity — what the inhabitants procured for use 
 being preserved with the utmost care in domestic reservoirs, 
 made at a great expense and filled chiefly by the rains and 
 snows which fell in the wet andWinter seasons. 1 (Compare 
 2 Kings xviii. 31 ; Pitov. v. 15 ; Ecc. xii. 6 ; Is. xxxvi. 
 16 ; Jer. ii. 13.) * There was no fountain to form a brook 
 1 in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem excepting that of Si- 
 1 loam — as St. Jerome expressly affirms in his commentary 
 4 on Jeremiah the fourteenth ; and which the accounts of 
 
 * travellers of later ages have confirmed. And as for the 
 
 * fountain of Siloam, which was near, sometimes it had no 
 ' water, and sometimes when it had, was not agreeable to 
 
 * drink. The Crusaders in 1099, when besieging Jerusa- 
 
 * lem, found the neighbourhood a very dry unwatered soil, 
 
 * having scarcely any brooks, fountains, or pits of fresh 
 1 water. And as for those distant fountains to which the 
 1 army were conducted, there was such pressing and hinder- 
 4 ing one another from drawing, that it was with difficulty 
 
 * and with long delays, that they got a little muddy water in 
 4 their leathern bottles, of which a draught could not be pur- 
 4 chased but at an extravagant price." Mr. Robinson ad- 
 
 • Harmer*» Obs. chap. 1. art. 21. * lb. chap. L>, art. . r >2. 
 
311 
 
 ' mits, that' in the time of Jerome, who lived there, [about 
 4 A.D. 400] Jerusalem was ill supplied with water and sub- 
 ject to great droughts — and that it is now desolate,' he 
 says, ' must be allowed.' l 
 
 Mr. Buckingham, who visited Jerusalem in January, 
 1816, says, 'at the southern extreme of this valley, we were 
 ' shown a well bearing the name of the prophet Jeremiah, 
 ' from a belief that the fire of the altar was recovered by 
 4 him at this place after the Babylonish captivity, (Mac. i. 
 * 1 9.) It is narrow, but of considerable depth, and is sunk 
 ' entirely out of a bed of rock. Being lower than any of 
 1 the wells at Jerusalem, it retains a good supply of water 
 ' while the others are dry. We found here a party of twelve 
 1 or fifteen Arabs drawing water in leathern buckets, by 
 ' cords and pulleys, and from twenty to thirty asses laden 
 ' with skins of it for the city. The Pool of Siloam is now 
 1 a dirty little brook, with scarcely any water in it; and 
 ' even in the rainy seasons is said to be an insignificant 
 ' and muddy stream. — In the rainy season, this narrow bed 
 4 is filled with a torrent which is still called the Brook Ke- 
 4 dron, but it was, at the period of our visit, perfectly dry." 1 
 '—The Brook Kedron,' says Mr. Brown, 'though itre- 
 4 ceives all the rivulets about Jerusalem, is generally but 
 4 small and sometimes dry ; but amidst sudden and heavy 
 ' rains, it swells exceedingly, and runs with great violence, 
 ' and on such occasions carries off the filth of the city, 
 ' which by the common-sewers is carried into it.' 3 
 
 It is further evident, that there was no natural spring or 
 fountain of water in the city of Jerusalem itself; and as 
 Jerom remarks, only one in the immediate neighbourhood, 
 which arose in the valley of Siloam, and this did not al- 
 
 1 Hob. p. 8. - Travels, p. 188 and 190. 3 Diet, in Loc. 
 
313 
 
 run.' This inter bas several names, and was pro- 
 bably collected into different artificial reeervoii 
 
 course down the valley. It is called the Pool of Sil- 
 (John ix. 11, compare with Nbh. iii. 15), which was di- 
 vided into the upper and lower pools, (Is. vii. 3; xxii. 9.) 
 Mr. Keocb says it was the same as that designated (Jihon,* 
 ( 1 KiNc.s i. 33, 88.) It is called the Dragon's Well, (Neh. 
 ii. 13) ; and is said to go softly by Isaiah, (chap. viii. 6.) 
 Dr. Clark says, this water ' rose under the wall of Jerusalem, 
 4 towards the east, between the city and the Brook Kedron. 
 4 Calmet thinks this is the 9ame as Enrogel or the fullers 1 
 4 fountain, mentioned in Josh. xv. 7; xviii. 16. ' 3 It i- 
 called Solomon's Pool, the Serpents 1 Pool, and the Pool of 
 Struthius, by Josephus.* — Tacitus Fays, 4 the Jews had a 
 4 fountain of water that ran perpetually ; and the moun- 
 4 tains were hollowed under ground. They had, moreover, 
 4 pools and cisterns for the preservation of rain-water. 13 — 
 Now, a plain countryman, reading of all these waters, w r ould 
 imagine that there were as many fountains as pools ; 
 whereas, all these, as well as the Pool of Bethesda, 6 
 originated in one insignificant spring outside th< 
 the city, or were in part reservoirs of rain water within. All 
 
 obtainable on this subject fully corrobo: 
 our position. Josephus informs us, that when Antiochus 
 
 eged Jerusalem m the year 130 B.C. ' the J< 
 4 once in want of water, which yet they were deli\ 
 1 from by a large shower of rain, which fell at the setting 
 'of the Pleiades;' 7 about February, the time of the 
 rain. 
 
 ' Calmet's Diet. art. Siloam. let, p. 121. 
 
 3 In John ix. 7. 4 Hist. Ware, b. b, c. 3, - - c- 11. s. 4. 
 
 WhUtor.'s Jos. v. I Hist. Wart, b. J, c . 
 
313 
 
 It is further confirmed by the same author, who tells 
 us, that ' Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to 
 
 * Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived 
 ' the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred 
 ' furlongs. However the Jews were not pleased with what 
 4 had been done [with the sacred money] about the water; 
 
 * and many ten thousands of the people got together, and 
 ' made a clamour against him, and insisted that he should 
 
 * leave off that design.' ' — Whether this was ever accom- 
 plished is uncertain — most probably not, as the work nor 
 water is ever mentioned by the historian in his subsequent 
 accounts of the city ; but even if it had, it could not have 
 been till long after the day of Pentecost, since it was not 
 attempted till about the time of Tiberias' death, in the year 
 37, or at the earliest, not before the crucifixion of our 
 blessed Lord. Our position is still further established by 
 the speech Josephus made to the Jews, when Jerusalem 
 was besieged by the Romans : — ' And as for Titus, those 
 
 * springs that were formerly almost dried up when under 
 
 * your power, since he has come, run more plentifully than 
 
 * they did before : accordingly you know that Siloam, 
 
 * as well as all the other springs that were without the city, 
 4 did so far fail, that water was sold by distinct measures ; 
 ' whereas they now have such a quantity of water for your 
 
 * enemies, as is sufficient not only for drink both for them- 
 1 selves and cattle, but for watering their gardens also. The 
 1 same wonderful sign you had also experience of formerly, 
 1 when the fore-mentioned king of Babylon made war 
 1 against us, and when he took the city and burned 
 
 * the temple.' * 
 
 ' Ant. b. 18, c. 3, s. 2, comp. with His'. W;irs, b. 2, c. 9. s. 4. 
 
 i n;-\ Wu%, '>. :>, c '.'. 
 
 D(l 
 
m 
 
 Thfl pools of water, made by Solomon to water his vine- 
 yaidfl ami garden- (Ec, ii. 6 : ( ' vv iv. 1 9 ), unnit Ethan, a 
 
 miles distant from Jerusalem ; ' nor have we any 
 ,.inty as to the size of those which were supplied In 
 well or fountain of Siloaro. The reservoirs shown to 
 dern travellers, as the remains of the ancient structure- 
 unquestionably of an erection ulterior to the days of 1' 
 
 Nor let it appear strange that a city should 1* 
 built where there was, what we should designate, a paucity 
 of water, as many other instances are mentioned of a simi- 
 lar nature in the same country. Jotapata, a large city of 
 Galilee, had no well or fountain of water in it — the pe> 
 generally using rain water. 8 Gamala, another considerable 
 place, had only one spring in it, ami this was inadequate 
 to the wants of the inhabitants.* Masada, when besieged, 
 was in want of water. 6 Josephus also mentions a city, 
 Ostracine, where the inhabitants were obliged to fetch all 
 the water they used from other parts. 6 Sychar depended 
 chiefly on rain for water ; and an army, collected on Mount 
 Gerizzim, just by, was obliged to surrender, on account of 
 their dreadful thirst. 7 Pitts says he paid a groat, or six- 
 pence a gallon, for fresh water at Suez. 9 The uncommon 
 aridity of many parts of the East, may be further illustrated 
 by a reference to the Koran, in which Mahomet enjoins 
 that sand be rubbed, poured, or sprinkled on his followers 
 instead of water, when tkis latter element could not be ob- 
 tained for their daily ablutions — a circumstance which he 
 fully expected might frequently occur. 9 
 
 Ant. I>. -\ c. 7, I. i. a t>r. A. Clarke, st/pra. 
 
 1 Hitt. Wars, b.8, c. 7, s. 12. « lb. b. 4, c. 1,R. i. 
 
 Ant. b. 14, c. 14, 8. 2. 6 Hist. Wars, b. J, c. II. 
 
 t HUt. Wars, b. :i, - . " Calmcfs IMrt. Knur. No. 117- 
 
 » Rob. p. 56 ; Calmet's Diet. Frag. No. 1U3; Hurd's Kel. Ccr. p. 
 
315 
 
 Thus much for the quantity of water obtainable for dip- 
 ping the three thousand persons above referred to. Though 
 we do not presume to say, in reference to recent observa- 
 tions, that waters, in the lapse of ages, may not change 
 their course (see Ps. cvii. 33-35), yet in this case the nar- 
 ratives of modern researches are so analogous to what 
 we find in the Holy Writings generally, and particu- 
 larly to the conduct of Hezekiah, ' in stopping up the 
 1 fountains and the brook that ran through the midst of 
 1 the land, that the king of Assyria might not come and 
 * find much water' (2 Chron. xxxii. 4) ; that it was un- 
 questionably the same on the day of Pentecost, as disco- 
 vered by Mr. Buckingham in 1816. We have only to 
 refer to a few passages of scripture, to perceive how differ- 
 ent the East and Judea are situated, with respect to water, 
 compared with us. Hence we find them — 
 
 In distresss, through want of water, (Ex. xv. 22; 1 Kings 
 
 xvii. and xviii.; 2 Sam. xxiii. 15; Is. xli. 17; Jer. 
 
 xiv. 1-6.) 
 Diggingfor water, (Gen. xxvi. 15, 19,32; Deut. vi. 11; 
 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 10.) 
 Depriving of water, (2 Kings iii. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 4.) 
 Contending about water, (Gen. xxvi. 20; Judges v. 11 ; 
 
 Xi.ii.iv. 23.) 
 Valuing water, (1 Sam.xxv. 11 ; 2K.xx.20; Mat. x.42.) 
 Paying for water, (Numb. xx. 17, 19; Lam. v. 4.) 
 
 Nor is our argument affected by those frequent expres- 
 sions of much water, many waters, great waters, waters in 
 the plural number, and the like; since they are certainly 
 hyperbolical, and can be interpreted only as referring to a 
 comparative portion of this element in an arid climate, 
 
316 
 
 'where it 
 
 like must l)i> said respecting the langu , ia 
 
 r. viii. 7, where lie tells the Hebrews that Ciod would 
 bring- them ! into a good lai/d,.a land of bn iter, 
 
 4 of fountains and depths, that, spring out of valleys and 
 'hills.', This description. jn'nst be« understood in 
 to * the great and terrible wilderness wherein was drought, 
 1 and where. th i water,' meiftiohed in the fifteenth 
 
 *.ie chapter, and not in reference to the well- 
 watered plains and valleys of this island. At all events, 
 the terms will not apply in a*ny great extent to Jerusalem 
 and its immediate neighbourhood. The. expression is 
 highly 'figurative; nor have we any right, with so many 
 topographical illustrations before us, to understand it lite- 
 rally any more than to suppose that the Holy Land was 
 actually 'flowing with milk and honey — a description ap- 
 plied to it about a dozen times in the writings of Mo 
 
 viii. From the combination of circumstances now men- 
 tioned, we assume that the three thousand were .not dipped 
 at all. When we find that the words of the institution do 
 not necessarily require dipping, and equally favour asper- 
 sion — when so many difliculties oppose the notipn of im- 
 mersion in the case now before us — when fair or pure water 
 -o scarce, and the preservation of it so essential to the 
 existence of the inhabitants — when there was no river or 
 running stream of pure water in the vicinity of Jerusa- 
 lem suited to such an immersion — and when, on the lowest 
 calculation, eighteen thousand hogsheads of this water of 
 life \ -ary for dipping the people on this memo- 
 
 rable afternoon — when this must have been obtained of 
 for strangers, become detestable by changing 
 their religion — and when the difficulty of being dipj>ed 
 
317 
 
 decently and conveniently are added to" these obstacles, we 
 infer that their immersion was almost the last thing one 
 could believe respecting them: We therefore conclude 
 that they were not plunged into or under water, but that a 
 small portion was poured or sprinkled upon them. This 
 places the case within' the' limits of prescription and beyond 
 the influence of the smallest difficulty. 
 
 III. The numerous Baptisms subsequently Admi- 
 nistered. — The baptism of the three thousand mentioned 
 before, was not all the apostles had to perform. 
 
 i. The sermon which Peter preached on a following 
 day in Solomon's porch was still more successful — five 
 thousand persons having believed his doctrine and con- 
 formed to his maxims (Acts iv. 4); and if the apostles 
 did .not depart from their usual method, of which we have 
 no intimation — if ' baptism was administered immediately 
 * on conviction of the truth of the report,' — then they all 
 immediately underwent this operation. But as Peter and 
 John appear to have been the only apostles engaged on this 
 memorable occasion, and our opponents cannot prove there 
 were more, better than we can prove children were bap- 
 tized, their task, according to the notions of our Baptist 
 brethren, must have been overwhelming ; and, agreeably to 
 the time at present consumed in plunging adults, must have 
 laboriously occupied these ministers, and kept them from 
 preaching the gospel for the salvation of others, to accom- 
 plish which they were especially appointed (1 Cor. i. 17), 
 more than a fortnight. There were then all the difficulties 
 of doing it decently — of procuring water — of personally 
 examining them — and the like, as noticed before; and 
 which, after what has been already advanced, must have 
 been enormous and overwhelming. We conclude, there- 
 
 Dd 5 
 
live thou- baptised only by pour- 
 
 ing or Mf CTOOD — then all obstacles vanish. 
 
 ii. In the following chapter (Acts v. 14), we learn 
 that * believers were the more added to the church, multi- 
 * tudes both men and women.' We have no definite enu- 
 meration of the numbers ; but we may reasonably conclude, 
 from the general use of the expressions in the New T< 
 ment, that they were at least many thousands. Xow, it is 
 said of these that they were added to the church, and, from 
 analogy, we may conclude that they were all previously 
 baptized — ' baptism in scripture always preceded adding 
 [ to a visible church.' Consequently, on the hypothesis of 
 our brethren, all these multitudes, men and women, \ 
 immersed publicly in Jerusalem under all the disadvan- 
 tages and difficulties mentioned above. What labour — 
 what work — what water required — what scenes — what ex- 
 citement among the ungodly ! In fact, from the myriads 
 early added to the church in the apostolic age (Acts ix. 35 ; 
 xi. 21, 24; xxi. 20, Greek, for thousands, read myriads), 
 and soon after, when most of the Roman empire was nomi- 
 nally converted to Christianity, 1 the work of dipping such 
 immense masses of people must have been sufficient to beet 
 occupied all the time and strength of the apostles and their 
 successors, without any other avocation. Let those believe 
 it that can. To us it appears incredible, and not being en- 
 joined, is deemed impracticable. We therefore conclude 
 that the early Christians were all baptized by allusion or 
 •ision only. This would have preserved decency in the 
 sacrament, and have made its administration every way 
 .indicant. 
 IV. In opposition to all this evidence, and in order to 
 > See Whistvu's Josephus, t. iv. ; 
 
319 
 
 remove every obstacle to the immersion of the three thou- 
 sand on the day of Pentecost, Mr. Booth says, ' People, 
 ' who are but little accustomed to bathing, either for 
 4 amusement, for medicinal purposes, or with religious 
 
 * views, may wonder how such multitudes could be accom- 
 
 * modated, if they were immersed in water ; but when it is 
 ' considered that this was done at Jerusalem, where immer- 
 4 sion was quite familiar, and must, by the laws of Judaism, 
 t be daily practised, not only there, but in all parts of the 
 ' country, their amazement will cease.' ' — In reply to this 
 statement we remark, — 
 
 i. That it is mere assumption to say, that immersion was 
 familiar and practised daily at Jerusalem. It is probable 
 the people purified themselves every day, and did what 
 Moses enjoined in the wilderness, or that they purified 
 each other. That bathing, or dipping the whole body in 
 water was not enjoined by the Jewish legislator, we have 
 rendered evident already. Nor have we any evidence that 
 the tradition of the elders enforced such a mode of 
 lustration. 
 
 ii. That some of the Jews had baths for amusement and 
 medicinal purposes, we have no question. Herod the Great 
 erected many — some at a vast expense — and even on 
 the tops of high towers, supplying them with rain water." 
 Nor is it a matter of the least moment how often the people 
 bathed themselves for their pleasure or their health — as that 
 n not the question at issue, though ingeniously blended 
 with it. 
 
 in. That the people and all of them bathed themselves 
 by immersion every day, ' with religious views,' is what we 
 very much doubt — though had this been the fact, it is no 
 
 1 Vol. I. p. 250. - Jos. Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 4, s. Z, 
 
390 
 
 warrant for one person's dipping another — which is allowed 
 by all our opponents, who have noticed this operation, to 
 have been a perfect novelty, or till the time of John, m 
 performed; and after what has been said - the 
 
 locality of the city, must have been impracticable. 
 
 iv. That water was very precious in Jerusalem, espe- 
 cially pure, running, or living water, which was requisite 
 for a ceremonial ablution, we have amply demonstrated. 
 Now, the regular inhabitants of Jerusalem, which was 
 about forty furlongs in circumference, 1 and densely crowded 
 with houses and people, besides multitudes living in the im- 
 mediate neighbourhood, must have been immense; but of 
 these we have no definite account. We learn, however, 
 that at the festivals there were vast numbers, who came from 
 all parts to be purified (2 Ciiron. xxx. 18; John xi. 55 ; 
 Acts xxi.24,26) ; or, according to Mr. Booth, to be im- 
 mersed daily while they remained there, which was often a 
 week or fortnight. There were three millions present at the 
 Passover in the year 65 A.D. ; and a little later, on a simi- 
 lar festival, two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hun- 
 dred paschal lambs were sacrificed ; and allowing twelve 
 persons to each lamb, which is no immoderate calculation 
 three million and seventy-eight thousand must have been 
 assembled." Now, all these must have immersed themselves 
 daily, and, if they were accidentally polluted oftener, 
 they as often must have been dipped under water! And 
 really, if this had been done, there would have been little 
 amazement at the bathing of the three thousand, though the 
 people might have felt surprized at the novelty of seeing 
 what they had never seen before— one man dipping another. 
 
 I JoMphW HUt. Wars, b. 5, c. 12, ». 2. 
 
 a IU. b. 2, c. 14, s. 3, and Wuhton'i note. 
 
321 
 
 But as no person will credit the assumption of Mr. Booth, 
 when thus investigated, we shall recur to our former infer- 
 ence, that the three thousand were not plunged into or un- 
 der water, but that a small portion was poured or sprinkled 
 upon them. This removes all amazement, places the case 
 within the limits of prescription, and beyond the influence 
 of the smallest difficulty. 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 A brief review of this important subject will fully esta- 
 blish the doctrine we have been labouring to prove. It will 
 show the sacramental sense of the word baptize — and de- 
 monstrate the manner in which water-baptism was admi- 
 nistered in the first age of the Christian church, and, on the 
 principles of our brethren, how it should be performed in 
 the present day. This topic is so lucid in its nature, and 
 the deductions arising from it are so simple and conclusive 
 in our favour, that we need not be very elaborate in the dis- 
 cussion to substantiate in the firmest manner that Christian 
 baptism consists in pouring, sprinkling, or applying the water 
 to the person. Indeed, if there were no other evidence ob- 
 tainable in support of our practice, this would be ample, 
 and, to every unprejudiced, intelligent mind, convincing. 
 We shall proceed, therefore, to make a few observations 
 for the purpose of illustrating this interesting point. We 
 remark — 
 
 I. That the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of water 
 are mentioned in such connexions and under such circum- 
 
stances as to lead every unbiassed mind to conclude that 
 both were administered in the same manner— our oj>j>o- 
 nents, indeed, admit this position. 1 But some ofth 
 disposed to assume that we are dipped into the Holy Ghost, 
 and, consequently, that we sould be dipped into water. ( )ur 
 ensuing remarks will invalidate the former assumption and 
 induce an inference which must overturn the latter. Let 
 us hear the analogous representations of the baptism of the 
 Spirit and of water : — 
 
 Matt. iii. 11. ' I baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the 
 
 Holy Ghost and with fire.' 
 Mark i. 8. • I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you 
 
 with the Holy Ghost.' 
 Luke iii. 16. ' I baptize you with water, hut he shall baptize you with the 
 
 Holy Ghost and with fire.' 
 John i.33. ' He that sent me to baptize with water, the same is he that 
 
 baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.' 
 Acts i. 5. ' John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with 
 
 the Holy Ghost.' 
 ii. 8. • The Holy Ghost had fallen upon none of them, only they 
 
 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' 
 ii. 38. • Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of 
 Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' 
 x. 37, 38. • And began from Galilee, after the baptism which John 
 preached, how God anointed Jesns of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost and with power.' 
 x. 47. ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptiaed, 
 
 which have received the Holy Ghost as well a» we?' 
 xi. i:>. « The Holy Ghost fell on them ; then remembered I tl. 
 
 of the Lord i John indeed baptized with water, but ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 Here you perceive that the baptisms of the Spirit and of 
 water are associated in the evangelical narratives in such a 
 way as constrain us to conclude that the mode of communi- 
 cation was the same in both cases. In fact, there would be 
 
 I Maclean, v. iii. ». 
 
828 
 
 a perversion of all consistent language if there existed any 
 very material difference between them. To suppose that 
 in the above verses the word baptize is employed for two 
 such different actions as immersing and pouring, without 
 any intimation to that effect, would be charging men who 
 wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and in words 
 divinely inspired (1 Cor. ii. 13), with an incongruity of 
 composition too egregious for the meanest scribler in Chris- 
 tendom. We, therefore, infer that the baptisms of the Spirit 
 and of water were administered in the same manner. Now 
 the only question for our consideration is by what mode of 
 application were men baptized by the Spirit ? Or, in other 
 words, were they applied to the Spirit in the form of dip- 
 ping, or was the Spirit applied to them in the shape of 
 pouring or sprinkling I For it happens in this case that the 
 manner was ostensible, and the expressions are as lucid as 
 the light. 
 
 II. To give the subject a fair consideration, we shall 
 refer you, in the first place, to the promises of the Old 
 Testament, in which we shall discover that the manner of 
 the Spirit's application to the people was to be by pouring 
 or sprinkling only. A few citations here will suffice. 
 
 Isaiah xxxii. 15. ' Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high.' 
 
 xliv. 3. « I will pour water npon him that is thirsty and floods upon the 
 dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and 
 my blessing upon thine offspring.' 
 Hi. 1.'). « So shall he sprinkle many nations.' 
 
 Ezek. xxxix. 2i». ' 1 have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel.' 
 
 Joel ii. 23, 29. ' I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and 
 your daughters shall prophecy; and upon the servants 
 and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out of 
 my Spirit.' 
 
 Zech. xii. 10. ' And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inha- 
 bitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of suppli- 
 cation.' 
 
The der it plain that the promises of the i 
 
 ly Spirit as being poured or 
 sprinkled on the people, especially under the ono- 
 
 my. No instance can be found where it is said they shall 
 be dipped, or even, as it were, dipped into the Holy Ghost. 
 The promises which were announced by John, in Matt. 
 iii. 11, and by Christ, in Acts i. 5, assure us that the Spirit 
 was to come upon the people under the Christian dispen- 
 sation. 1 The same ideas are suggested in various other 
 parts of the sacred writings. 
 
 III. We shall, secondly, refer you to the declarations of 
 the Old Testament respecting the mode of application of 
 the Holy Spirit — and the representation is universally in our 
 favour. He — 
 
 i. Came upon Balaam (Numb. xiv. 10), Jephthah 
 (Judges xi. 20), Othniel (lb. iii. 10), Gideon (lb. vi. 34), 
 Samson (lb. xiv. 6, 19), Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 13), his mes- 
 sengers (lb. xix. 20), David (lb. Xvi. 13), $c. 
 
 ii. Poured out upon, Ezkk. xxxix. 29 ; Pro v. i. 23. 
 
 in. Put upon them, Numb. xi. 17, 29 ; Is. xlii. 1. 
 
 iv. Put within them, Ez. xi. 19; xxxvi. 27 ; xxxvii. 1 4. 
 
 v. Given to them, Nf.h. ix. 20. 
 
 vi. Reding upon thtm, Numb. xi. 26 ; 2 Kings ii. 1 5. 
 
 vii. Filled with him, Exod. xxxi. 2. 
 From this reference you will perceive that under the Old 
 Testament economy the spirit of God is represented inva- 
 riably as coming to, into, and upon the people — while the 
 people are never said to come to, or be dipped into the 
 Spirit.* Those passages in which the working or operations 
 of the Spirit are noticed, do, in no degree, interfere with our 
 
 I OH the Spirit, c. .">. 
 
.3-25 
 
 position, since' the mode of his communication is the only 
 thing we are now investigating. He is said to lead, teach, 
 enlighten, quicken, sanctify, comfort, and the like ; but our 
 object is only to consider how he comes into union with 
 mankind, as the action only of baptizing now solicits a 
 development. 
 
 IV. Having shown how the Holy Spirit was applied 
 to the people under the legal dispensation, and the terms 
 employed to express his future communication under the 
 gospel economy, we shall proceed to examine the mode of 
 his coming, as detailed by the evangelists and apostles. 
 
 i. Abiding upon them, John i. 32. 
 
 ii. Anointing them, Acts x. 38. 
 
 in. Breathed on them, John xx. 22. 
 
 iv. Coming upon them, Acts i. 8; ix. 6. 
 
 v. Descending on them, John i. 32. 
 
 vi. Falling on them, Acts viii. 16 ; x. 44. 
 
 vii. Filling them, Acts ii. 4 ; ix. 17. 
 
 viii. Given to them, Luke xi. 13 ; John iii. 34. 
 
 ix. Ministered to them, Gal. iii. 5. 
 
 x. Poured upon them, Acts i. 17 ; x. 45. 
 
 xi. Received of the Father, John vii. 39 ; Acts viii. 15. 
 
 xn. Resting on them, 1 Pet. iv. 14. 
 
 xin. Staling them, Epii. i. 13. 
 
 xiv. Sent from on high, Luke xxiv. 49 ; I Pet. i. 9. 
 
 w. Shed on thtm, Acts i. 33 ; Titus iii. 6. 
 
 xvi. Silting upon I hem, Acts ii. 3. 
 In this list of expressions you will easily discover in what 
 manner the Holy Ghost was given to the people — always 
 by coming to, into, or upon them — but they are never said 
 to be dipped into the Holy Spirit. And if you refer to 
 some of the phraseology commonly employed by our oppo- 
 
 Ee 
 
M 
 
 iK nt- in reference to the action of baptism and apply it to 
 the case before us — it must make absolute nonsense if not 
 something much worse: — bathed in the Holy Spirit — bu- 
 ried in the Holy Spirit — descending into the Holy Spirit — 
 dipping into the Holy Spirit — entombing, immersing, and 
 interring in the Holy Spirit — planting and plunging in the 
 Holy Spirit — and if to this you add the corresponding ex- 
 pressions, raising, rising, and ascending out of the Holy 
 Spirit, the language becomes quite insufferable. 
 
 V. Here it may be right to show you that however our 
 opponents may debate, as to the mode of baptism by water, 
 they give up the point in most cases respecting the mode of 
 baptizing by the Spirit. Their observations are worthy of 
 your attention. Dr. Jenkins says, * baptism may fairly ex- 
 4 press the state of the disciples when overwhelmed with 
 
 * the Spirit, though he fell upon them.' ' — Booth says, ' a 
 
 * person may, indeed, be surrounded with subtle effluvia, a 
 
 * liquid may be so poured, or it may so distil upon him, 
 ' that he may be as if immersed' 2 [or baptized.] — Cox 
 says, ' a person may be, indeed, immersed [that is baptized] 
 ' by means of pouring." — Keach, i though the baptism of 
 1 the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit, yet they were 
 
 * overwhelmed or immersed in it.'* — * If you pour water 
 
 * on a child until it is covered all over in water, it may be 
 4 truly said that child was buried [or baptized] in water.' 5 
 From these citations, out of many more, we gather that the 
 word baptize is here used for pouring, since the baptism of 
 the Spirit came upon the people, or fell upon them from 
 above. Their quibble as to the quantity, we have noticed 
 before and shall presently refer to it again. To talk of the 
 
 ' JenkinVs C. K. p. ?.». - Vol. i. p. «»;. 3 P. N. * V. 4. 
 
 1'. 26. 
 
327 
 
 condition being baptism is only an evasion, since the action 
 by which that condition is induced, is the only point in de- 
 bate, as our opponents have repeatedly told us, and as a 
 fair consideration of the case renders unquestionable. 
 
 VI. Let it be further observed, that as the sprinkling or 
 pouring of water on the ceremonially unclean, is said to 
 sanctify (Heb. ix. 1 3), purge (Ps. li. 7 ; Heb. ix. 21, 22), 
 cleanse (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), and wash them (Heb. x. 22); 
 so the Holy Spirit, being poured out or sprinkled on the 
 morally polluted, is said to renew (Titus iii. 5), cleanse 
 (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), wash (1 Cor. vi. 11), and sanctify 
 them, (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Hence we have not only an analogy 
 between the modes of communicating the Spirit and water in 
 baptism, but also between the effects produced by that 
 communication. The one being the thing signified and the 
 other the sign of it. This corroborates the position we have 
 assumed, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit and the 
 application of water to the object in the shape of pouring 
 or sprinkling were designed to be like each other. 
 
 VII. It may be noticed, also, that the baptism of the 
 Spirit is called the anointing of the Spirit. • That word, ye 
 * know, which was published throughout all Judea, and 
 1 began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, 
 4 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost 
 4 and with power,' (Acts x. 37, 38.) Passing over the 
 analogy between John's baptism and the anointing of Christ 
 by the Holy Spirit ; we remark that all anointings were ad- 
 ministered by pouring precious oil on the heads of persons 
 consecrated to office, and who are said to have been quali- 
 fied for it by the reception of the Holy Spirit ' — whether 
 kings (1 Sam. xv. 1), or priests (Ex. xxix. 7), or prophets, 
 
 i Owen ou the Spirit, c. i. 
 
328 
 
 ( 1 Kings xix. 16.) Now the Jews were a kingdom of 
 priests tod ;i holy nation (Ex. xW. 0), and as Bach were 
 anointed or consecrated to God (Lam. iv. 20) ; and the 
 saints under the gospel dispensation being kings ami pf 
 unto God and the Lamb (Rev. i. G), are consecrated in 
 the same manner. Hence they have an unction (or anoint- 
 ing) from the Holy One, (1 John ii. 20, compare v. 27.') 
 But as water is employed to symbolize the Spirit, so it should 
 be applied to represent the manner of the Spirit's anointing. 
 Hence we arrive at a conclusion similar to the preceding, 
 that the baptism of the Spirit, here called anointing, was 
 effected by pouring out the Spirit, and that the baptism of 
 water, which is an emblem of anointing, should be by 
 pouring also. For, as before remarked, water being a 
 cheaper article than precious oil, we can easily perceive 
 why the element was occasionally varied; and, as sprink- 
 ling was a more expeditious method than pouring, there is 
 no difficulty in ascertaining why the mode was altered, 
 though the design of consecration remained the same. In 
 fact, whatever be the design of the Holy Spirit — whether 
 to purify, anoint, or instruct — the manner of his communi- 
 cation is the same — pouring, sprinkling, or coming to or 
 upon the object; and therefore, whether we regard water- 
 baptism as a figurative purification, anointing, or mode of 
 instruction, the action of applying it remains the same — 
 pouring, sprinkling, or coming to, or upon the people. 
 
 VIII. The only material response of our opponents to 
 this reasoning, is an application to Acts ii. '2 : — 'And sud- 
 
 * denly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing 
 
 * mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were 
 1 sitting' — in which they would fain discover something like 
 
 ' See Keach's Mel. p. 188. 
 
320 
 
 a dipping into the Holy Ghost. They tell us the disciples 
 were surrounded by the Holy Ghost,' or, as it were, 
 drowned or immersed in it.' 2 ' The apostles were as com- 
 1 pletely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as the body is im- 
 * mersed in water at baptism.' 3 — But there are two or 
 three circumstances which completely destroy their hypo- 
 thesis on the passage. 
 
 i. This was not the Holy Ghost, nor even the wind, that 
 filled the house, but a sound, a great noise, resembling the 
 rushing of the wind. This might be said to fill the house, 
 indeed, as the preacher's voice fills the chapel; but if our 
 friends can find a scriptural precept or apostolical example 
 for denominating the Holy Spirit a great noise, or can sup- 
 pose a house crammed with sound, as a vessel is filled even 
 with air, either quiescent or in motion, we shall give them 
 credit for erudite researches and refined imaginations. This 
 sound, however, was not the Holy Spirit. He descended 
 and sat upon the heads of the apostles in the likness of 
 cloven tongues of fire, which were * a symbol of its exter- 
 ' nal manifestation.' * 
 
 ii. But there is a second reply still more fatal to their 
 objection. Supposing them correct as to the element, which 
 we have seen they are not, it evidently came from above, 
 and descended upon them, filling the room where the dis- 
 ciples had previously assembled. It came from heaven. 
 They were not plunged into it, for it fell upon them. As 
 the whole question at issue turns on the action or mode of 
 baptism, the quantity of the element can have nothing 
 to do with solving it. Nor, indeed, would they so often 
 
 I liooth, vol. i. p. ST. > Keach's Met. p. 184; Maclean, v. iii. p. 190, 
 
 3 Gibbs, p. 40. 
 
 • Keach's Met. p. 184 ; and Jenkins' Def. p. 127. 
 
 E e 5 
 
 I 
 
880 
 
 ivriir to the quantity or condition, were they not perple; 
 ibpUt the mode of its communication. 
 
 Ill, The disciples, moreover, were to be bapti/.ed with 
 the Holy Ghost as they were with fire, which was ' ■ >>' 111 - 
 1 bol of its external manifestation,' (Matt. iii. 11 ; LuKI 
 iii. 16.) Now, what was the action here .' Were they im- 
 mersed, plunged, or dipped into the fire ? No. — ' And 
 * there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire,' (like 
 a bishop's mitre,) ' and it sat upon each of them,' (A 
 ii. 3.) The promise refers alike to both elements, the 
 Spirit and fire, and the application of both are equally 
 called baptism. Hence, if they were dipped into the Holy 
 Ghost, they were also dipped into the fire. But the fire 
 came and sat upon them — consequently, the Holy Ghost 
 descended upon them in like manner. This we must con- 
 clude, or imagine the Baptist speaking more inconsistently 
 than the most blundering Pedobaptist in the country. 
 
 IX. From this concise view of the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, the following deductions appear legitimate :— 
 
 i. That the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost is really and 
 truly baptism. It is repeatedly called baptism, and pre- 
 sented a visible and indubitable exhibition to the eye 
 the spectator. When our opponents call this a mere meta- 
 phorical baptism, they employ a misnomer, which pr. 
 that the subject is somewhat embarrassing to them, and 
 that there is no method of extricating themselves, but by 
 resolving the terms into a figure of speech. Their wisest 
 authors, however, have occasionally conceded this point in 
 an honest manner. 
 
 ii. That the baptism of the Holy Spirit and of water 
 are so conjoined and blended in the predictions, promi 
 narratives, and declarations of the Old and New T- 
 
331 
 meets, as to induce the inference, that both were adminis- 
 tered in the same way. Indeed, it would betray a confu- 
 sion of language, equal to that at Babel, were the baptism 
 o( the Spirit to be pouring on the people, and that of water 
 plunging them into it. 
 
 in. That as the leading terms employed to designate 
 this institution, are equally favourable to pouring or sprink- 
 ling as to dipping or immersing — as there is no instance 
 found in the Bible where the word baptize is used for one 
 person plunging another ; nor any where in the Greek lan- 
 guage, for the two-fold action of putting under water and 
 raising again — as the circumstances of the early scripture 
 and Christian baptisms demonstrate that pouring or sprink- 
 ling was the universal and invariable method — and as the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit is represented as being always 
 effected in this manner, we come unhesitatingly to the con- 
 clusion, that dipping is not Christian baptism, and that af- 
 fusion or aspersion is; and therefore, ' if what is not com- 
 ' manded by Christ or practised by his apostles, be virtually 
 1 forbidden as will- worship' l — if it be ' clear that nothing 
 1 can be baptism, which varies from Christ's institution'* — 
 then, on their own principles, the Baptists are all, what 
 they designate us, an unbaptized body of people. 
 
 SECTION SEVENTH. 
 
 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING IMMERSION. 
 
 We have no hesitation in saying that such are the difficul- 
 ties attending the system of our opponents — that it is not 
 i Dore's Introd. p. Its . p. 66. 
 
882 
 
 likely our blessed Lord should have enjoined it without un 
 imperious necessity — and that we should not adopt it with- 
 out the clearest evidence. We have, however, shown you 
 that it was never instituted by Christ, that it was never 
 practised by his immediate followers, and that it is 
 an invention of men who have endeavoured to improve 
 the appointments of the gospel. Our design is now to 
 show you that the scheme we are combatting ought to 
 be immediately abandoned, not only as unscriptural, 
 but also as presenting obstacles to its performance, 
 which at once determine the line of conduct we ought 
 to pursue. We are conducted to this view of the con- 
 troversy by the repeated declarations of our brethren 
 respecting the universal practicability of their mode, the 
 pleasure of submitting to it, and the great significance and 
 solemnity of its administration — at the same time treating 
 
 * pouring or sprinkling a few drops of water upon an un- 
 ' conscious baby out of a bason or porringer/ as they ex- 
 press themselves, with ridicule and contempt — as being un- 
 scriptural and childish, and ' a profanation of the ordinance 
 
 * of baptism.' Let us examine whether their scheme be really 
 what they pronounce it, and whether pouring or sprink- 
 ling is not more like a New Testament sacrament, better 
 calculated to preserve every delicacy of Christian worship, 
 and to become universal with the extending empire of the 
 Son of God, than that of submersion. 
 
 I. Admitting that the original institution had been to dip 
 the people in baptism, but which we have shown was by 
 no means the case, if the practice were found in any age, 
 country, or condition, to militate against health and decency, 
 it might be changed for some other mode, which, while 
 preserving the spirit of the rite, removed the difliculties of 
 
333 
 
 a particular administration. Thus our opponents have re- 
 peatedly varied or entirely omitted several positive insti- 
 tutions of the New Testament. It is a principle of Chris- 
 tianity that, when moral obligations, the reasons of which 
 fully appear, besides being divinely enjoined, conflict with 
 mere positive laws, the reasons of which do not appear, or 
 but very indistinctly, though also divinely enjoined, the 
 latter are always to give place to the former. For example : 
 it was a positive institution of God, that the priests alone 
 should eat the shew-bread of the sanctuary. Yet when 
 David, and the men adhering to his interest, went to Nob, 
 Abimelech gave this very bread to them to allay their hun- 
 ger — that is, he broke a positive law to perform an act of 
 mercy ; and our Lord sanctioned the act, and commended 
 the principle, by adding, ' I will have mercy and not [or, 
 rather than] sacrifice,' (Lev. xxiv. 6-9; 1 Sam. xxi. 3-6 ; 
 Matt. xii. 3.) It was a positive institution of the Al- 
 mighty, that no work was to be done on the Sabbath day. 
 ' Every one that defileth it, shall surely be put to death ; 
 1 for whoso doeth any work thereon, that soul shall be cut 
 * off from among his people.' But moral obligations, when 
 operating against this enactment, are to have the entire pre- 
 ponderance. * The priests profane the temple [by labour- 
 ' ing] on the Sabbath day, and are blameless. What man 
 ' shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, if it 
 ' fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on 
 ' it, and [labour till he] lift it out V (Ex. xx. ] ; xxxi. 14 ; 
 Matt. xii. 5, 11.) Now, to preserve female modesty — 
 our health and our lives — are moral obligations — the reasons 
 for which we clearly perceive, besides being commanded 
 by God himself. But were immersion-baptism clearly a 
 positive institution of Christ— the reasons of which our 
 
334 
 
 opponents do not even pretend to see— if it should appear 
 that in any case or country, such a mode militates against 
 these moral obligations — our sole Director in such matter- 
 has told us plainly how to interpret his will, and has as- 
 sured us, that mere positive enactments, under those cir- 
 cumstances, are to yield to moral obligations ; and though 
 there might be cases in which the illiterate ' ploughman' 
 would feel somewhat perplexed in determining between 
 what is merely positive and what is moral-positive, and 
 wherein the advice of a Baptist pastor might be requisite 
 to direct his conduct — yet the principle of interpretation 
 our Lord has given, will be found correct and universally 
 available, perfectly harmonizing with the present subject 
 of controversy. It is also admitted by our opponents. — 
 Mr. Booth says, * when positive appointments and moral 
 ' duties cannot be both performed — when the one or the 
 
 * other must be omitted — the preference is given to the mc- 
 
 * ral and spiritual duty.' ' — But this observation is made 
 by the bye, and, with our view of the original institution, 
 is not of immediate application. We shall, therefore, pro- 
 ceed to notice some of the difficulties of immersion-baptism, 
 as a reason for supposing, after what has been adduced, 
 that Christ would not have instituted such a rite in his 
 church, and to show that it ought to be resisted by Chris- 
 tians with all their might. 
 
 II. The natural dread which most people have of being 
 plunged under water by another person, presents a power- 
 ful difficulty in the way of immersion baptism; a dread 
 which health, nerves, and piety, in nine cases out often, 
 fail to dissipate. And while this assertion holds true, with 
 respect to most of the male sex, it applies with peculiar force 
 
 i Vol. 1. p. 14. 
 
335 
 
 to the more timid and delicate sisterhood — who are by far 
 the majority that submit to it. Nor do we wonder at their 
 hesitation. For a female, modest and fearful, who, perhaps, 
 was never under water, and scarcely ever up to the knee in 
 it before, to be led into a baptistry or river — then to be taken 
 hold of by a man in whose strength and skill she may have 
 no great confidence, and to be plunged backward under 
 water, without the least possibility of helping herself in case 
 of accidents, which she knows have sometimes occurred, and 
 consequently may still happen, must be a most formidable 
 operation, especially to such as are timid and bashful, and 
 when the crowd around is large and unconverted. Perhaps 
 in all the lifetime of most Baptist ladies, nothing ever occurs 
 so trying to their modesty or so appalling to their minds, 
 as this dipping; for though their bodies are not truly over- 
 whelmed with water, their spirits are with perturbation ; nor 
 is this an imaginary difficulty. Their confessions will attest 
 its reality, and if these were withheld, how ample is the con- 
 comitant evidence ? How often have we seen pious and ex- 
 cellent women, with courage sufficient for the most arduous 
 duties of Christianity, even for missionary enterprize among 
 the most savage tribes of mankind, when at the font, in- 
 stead of being in a composed and devotional frame of mind, 
 fix their eyes on the water as if it would certainly cause 
 their death ? How long are many of them ere they can 
 bring their mind to submit to this ordinance ? How many ex- 
 hortations are employed in the name of God and applied to 
 their sense of duty, their gratitude, and their fears, to induce 
 many women to submit ? How often are they told that un- 
 less they are dipped they will not fulfill all righteousness, 
 nor prove their love to Christ, nor, in fact, be entitled to the 
 Christian name? Our opponents even go farther than this 
 
8N 
 
 on some occasions, and gi?e broad and significant hints that 
 this plunging is indispensable to salvation? How often 
 have females fainted in the arms of the minister, and l>een 
 brought to their senses only by the shock of the plunging ; 
 
 s the case not long ago at Bristol I How often 
 are they heard to scream in the baptistry? And rtfMtti 
 
 they have been dragged out of the water, appa- 
 rently lifeless, as was the case with a person very recently 
 in London. How many are Baptists in sentiment, and 
 therefore Baptists in reality, who have never hem able to 
 muster sufficient courage to undergo this ceremony ? I low- 
 many baptisms are performed in places with closed doors, 
 contrary to their avowed principles of always doing it in 
 public? And how many travel miles from home to be im- 
 mersed, where they are little known, because they are 
 ashamed to be dipped in the sight of their neighbours? 
 An opponent justly remarks, ' There is some inconvenience, 
 4 and there is not a little odium connected with believers' 
 ' baptism [by immersion]; at least, under certain circum- 
 1 stances. Many persons may be met with, who profi-ss 
 ' themselves convinced on the subject, but who cannot en- 
 ' counter the opposition presented to their imagination, or 
 
 * overcome their own reluctance, so as to submit to what 
 4 they believe to be a divine command." — A Baptist 
 minister, while recently dining with the preacher, told him 
 that * a married lady of his neighbourhood and of his con- 
 gregation, went six or seven miles from home to be bap- 
 4 ti/ed. When she came to the place — the water ready and 
 
 * people waiting — her courage failed, and she for a 
 
 * derable time would not submit. Entreaties and argument 
 
 * were copiously administered, but for awhile ineffectually : 
 
 1 Lett, on Bupt. by Evans, &c. p 
 
337 
 
 4 then she was ready and then she was terrified at thepro- 
 * spect, and made herself quite ridiculous — and was at last 
 4 got into and under the water almost by main force.' — 
 We ask you, whether such a rite was likely to have been 
 instituted by Christ, and whether, when un-instituteid, it 
 should not be strenuously opposed? 
 
 III. The above may be considered as remarks of a 
 general character. There are circumstances where the 
 difficulties are greatly increased. In the case of people con- 
 verted in old age, unless of very vigorous constitutions, the 
 obstacles must be immense ; for if they must be baptized 
 subsequent to regeneration, 1 and if it must be done by 
 plunging the poor old creatures absolutely under water — in 
 nine cases out of ten the rite must be foregone ; and these 
 truly regenerated people, according to the constitution of 
 most Baptist churches, must be deprived of the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper, and from being members of their so- 
 cieties. Persons, also, indisposed must, in general, omit a 
 reception of this rite. Such as are afflicted with rheumatic 
 pains, or subject to the ague, or very liable to chills or 
 colds, or to pulmonary diseases, or to the gout, sore throats, 
 affections of the glands, spasmodic, and other internal com- 
 plaints, epilepsy, erysipelas, apoplexy, or determination of 
 blood to the head, and similar diseases, which are certainly 
 not uncommon, must, without almost a miracle, suffer ma- 
 terially, if not fatally, from such an operation. All this is 
 indirectly admitted by our respected opponents. Dr. Jen- 
 kins says, ■ a man may believe and not have the means or 
 4 capacity of baptism. There are cases in which immersion 
 1 would be dangerous, and it is better to defer the adminis- 
 4 tration and not to run the hazard of instant death." Dr. 
 
 1 Gibbs, p. 342. I Def. p. 14, 6X 
 
 Ff 
 
ininnaus 1 1 it- lame idea, when lie says, ' the desire of 
 4 baptism is sufficient when baptism itself cannot be had." 
 Thai is, the sacrament in question is to be nullified, when 
 obstacles to its performance arise. These are very frequent 
 among our brethren, but such were never known to pre- 
 vent baptism as administered by the apostles under 
 most unfavourable circumstances for dipping, and never 
 prevent its performance by Pedobaptista in this country. 
 Their notion of neglecting baptism altogether is opposed to 
 the declaration of our Lord, who makes this sacred appli- 
 cation of water obligatory on all, (Matt, xxviii. 19; John 
 iii. 5.*) Here then are insuperable difficulties in the way 
 of administering this rite according to the mode of our op- 
 ponents ; but all of which vanish according to our's. The 
 assumption, therefore, is, that we are right and that they 
 are wrong. 
 
 IV. There are difficulties arising from what we hesitate 
 not to pronounce the indelicacy of this ordinance, as admi- 
 nistered by our opponents — at least, in the estimation of 
 multitudes that witness its performance. We maintain that 
 this is a good presumptive evidence against immersion, and 
 as such only shall we adduce it. Our brethren fail not to 
 say all in their power to oppose aspersion, and we are 
 bound to advance all we can in opposition to dipping. 
 
 i. We say then that this rite, in respect of females re- 
 moved above the lower classes of society, must be deemed a 
 very great cross ; nor can it be always administered in a 
 way not to produce many misgivings in the minds of its 
 most partial adherents. The following fact, among thou- 
 sands more, will establish our assertion :— A gentleman 
 about to be dipped, and to join a Baptist communion ; 
 i P. a See Maclean, v. i. p. 130. 
 
399 
 
 but before undergoing the operation himself, he went to 
 witness the immersion of two or three women. The sight 
 and the scenes disgusted him. He thought the Saviour 
 could not have enjoined such an indecent rite. He returned 
 — examined the scriptures — altered his mind — and relin- 
 quished the honour of being dipped. He is now a respect- 
 able minister of the Independent denomination. That our 
 opponents themselves are not very positive on this head, 
 may be inferred from the following remark of Mr. Booth : 
 — ' So then,' says he, * the voice of national decency is to 
 
 * be heard, and the force of local custom is to be felt, in the 
 4 administration of a divinely positive rite, even though the 
 
 * will of the Institutor be the sole ground of the institution.' l 
 What is implied you may easily perceive. Nor let it be 
 forgotten that our brethren do consider national decency 
 and the force of local customs, in respect of other institu- 
 tions, as much divinely instituted as dipping. That there 
 often is an indecency in the operation, few who have wit- 
 nessed it will deny. Accidents and exposures have oc- 
 curred to the utter confusion of all the interested parties.— 
 A female was recently immersed in a river in Gloucester- 
 shire ; and, for want of the leads and dresses used by John 
 the Baptist and the apostles, an accident occurred, which 
 caused the crowd of spectators on the opposite bank to 
 shout and vociferate in a most deafening manner. Nor is 
 this a solitary instance of similar evils. And what do our 
 opponents mean, by calling their baptism ' taking up the 
 cross,' if something of the above description were not pos- 
 sible I We would further ask the respectable benedicts of 
 the Baptist denomination whether they would suffer their 
 wives and their daughters to be bathed at our watering- 
 
 ' Booth, v. Hi. p. 118, 119. 
 
places by men instead of women, though the indelii 
 would be by no means greater than here, and their nn. 
 lar powers would be often advantageous .' Would they not 
 blush at the very idea 1 
 
 ii. It is also clear, that if immersion-baptism had been 
 the practice in the days of Christ and of his inspired apos- 
 tles, and intended by them to have been so ad ministered 
 to the end of time; and if it be liable to abuse, as we have 
 shown and shall further establish, that some grave cautions, 
 respecting its performance, would have been given in the 
 New Testament. That this rite is obnoxious to numerous 
 difficulties in our day, with all the help of modern contriv- 
 ance, cannot be denied. And we may fairly conclude, 
 that when dipping one another was confessedly a new thing 
 in the earth — when nearly a whole nation was baptized, 
 probably twice over, in a short time — and when such fa- 
 cilities as our opponents enjoy were unknown and unavail- 
 able — numerous difficulties of various kinds must have 
 arisen ; and, having occurred, would be still naturally an- 
 ticipated. And yet it is remarkable, that neither Christ nor 
 his disciples, in their discourses or writings, ever intimate 
 the existence of such accidents, or guard against them for 
 the future. If it had been intended that all converts should 
 be immersed, and conscious of a liability in the mode to in- 
 decorum and the injury of the health, would not the Saviour 
 or his followers have said something about doing it de- 
 cently and in order, that the health might not be injured, 
 nor modesty outraged by carelessness or precipitation \ 
 And is not this inference corroborated by the injunctions 
 of the apostle respecting the proper administration of the 
 Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 17-34), and the order of divine 
 worship ? (lb. 1-16.) The very circumstance of there 
 
341 
 
 being no cautions, where so much needed, induces us to 
 conclude, that immersion was not practised in the apostolic 
 age, nor intended to be performed afterwards. 
 
 in. It however is frequently insinuated that what we 
 designate modesty, was not in such high estimation among 
 the Jews in former times, and consequently that our reason- 
 ings will not apply to New Testament baptisms. This re- 
 ply, however, is founded on a gross mistake. The greatest 
 delicacy, especially in respect of women, was considered 
 a virtue of no ordinary lustre. Look at the curse of Noah 
 denounced against Canaan, for not covering his father's 
 nakedness, and his blessing implored on Shem and Japhet 
 for doing it, (Gen. ix. 20-25.) Look at the construction 
 of the altar, and the extra garments made for the priests in 
 offering sacrifices, that their persons might not be in the least 
 degree exposed, (Ex. xx. 26; xxviii. 42.) Look at the 
 threatening of God against the Chaldeans for their crimes, 
 that their nakedness should be exposed, (Is. xlvii. 3.) 
 Many other cases, if required, might be adduced. It is 
 certain that among the Jews female modesty was greatly 
 inculcated. In the temple there was a court expressly for 
 the women. 1 Dr. Lardner, speaking of Herodias dancing 
 before Herod and his nobles, observes, that ' it was very 
 
 * unusual for ladies of rank to appear before the men (Est. 
 ' i. 10-12), and much less to dance at such banquets as 
 
 * these.' 2 — Paul would not allow women to speak in the 
 assemblies of the men (1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35), nor to have 
 their head uncovered, or their veil thrown aside in divine 
 worship 3 (1 Cor. xi. 5) ; but to adorn themselves in modest 
 apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety (1 Tim. ii. 9.) 
 
 i Jos. Hist. Wars, b. 6, c. 5, s. 2. « Cred. of Gosp. Hist. v. i. pt. 2. p. 23. 
 3 Calmct's Diet, of Frag. No. 160. 
 
 Ff 5 
 
m 
 
 II eirjoftwd that every thing should be done decently 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 40), as opposed to indecorum and impro- 
 priety, (compare Rom. xiii. 13, Greek.) To appear un- 
 veiled even in the streets was considered a mark of female 
 immodesty. 1 All this being established, we hesitate not 
 to say, that what would be regarded as immodest in our 
 age and nation, would have been viewed as much more 
 so among the Jews ; and every argument we bring against 
 immersion, founded on this data, applies with double force 
 against the assumption of the apostles immersing the men 
 and women either naked or dressed. 
 
 iv. Nor let it be supposed that when the gospel was re- 
 ceived among the Gentiles, the dipping of married ladies, 
 at least, in water by the other sex, would have been more 
 in consonance with their notions of modesty. ■ Grecian 
 
 * ladies/ says Rollin, ' were very reserved — seldom appeared 
 4 in public — had separate apartments, called Gynacca — and 
 
 * never ate at table with the men when strangers were pre- 
 sent. 1 * — Archbishop Potter tells us the same thing: — 
 
 * The women of Greece rarely or never appeared in strange 
 4 company, but were confined to the most remote parts of 
 
 * the house, in which they had distinct mansions assigned 
 
 * them ; and though some husbands might be of a better 
 4 temper, yet it was looked upon as very indecent for women 
 4 to gad abroad.' s And though some laxity in this matter 
 probably took place, in after times and in certain states, one 
 can hardly imagine the apostles getting the said women to 
 submit to a public dipping, without an unusual effort on their 
 part, and no ordinary excitement on the part of the popu- 
 lace of the place. 
 
 • ("onip. BiMe : note on 1 Cor. xi. 6. 2 Anc. Hist. v. i. Intr. p. :»4. 
 
 » Antiq. of Greece, T. ii p. 305; Jackson's N.irr. Joor. from India, p. 
 
dm 
 
 v. Dr. Macknight, on I Tim. 3, 11, observes, that 'as 
 'the manners of the Greeks did not permit men to haw 
 ' much intercourse with women of character, unless they 
 • were their relations; and as the Asiatics were under still 
 ' greater restraints, it was proper that an order of female 
 ' teachers should be instituted in the church for instructing 
 1 the young of their own sex.' He then proceeds to notice 
 several passages to establish his position. Here we gaiher 
 that the aged women were to instruct the younger, because 
 of the modesty which in general prevented men from per- 
 forming this office. We learn, however, that women of 
 rank and character, and not a few of them, believed in 
 Paul and Silas, while preaching the gospel at Thessalonica, 
 (Acts xvii. 4, compare with 2 John v. ] , 5.) These were 
 in all likelihood proselytes of the Gentiles, and most as- 
 suredly had never been dipped or bathed by any man ; and 
 probably never appeared in their company without a veil. 
 Now, is it at all likely that the apostles took these chief 
 women, immediately on their believing, to a pond or river, 
 and plunged them under water, in the face of a large con* 
 course of idle spectators I Nor let it be forgotten, that bap- 
 tizing-deaconesses were unheard of in the apostolic age, 
 and arose only with the corruption of this rite : also, that 
 the only transitive act of the minister of religion, whether 
 Jew or Gentile, for purification or consecration, was pour- 
 ing or sprinkling — to this all would have readily and cheer- 
 fully submitted ; nor would any improper excitement have 
 been produced, as we find there was not in a single instance. 
 
 vi. This argument is in no measure invalidated by the 
 well-attested evidence respecting the profligacy of many 
 Asiatic females— since such a charge can apply only to 
 a certain notorious class in the community. The bashful- 
 
M J 
 
 ness and seclusion of the rest, is a fact placed beyond all 
 honest contravention. The known indelicacy of one portion 
 of the frail sisterhood, was the indirect cause oft!. 
 and confinement of the other. It might, indeed, be matter 
 of grave conjecture, whether, under the influence of pre- 
 vailing habits, even the ladies, least scrupulous in other 
 respects, would, on their first listening to the apostles, and 
 believing the truth of their message, not feel somewhat 
 abashed at the strange proposal of being taken in the arms 
 of a man, and publicly plunged under water. — Nor is 
 our position enfeebled by the occasional reference of tin 
 
 I historians to the pious women who followed our Lord, 
 associated with the disciples, or attended the ministry of the 
 evangelists. All this is conceded, without in the least im- 
 peaching the statements previously made. For the question 
 is not whether holy females might minister to our Lord, or 
 sit in their compartment in the synagogue, or properly 
 covered, in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and so- 
 briety, unite with their husbands, parents, and relatives in 
 divine worship ; but whether, on their first believing the 
 truth of the gospel report, when shrouded in their national 
 habits and prejudices, they would submit to the avowedly 
 novel, fearful, and painful operation of being publicly dip- 
 ped under water by the other sex ? This is the subject of 
 enquiry — to which we answer in the negative. 
 
 vn. We would not for a moment insinuate that a scrip- 
 tural institution should be sacrificed, because certain and 
 great difficulties attend its administration — we should be 
 unworthy of our heroic predecessors if we were not willing 
 to surrender our lives rather than a single iota of our re- 
 ligious principles. But when, in our opinion, a ceremony 
 is invented which has a tendency to arrest the progress cf 
 
345 
 
 the truth, we are bound to set our faces as flint against it. 
 That this is the case with the dipping system we fearlessly 
 aver. There are difficulties in the way of evangelizing 
 mankind, whatever denomination attempts the glorious task. 
 But our opponents, who must dip all the folks they bring 
 over to their sentiments on the doctrines of the gospel, haw 
 one great obstacle unknown to other communions ; and that 
 it is a great obstacle their own concessions render unques- 
 tionable. In fact, their system is not capable of becoming 
 universal. It stands like an impassable gulph between them 
 and most eastern nations, where females, who in general 
 form a majority of converts, are watched with the utmost 
 jealousy by their husbands and fathers. Think of Baptists 
 dipping Persian or Mahometan ladies of rank ! Think of 
 such people being taken and immersed in a river I In fact, 
 the immersion of adult males or females is a thing unknown 
 in any of the eastern churches however corrupted — since 
 all are baptized in their infancy ; or, if proselytes are made 
 of persons advanced in years, the preparatory rite of going 
 into the water and washing is always performed by them- 
 selves alone. Even the Mennonite Baptists of Holland, 
 France, Pennsylvania, and other places, avoid the indelicacy 
 of our opponents by baptising like ourselves by aspersion 
 or pouring. 1 
 
 vm. Upon the whole we ask whether it is likely that a 
 mode of baptism should have been instituted by Christ, 
 which would have shocked the modesty of most virtuous 
 women with Jewish and Grecian prejudices about them — 
 which would have aroused all the jealousy of their hus- 
 bands — and which, as a consequence, must have been a 
 most formidable obstacle to the progress of divine truth I 
 
 ' Rob. p. 504 ; Adams's View, &c. v. ii. p. 53, 63. 
 
34<i 
 
 We aMtrer no. And further that ii was not only 
 
 unlikely but never attempted. We also contend, that the 
 water it is abolished the better — that it lias no foundation 
 
 in scripture or reason, and was the invention of men labour- 
 ing to enlarge and amend the institutions of Christ — and is 
 now adopted and practised by our opponents, no doubt, 
 with the best of motives, but, we consider, in ignorance. 
 It is a scheme which cannot become universal as to climate 
 nor condition. Our opponents may talk of the meaning of 
 the word baptize, the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch, 
 as long as they please, the indelicacy of their rite is a valid 
 proof to us that dipping is unscriptural. 
 
 IV. The next thing we shall mention, as a reason for be- 
 lieving that immersion baptism was never instituted by 
 Christ and should not now be practised by us, is, that it de- 
 stroys all devotion in the minds of most candidates for its 
 reception. The maxim of the apostle is that we should 
 * attend upon the Lord without distraction,' (1 Cor. vii. 
 35.) But in this rite, as administered by our brethren, it 
 is a thing next to impossible, particularly in the case of 
 many timid and nervous females. Their mode is truly tp- 
 palling to multitudes that ultimately submit : it is really 
 J passing through water,' and becomes a certain ordeal or 
 test of their courage. It is formidable in prospect. Many 
 anxious days and sleepless nights often precede this act of 
 immersion. Many arguments are requisite to excite and 
 perpetuate the intention of the candidate. * Fears of various 
 k kind' are alive, and apprehension revels in an entire do- 
 minion over the subjugated spirits. And when the people 
 are brought to the point, the preparation is so great, dresses 
 must be made or borrowed, some great thing is to be done ; 
 then there is the rattling of the pump, or the drawers of 
 
:U7 
 
 water filling the font ; then a crowd is expected and col- 
 lected in the chapel, these jump on the seats, climb the pil- 
 lars, and cram the galleries, to witness what is to be done 
 to a lady whose habits are perhaps the most retiring, and 
 whose fears of indecorum or accident are all awake. Instead 
 of being sweetly composed and in a devotional frame of 
 mind, she feels like a person about to be exhibited to the 
 crowd, and to act a part at which all will stare and many 
 will smile. Our brethren, indeed, tell us, that ' it generates 
 ' seriousness, enflames devotion, and animates hope.' ' But 
 the reverse is more generally, if not always, the result. We 
 say there is no devotion in her mind before the act, cer- 
 tainly none while under water, and very little when she 
 ascends dripping, and is hurried breathless into the vestry to 
 change her clothes. And if you compare the state of her 
 mind while sitting at the Lord's table, partaking of the em- 
 blems of a Redeemer's love, the contrast is perfect. We 
 would ask what solemn and serene devotion marked the 
 mind of the lady who was dipped almost by force, or of 
 those who fainted in the minister's arms, or became motion- 
 less in the baptistry ? Our opponents may ridicule what they 
 term baby-sprinkling as destitute of solemnity ; but if we are 
 not greatly mistaken their own system is a hundred times 
 more so. Now, if such be the state of the case in our 
 country, where the ladies have so many precedents and 
 contrivances, how much greater perturbation of mind must 
 have seized the first women, laid hold of by the harbinger 
 of Christ, to dip them into the deep and rapid river of Jor- 
 dan '( What sage and queer observations must have pro- 
 ceeded from the first spectators of such a dipping ? If John 
 actually immersed the people, he was the first that ever did 
 
 1 Anderson's Introd. p. 8. 
 
8M 
 
 so ; ' for there never was any such thing as [immersion] 
 • baptism in practice before the time of John." 
 
 V. But there are difficulties which particularly apply to 
 the persons officiating — and those of various descriptions. 
 Baptist ministers are subject to sickness and disease in com- 
 mon with other people — now for them to stand up to the 
 middle in water while baptizing thirty, forty, or fifty per- 
 sons, as is sometimes the case, and that after preaching a 
 sermon on this animating topic, till heated and bathed with 
 perspiration, is enough to cause their death. All, indeed, 
 may not suffer alike from it, and many not at all ; but others 
 pay dearly for their temerity. For ministers who dread the 
 idea of getting damp in their feet, and who, to guard against 
 it, wear thick shoes with cork soles, lamb's- wool socks, and 
 calashes, whose rooms are thickly carpetted, and rendered 
 air tight, with a comfortable fire — for them to stand an hour 
 or more, knee deep in cold water, even in Summer, must 
 expose them to chills and rheumatisms— if nothing worse 
 ensue. So great, indeed, is the danger on their present plan, 
 that some of their ablest pastors are said to be afraid of 
 baptizing at all. As our brethren plead the customs of an- 
 tiquity in defence of their mode, we may safely recommend 
 them to copy the example of the Pope and baptize the 
 people in wax or oil-skin pantaloons. Or if, as good Pro- 
 testants, they do not like to borrow from his holiness at 
 Kome, they may guard themselves from much harm by imi- 
 tating the excellent Dr. Ryland, and wear mud-boots under 
 their cloaks, which, if well tied or buttoned, may not ap- 
 j>ear to the curious congregation. Further, many Baptist mi- 
 nisters are not the stoutest and strongest of their kind. Sup- 
 then that certain men and women we could name— not 
 i Rob. Hist. p. ». 
 
to mention Lambert, Bright, orO'Brienjiior the ladies most 
 admired on the banks of the Senegal, were to apply to some 
 of our weak brethren for immersion, in what convenient or 
 decent manner could they dip them under water and raise 
 them out afterwards; and, as Air. Burt says, ' feel a vast 
 ' deal of pleasure therein V Must they not look about 
 them for some more muscular aid — write a note to some 
 athletic brother to officiate on this perplexing occasion, or 
 get people near the baptistry in readiness to assist in the 
 resurrection of this great man or woman ? It is probable 
 that, in reference to this topic, one of our opponents can- 
 didly alludes, when he says, ' sometimes also the unseemly 
 • manner of some of our brethren, in performing this rite, 
 4 has given a rude shock to inveterate prejudice, and 
 ; created much disgust or aversion.' ' — We have no reason 
 to suppose that John the Baptist was a priest of more 
 than ordinary strength or stature, nor are the disciples of 
 Christ celebrated as apparent descendants of Og or Goliah ; 
 and as for Paul, he seems to have been a person of dimini- 
 tive stature and little bodily strength, (2 Cor. x. 10.) How 
 then did they manage matters in that jealous age, and where 
 it is said the stoutest and fattest ladies were deemed the 
 greatest beauties, and where, of course, they would not be 
 abstemious for the sake of being slender ? Our brethren 
 who dwell so largely on scripture precedents can probably 
 tell us. The fact is, men may be well qualified for preaching 
 the gospel, administering the other Christian sacrament, be 
 excellent pastors, and every way fitted for good ministers 
 of Jesus Christ, and not be able to baptize their people by 
 immersion. We infer, therefore, that dipping is not Chris- 
 
 1 Lecture on Baptism, by Evans, &c. p. 127. 
 
M 
 
 tian baptism, and that pouring or sprinkling being univer- 
 sally feasible, is the only scriptural and proper mode. 
 
 VI. There are further difficulties arising from the state 
 of the climate and the peculiar habits of a people. Our op- 
 ponents sometimes speak of Judea as if it were always the 
 most sultry province under heaven — and the manners of the 
 Jews, as if they were like some amphibious creature. 
 living half their time in the water. 1 We know, from the 
 highest authority, that the winters in Palestine and the 
 neighbourhood are exceedingly cold — so much so, that 
 people have lost their lives amidst its frosts and snows, 9 and 
 whole armies have been arrested and defeated by the se- 
 verity of the weather. 8 Even in the summer their nights 
 are often severely cold, (Gen. xxxi. 40; Job xxxvii. 6 : 
 Psalms Ixxviii. 48 ; cxlvii. 16, 17 ; Pitov. xx. 4 ; xxv. J 3 ; 
 Neh. iii. 17 ; John xviii. 18.) This must have rendered 
 public baptism by immersion frequently impracticable. * I 
 4 would fain know/ asks Mr. Rees, ' what they did in the 
 1 land of Canaan and in other eastern countries, in cold 
 
 * weather, for they have frost and snow in their seasons 
 
 * there V We could have easily told him — they baptized 
 the people by pouring or sprinkling. We never read that 
 the bleakness of the weather ever prevented the converts of 
 any description from being baptized immediately and on 
 the spot where they were addressed, whether it were hot 
 or cold, wet or dry ; for, as Mr. Robinson observes, ' there 
 1 was no intermediate state of scholarship — baptism was 
 4 administered immediately on conviction of the truth of the 
 ' report.' — Now, that all the people consecrated by the 
 
 > See Booth, v. i. p. 350 - Manner's Obs. c 1, oU. 11, 12, 16, 1 
 
 ^ Prldeaux Con. v. 1U. p. 371 ; Jos. Ant. b. 13, c. 6, i. 6 ; b. 14, c. 14. >. 12. ] 
 « P. 147. 
 
951 
 
 -postles, who appear never to have intermitted their exer- 
 tions on account of the weather in Winter or Summer, 
 should have been dipped under cold water, is truly incre- 
 dible — especially the delicate parts of society — honourable 
 women, nursed in the lap of comfort — or sickly persons, 
 who must ' have run the hazard of instant death.' In this 
 and other northern nations, such a method, if God prefers 
 mercy to sacrifice, could not have been universally impera- 
 tive in the Christian church. Were a Baptist minister to 
 visit the Hebrides at Christmas, and convert a hundred 
 Highlanders, and, following what he calls scripture prece- 
 dent, baptize them there and then, in the open air, plunging 
 the lairds and ladies, the old and young, male and female, 
 the sane and the sickly, in natural rivers, in one minute 
 their clothes would be stiff with the frost and their bodies 
 armed with icicles at every point. How would they carry 
 their notions into effect at Hudson's Bay, in the month of 
 January? Warming water, or waiting till Summer, is a 
 practice for which our opponents can plead no scripture 
 precedent, and is done now, not as apostolical, but through 
 policy, and becomes only a part of what they call ' will- 
 1 worship.' 
 
 VII. We shall mention another difficulty arising from 
 the impossibility of always ascertaining whether the person 
 dipped is perfectly baptized. It appears requisite for them, 
 that the people should be wetted all over or entirely — no 
 part being exempted. To say with Dr. Gill, 1 that, having 
 been under water, is enough, would render it problematical 
 whether coming in contact with the element at all was re- 
 quisite. And if they do not maintain that a universal wet- 
 ting is necessary, they would not know where to draw the 
 
 " P. 217. 
 
line between a due and an invalid administration. Sop] 
 hut the top of the thumb or of the great toe were, per 
 dent, not brought in contact with the water, the ceremony 
 is valid, or it is not. II valid, then suppose the whole thumb 
 and great toe, were to escape the cleansing touch, would the 
 rite be still valid I H they answer yes, then we ask — sup- 
 pose the hand and foot are unfortunate enough to escape, is 
 it valid then 1 Here they hesitate — because they perceive 
 1 whereunto this thing would grow' — since we naturally 
 argue, if but a small part of the body may escape the water 
 with absolute impunity, why not a trifle more ? and if this 
 triflle, why not another, till we came to merely dipping the 
 head, or even to the foolish practice of pouring or sprinkling! 
 — A Baptist minister gave a man a second plunge, because 
 in the first a small part of his face, probably the protube- 
 rance called a nose, was not under the element ! In one 
 instance, a deacon applied to a lady, to have her dipped 
 afresh, because he saw some of her clothes floating above the 
 water while her body was under ! There appears to be no 
 settled medium between an entire wetting and an indiffer- 
 ent application of water to any one part of the body. This 
 our opponents have long felt ; and with an eye to such an 
 entire saturation, the remark of Maimonides, who lived 
 nearly twelve hundred years after Christ, is so often r 
 rated in the writings of our respected brethren : — ■ Where- 
 
 * ever in the law washingof the flesh or of clothes [which, by 
 4 the bye, was not baptism] ' is mentioned, it means nothing 
 
 * else but the dipping of the whole body in water ; for if any 
 
 * man wash himself all over, except the top of his little fin- 
 
 * ger, he is still in his uncleanness.' — Robinson adds, that 
 
 * when a female proselyte was purified, some dipped them- 
 
 » Rol (ox, p. H. 
 
353 
 
 1 selves naked, others in a thin garment that would admit tire 
 4 water every where; but none in any habit that might 
 
 * prevent the water from wetting all the body — for if only 
 ' a small deduction [or tear] from the eye ran between the 
 
 * water and the skin, the purification was judged partial 
 'and incomplete." — The design of this citation is very 
 evident, though of no authority in this debate. Now, is it 
 not very possible that, in a sudden immersion and an in- 
 stantaneous emersion, water may not get between all the 
 dress and the skin, especially when the person baptized 
 wears stockings, shoes, caps, bandages, and several gar- 
 ments one over another ? We now ask again, is baptism 
 complete, though the wetting be not universal ? If it be, 
 then a partial wetting is sufficient; and, if this be true, who 
 is to decide to what extent the person is to be wetted ( 
 This is the difficulty suggested ; and the reference to the 
 Rabbi goes for nothing. If they say it is not complete, 
 and that an entire wetting is necessary — tlien, we ask, how 
 do our brethren know that those they dip under water are 
 wet in every part? This is another difficulty; and if they 
 have no proper means of knowing, they are uncertain 
 whether any of their church-members are properly bap- 
 tized, or, according to Dr. Gale's ideas, ' baptized at all.' 
 To say that the body was all under water, will not do ; 
 and even this, with floating dresses, becomes uncertain, 
 without wands to sink the clothes. A person is literally 
 and truly under water when ho walks in a heavy shower, 
 or even stands, like Nebuchadnezzar, in the fields under 
 the descending dew, or when he carries a pail of water on 
 his head. The truth is, that, according to the system we 
 are combatting, a complete drenching is essential to a due 
 
 i Rob. p. 32, 3S. 
 
 Gg 5 
 
861 
 
 administration of this rite among our Opponents — but to 
 rtain when it is effected, is always exceedingly ditli- 
 eult — since many are not more entirely wetted — to 
 nothing of being washed by immersion — than ihey era by 
 by pouring or sprinkling. Let our friends remove this 
 difficulty, if they can. 
 
 VIII. Before we conclude this article, it may be proper 
 to notice an observation frequently made by our oppom 
 and hinted at before in this discourse. They say that 
 ' many Pedobaptists agree with them in sentiment, ami 
 4 through shame or fear, refuse to take up the cross and 
 ' submit to the operation.' 1 — Mr. Gibbs observes, ' MM 
 1 are there wanting many in communion with Independent 
 ' churches, who are compelled to acknowledge that we are 
 * right ; yet, from motives of policy or self-indulgence, they 
 'decline to follow the Lord through this despised ordi- 
 1 nance. The number of these dry Baptists, as they may 
 1 be called, is by no means inconsiderable — they are to be 
 ' found in almost all societies of professing Christians.' ' — 
 In reply to these remarks, we observe — 
 
 i. That it is possible for many among us to make blun- 
 ders similar to those of our antagonists, respecting the ori- 
 ginal practice of baptism, without feeling any powerful 
 obligation to adopt the same in the present age and country. 
 Of this changing or omitting what they think a primitive 
 mode, our opponents have furnished them with several 
 pertinent examples. Consequently, for the Baptists to 
 claim as dippers all who suppose that Christ and his fol- 
 lowers were plunged, is preposterous. Whatever idea- 
 these 'dry Baptists' may have formed, respecting the action 
 adopted by John the Baptist and the apostles of our Lord, 
 
 " See Cox, I»rcf. p. r, | Booth, t. iii. p. 11% 1 If. a P. 14. 
 
356 
 
 they conscientiously regard the application of water to the 
 body in any form, as the essence of the rite; and consider 
 that it may be done in accordance with the will of God, in 
 a way that shall be most seemly and convenient amidst the 
 various habits and manners of mankind. These are, then- 
 fore, as much for pouring or sprinkling as ourselves. 
 
 ii. When our good friends talk of rejecting their baptism 
 through • self-indulgence,' and of its being ' a cross' too heavy 
 for many pious and conscientious Christians to take up, 
 they seem to forget that scripture baptism is never called a 
 difficulty, nor designated a cross by the apostles, nor by any 
 individual who was baptized in their day — no, not in the 
 coldest season, nor in reference to any kind of person, the 
 most delicate or fearful. We never read that any one, 
 however nervous, sickly, unaccustomed to bathe, or ill 
 provided with change of raiment, or surrounded by a 
 ridiculing crowd, complained of baptism in any place as 
 a difficulty or a cross. Whatever mode the apostles ob- 
 served, it was perfectly consistent with the condition and 
 feelings of all the people who submitted to it. What does 
 this imply, but that, though modern immersion is a cross 
 which comparatively few of the Baptists themselves take 
 up without trepidation of mind, there was none as the rite 
 was administered in the first age of the Christian church, 
 when dipping would have been a ten-fold heavier cross 
 than in the present day, and that the modes of the apostles 
 and of our opponents are very materially different? 
 
 in. That to be baptized by immersion is a cross, we 
 readily admit; but of this we are persuaded, that no pious 
 Pedobaptist refrains from carrying it merely on account 
 of its weight. He brings the difficulty of dipping as an 
 argument for its non-institution, or non- obligation now ; but 
 
356 
 
 only make it plain that it M ■ divine obligation or an impe- 
 rative duty for him to be dipped, and he will submit, 
 though it cost him his existence. This Christian heroism 
 of Pedobaptists, and their devotion to what they consider 
 a religious obligation, have been exemplified in their under- 
 going a thousand hardships, and in suffering the loss of all 
 things, and even of life itself, rather than sacrifice their 
 conscience on the altar of comfort or conveniency. To say 
 that they are neglecting compliance with an acknowledged 
 and present imperative claim through fear of the font, is 
 little less than a libel on their piety and devotedness to the 
 cause of God. A person may indeed suppose that immer- 
 sion was the primitive mode — he may even think it the 
 better method now ; but to imagine that a true follower of 
 Christ considers dipping as the only mode and essential 
 to a profession of the gospel, and yet will not submit, is 
 what we are unwilling to believe— at any rate, none but those 
 who are Baptists in principle, and consequently Baptists in 
 reality, can be regarded as feeling the lash of our oppo- 
 nents' insinuation. But, alas ! as Dr. Campbell remarks, 
 4 such is the presumption of vain man, (of which bad 
 
 * quality the weakest judgments have commonly the 
 
 * greatest share), that it is with difficulty any one person 
 1 can be brought to think, that any other person has, or 
 ' can have, as strong conviction of a different set of opi- 
 4 nious, as he has of his.' l 
 
 i Lect. on Ecc. Hist. lcct. 24. 
 
357 
 SECTION EIGHTH. 
 
 THE DANGER OF DIPPING IN MANY CASES. 
 
 The present branch of our subject is nearly allied to the 
 preceding and may be regarded as a continuance of it. This 
 investigation, besides being a fair subject of enquiry, where 
 the circumstances of baptism are considered the only evi- 
 dence of real importance in the debate, is forced upon us by 
 various observations on the other side of the question. Our 
 opponents repeatedly assure us, either that no person ever 
 received the least harm from being plunged into the water 
 in baptism — or that if he did, it must have been for want 
 of skill in the baptizer or of faith in the baptized. A Bap- 
 tist, speaking in defence of dipping, lately mentioned one 
 person in particular who had been cured of some complaint 
 by immersion. Recourse is often had to the benefit of 
 bathing as an argument for dipping in baptism — at least, as 
 an evidence of its harmlessness. Nor is this kind of rea- 
 soning confined to conversation. Mr. Keach tells us of 
 4 an ancient women in Kent that was bed-ridden some time, 
 ' who could not be satisfied until she was baptized — and 
 ' baptised she was — and upon it grew strong and went about, 
 1 and lived some years after in health and strength accord- 
 
 * ing to her age.' ' Mr. Booth adduces another instance: 
 4 Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized by Mr. 
 
 * Wesley, according to the custom of the Church of Eng- 
 1 land, by immersion. — The child was ill then and recov- 
 ' ered from that hour.' 3 Mr. Joseph Stennett says, * Many 
 ' infirm persons have declared that they have found, after 
 
 | P. m> - Vol. i. p. IM. 
 
* their immersion, a sensible advancement of their health.' 
 He also relates, from Socrates and Augustine, that tWtl 
 persons, one a paralytic, another having the gout, and the 
 other afflicted with palsy, were cured by immersion — and 
 adds, that though these cases were deemed miraculous, in- 
 tirm people may learn from them not to scruple at being 
 dipped 1 — that is, they may hope similar miracles will be 
 wrought in their case. Dr. Cheyne and Sir John Floyer, 
 two eminent physicians, are referred to, as attesting the 
 benefits of bathing, and the wisdom and mercy of God in 
 appointing immersion baptism. 8 But whether these gentle- 
 men refer to the dipping of infants or adults is not explained: 
 nor is it said whether such a wonderful advantage was to 
 be obtained from a single dip or from repeated immersions ; 
 nor at what time of the year, nor under what circumstances 
 this medicinal operation may be best performed. These in- 
 definite sentiments, however, are triumphantly adduced by 
 the Baptists to establish the bodily blessings derived from 
 dipping. Hence Dr. Gill would have people converted in 
 the winter, and under consumptions, catarrhs, &c. to be 
 baptized by immersion immediately — and assigns the fol- 
 lowing reason for his advice: — * perhaps it may be of use 
 
 * to them for the restoration of their health.' 3 Now it is but 
 fair to meet this specious argument by a similar process of 
 reasoning. Nor can they justly complain of our strictures 
 since they have taught us the way and forced the discussion 
 upon us. Provided our narrative of cases be equally credible 
 with their own, and our deduction from facts placed on a 
 similar footing, it would be very inconsistent in them to 
 complain of this species of argumentation in the mainte- 
 
 1 P. 131, 171. * Newman's Baptismal Immersion, p. ]<">■ 
 
 3 P. 229. 
 
359 
 
 nance of our position. But let us proceed to examine this 
 subject : — 
 
 I. We have no hesitation in admitting the veracity of 
 the facts before narrated. We, however, decidedly object 
 to the inferences as illigetimate and invalid. We do not 
 deny that dipping some diseased people might, by the shock, 
 produce restoration. But then this effect is merely inci- 
 dental and fortuitous — what was not intended by the mi- 
 nister nor expected by the baptized. The question is, 
 whether dipping people indefinitely into cold water, as done 
 in immersion-baptism, has a natural tendency to benefit or 
 restore their health ? We answer, certainly not — for though 
 in many cases, individuals may be dipped with impunity, 
 and a few may even receive advantage from it, the probable 
 result is pernicious to the human constitution. In examin- 
 ing causes and effects, we are not to regard accidental pro- 
 ductions, but such as, all things considered, may be fairly 
 expected. In this calculation and under certain circumstan- 
 ces we may be mistaken, and that for want of discovering, the 
 precise relation between the means and the end. A person 
 has been known to take poison to destroy life, and has un- 
 expectedly removed disease — the fright of a house on fire 
 has aroused a bed-ridden gentleman and restored him to the 
 perfect use of his previously paralized limbs. It is said a 
 fright will often cure the ague. Besides, imagination may, 
 in this instance, as in Catholic communions, often effect a 
 cure on a superstitious mind. But these are accidental re- 
 sults, and such as few would have anticipated. We might 
 put it to the judgment of any sensible Baptist, whether 
 taking a person in health unaccustomed to bathe, and put- 
 ting him or her under water, has not a natural tendency to 
 produce a chill, which is the precursor of our most fatal 
 
■00 
 
 MM I This might be looked for, especially in the ease of 
 delicate people dipped in their clothes, during the winter 
 Mason, and after I considerable excitement of mind, in- 
 ducing a feverish state of the body ? None but a person 
 having | Special end to answer would reply in the negative. 
 We may, therefore, conclude, that to be dipped is Mo take 
 ' up the cross,' is sometimes ' inconvenient and danger 
 and fc running the hazard of instant death ;' and when me- 
 dicinal cure is effected by the plunge, it is related as 
 an occurrence of the most remarkable kind, and set down 
 l>\ great men as a species of 1 miracle :' whereas the oppo- 
 site effects are generally looked for, and frequently found. It 
 should be also remembered that a potion, which had been 
 the means of killing six persons and of curing half a dozen, 
 would be universally regarded as extremely dangerous — 
 and ten times as many arguments may be fairly employed 
 against its reception as there could be for it. 
 
 II. The bathing commended by physicians is very dif- 
 ferent from the immersion of our opponents. Some are 
 allowed only a warm bath, and others are commanded to 
 wash themselves in the tepid wave — some in salt water — 
 others iu fresh — nor do they recommend all the per- 
 in a town to bathe — nor any without respect to proper 
 
 of the year. Physicians, in recommending bathing, 
 do not suppose that any great or permanent benefit can be 
 derived from a single immersion— the act must be repeated 
 Bereral times a week — and that perhaps for several months 
 together. To suppose that good can be obtained by one 
 dip, is to display the credulity of magic, rather than the 
 sober judgment of reason. In bathing, the person is re- 
 quested, first, to wet the head and upper parts of the body, 
 and not to stand a considerable time up to the knees or 
 
361 
 
 middle in cold water, driving the blood to the bruin and 
 heart with extreme violence. 1 But in modern immersion, 
 all must be dipped — cold water must be the element, 
 though the supposed apostolic example is sometimes dis- 
 pensed with, and the chill taken off. This is only a single 
 plunge, and after standing with the legs in the element no 
 inconsiderable time. This is to be done in all countries and 
 at all seasons of the year. Let us hear their own words : — 
 Mr. Keach says, * I have myself baptized many hundreds of 
 4 men and women, and some at all times of the year ; yea, 
 
 * m the times of bitter frost and snow, where the ice was first 
 
 * broken ; and persons that were of a weak and sickly con- 
 4 stitution, and women big with child, and others near 
 ' seventy years old, and some near eighty.' 9 — This descrip- 
 tion accords with the practice of most genuine Baptists. But 
 it is what no physician in his senses would advise. He 
 would be shocked, were he, on going his rounds of a 
 morning, to learn that all his patients were on that day to 
 be dipped into cold water. In fact, it is no uncommon 
 thing for respectable people, before they are baptized, to 
 consult their medical attendants, to ascertain whether an 
 immersion is likely to prove injurious to their health. 
 Such are the apprehensions of Baptists themselves; and 
 no wonder — since they feel that damp feet, damp linen, 
 or exposure to a shower of rain, are often pernicious to 
 their constitution. Even Sir J. Floyer says, * cold bathing is 
 1 not proper to be used when persons are hot or sweating :' 
 and Dr. Cheyne advises, that ' cold bathing should never 
 
 * be used under a fit of chronical distemper, with a quick 
 4 pulse, or with a head-ache, or by those that have weak 
 
 Dr. l*n win's Essay on Sea.Bathing, Sp. and Man. of the Age, Dec. 1829. 
 
 * P. 2- r »7. 
 
 h!i 
 
362 
 
 * lungs,' kc. x — The assumption that no evil will occnr to 
 them, while acting in what they deem the way of truth, is 
 frivolous — since, first, if our remarks are just, they h;ive 
 zeal without knowledge — and, secondly, because, as you 
 will presently hear, people every way sincere have paid 
 dearly for their dipping. — The innoxious nature or even the 
 advantage of dipping infants, is vainly adduced in deti 
 of plunging adults — since many a Baptist mother would 
 have no objection to wash her baby, or even to dip it in 
 cold water, but who would feel considerable reluctance to 
 be served the same herself — for, while it might strengthen 
 the screaming child, it would probably injure the timid 
 mamma. It should also be remembered, that an argument 
 in support of immersion, founded on the medicinal advan- 
 tages or even the harmless tendency of dipping, is a manifest 
 departure from the only ground on which the dipping 
 system of our opponents is said to rest, chiefly, if not en- 
 tirely, on the import of the word baptize, and an uncom- 
 promising adherence to what they consider apostolical ex- 
 ample and scripture precept: whereas, by resting our 
 scheme on circumstantial evidence, every difficulty and 
 danger in the practice of plunging becomes a fair and valid 
 auxiliary to our position. 
 
 III. What is intimated respecting accidents arising from 
 want of skill in the baptizer, or of faith in the baptized, 
 while it tacitly concedes the existence of evil consequc m 
 contains nothing in the form of a fair argument. With re- 
 gard to ihe former, it may be safely presumed, that the 
 minister does his best ; and, consequently does all that we 
 could honestly require of him. But when a little man is 
 called upon to dip a lady or a gentleman, whose person he 
 QUI i' - 
 
3G3 
 
 ran little more than half embrace with his outstretched arms, 
 and the weight of whose person laughs at his feeble loins, 
 if accidents follow, the cause must rather be in the system 
 than in the operator. That there may be a want of skill in 
 the first essays of Baptist ministers, as in the supposed case 
 of John the Baptist and others in primitive times, to whom 
 dipping one another was a novelty, we will not deny ; but 
 generally it is a want of muscle, for which they are not ac- 
 countable. The dangers to which we allude, however, do 
 not consist in any catastrophes in the baptistry, but in the 
 natural result of immersion in certain cases, though most 
 dextrously and gracefully performed. To be let fall into 
 the water a second time, or to be kept under it too long, 
 are evils to be sure, but not within the range of our imme- 
 diate contemplation. The dangerous tendency of dipping 
 all kinds of people, under all kinds of circumstances, and 
 during all seasons of the year, is what we especially allude 
 to, and not the bungles of a feeble or unskilful brother, who, 
 while doing his best, does it badly. With regard to the 
 latter — a want of faith in the baptized— let it be observed 
 that this, coming from the lips of those who have been dip- 
 ped without suffering from it, sounds a little egotistic: — 
 4 We did not sustain any injury because of our faith.' If it 
 be the doctrine of mere catechumens, we say they are argu- 
 ing on the erroneous principles of Job's miserable com- 
 forters, who supposed that people's trials in this life kept 
 pace with their sins. Besides, how do they account for 
 the thousands, who, without piety, are baptized, and yet 
 experience no evil consequences from it. Such persons 
 were likely to suller dreadfully; and the font would have 
 been to them like the watery ordeal of former times, and 
 indeed a test of the reality of their religion. One has hardly 
 
an 
 
 patience to hear the arguments of many Baptists ; and yet, 
 being broached with confidence, and believed with implicit- 
 ness, must be noticed in strictures of this nature. 
 
 IV. We would again remind you, that we by no means 
 intend to compromise truth, by exhibiting the dangers of 
 holding it. When the path of duty is plain, we are to walk 
 in it, regardless of consequences, which are to be left with 
 God. Nor shall we refer to the facts before us, as demon- 
 strative proof that immersion-baptism is not scriptural. 
 Many duties are enjoined in the Word of God which in- 
 volve considerable risk; but being unequivocally com- 
 manded, we have no deliberate choice how to act, nor any 
 ground for receding, though obliged to take our lives in our 
 hand and suffer the loss of all things, even of existence it- 
 self. Having shown, we presume to your satisfaction, that 
 immersion-baptism is not inculcated by precept nor exhi- 
 bited in apostolic example, or, in other words, that it is not 
 scriptural, we adduce the dangers of being dipped, in reply 
 to the suggestions of our opponents — as an indirect evid- 
 ence that such a method was not likely to be imposed by 
 the Author of our religion — and to show that the sooner it 
 is abolished the better: or, to employ the reasoning of Mr. 
 Booth, * were it evinced that infants [or adults] cannot bear 
 'plunging, without the hazard of health and of life; it 
 1 would only be a presumptive argument [and this it would 
 4 be] against their claim to the ordinance; and the greater 
 * the danger, the stronger the presumption.' ' — It may, in- 
 deed, be recognized as an invariable rule in the divine pro- 
 cedure, that when the Redeemer calls his j)eople to some 
 dangerous enterprise, or to suffer on account of professing 
 the gospel, he has not only adequate reasons for it, but such 
 
 ' Vol. i. p. 311. 
 
as he clearly discovers to them for their encouragement 
 and support. In other cases, it seemed good to the Holy- 
 Ghost and to the apostles being assembled in council at Je- 
 rusalem, to lay upon believers no other burden than things 
 absolutely necessary, (Acts xv. 2, 25, 28.) To apply 
 this to the case before us : — If immersion be really a cross, 
 inconvenient and dangerous, and is sometimes running the 
 
 • hazard of instant death, 1 where are the clear and adequate 
 reasons for undergoing it? It is allowed by most of our 
 opponents themselves, that it is not ' necessary to salva- 
 
 • tion 1 — that a credible profession of faith may be made 
 without it — that it adds nothing to the real happiness nor 
 piety of the individual — that it does no good to those that 
 are without — in fact, that it is a needless exposure of the 
 church — and stands, therefore, in opposition to all the 
 known rules of divine Providence. It is putting a yoke on 
 the neck of the saints, which is of no apparent advantage 
 to themselves, the church, or the world. 
 
 V. It is proper here to observe, that instances of danger 
 and disease connected with dipping are not in general 
 easily got at. The victims of immersion are interested in 
 keeping their afflictions a secret — since an exposure would 
 subject them to observations and jeers from their irreligious 
 neighbours. The denomination at large is also interested 
 in covering up the matter — since the development might be 
 injurious to their communion. Hence other causes are as- 
 signed to account for the consequences which too often 
 follow the administration of this rite among our opponents. 
 Indeed, to have half the cases known, which, we hesitate 
 not to say, certainly occur, would be a death-blow to their 
 system. — If we can disclose a few well-attested facts to the 
 point, and exhibit them as specimens of all the rest, you 
 
 nh 5 
 
can require no mow to niter into, and to fed flu 
 tlu> argument now pressed upon your attention. Should it 
 be thought more instances ought to be ottered than we are 
 about to present, we can confidently state that they are 
 available in considerable numbers. 
 
 Our opponents have stated several cures arising from 
 immersion, and have assumed that dipping was the 01 
 of such amended health. Now, on their own principle, 
 we of course may reason, that if a person in health is dip- 
 ped into cold water, and, from that time, becomes ill, this 
 illness was the consequence of such a dipping ; or, it 
 this illness, and in the space of a few weeks, he dies, that the 
 dipping was the cause of his death. This is the way a jury 
 would reason — it is the way our opponents judge in the 
 reversed argument — and as they would conclude, if, 
 after sprinkling several people, they were immediately at- 
 tacked with erysipelas or apoplexy — or, if a person is un- 
 well, and, after being immersed, becomes worse and dies, 
 we may justly conclude that death was, at least, accelerated 
 by it. On this ground they derive an argument in support 
 of their scheme, and, if our cases are equally authentic 
 shall not be subject to reproof for standing and reasoning on 
 a similar basis. 
 
 VI. We shall now proceed to notice the dangers of im- 
 mersion. These may be considered, as apprehended, tem- 
 porary and fatal. 
 
 i. Danger is often apprehended. — That this is the fact 
 we have previously asserted ; and, from our own knowledge, 
 and perhaps some present, from their own feelings, can 
 fully testify. We could name Baptists who never submit 
 to this ceremony, through a dread of the operation and fear 
 of the consequences-— who deprive themselves of commu- 
 
.%7 
 
 nion with the church, and of all membership in the so- 
 ciety > through this apprehension alone. How many Baptist 
 ministers, while able to preach, visit the sick, administer 
 the Lord's Supper, and the like, are afraid, especially under 
 certain circumstances, to baptize their converts? It is well 
 observed by an opponent, that, ' in this country, bathing is 
 
 * not considered, except by a few individuals, as an enjoy* 
 1 ment, and many think of it with reluctance. 1 ' — And if 
 this be the case with bathing in the Summer, under all the 
 favourable circumstances usually concurring to render such 
 an operation pleasant — what reluctance must most people 
 feel to be dipped by a second person, in cold weather, and 
 before a gazing, and perhaps ungodly, congregation?— 
 A Baptist remarks, * there are persons of weak nerves and 
 ' much hysterical excitability; and there are some who pos- 
 ' sess, so to speak, a kind of hydrophobic timidity ;' to 
 whom a public dipping before 'a staring (perhaps a pro- 
 ' fane) multitude,' must be dreadful. 2 Hence it is, as one 
 of their own poets has said, in respect of those who ap- 
 proach the baptismal font, they — 
 
 • With trembling steps attend, 
 
 • Oppressed with fears of various kind.' 3 
 
 Or, to employ the language of Dr. Watts, with a verbal 
 alteration — 
 
 • But tim'rous mortals start and shrink, 
 
 * To tempt this narrow sea ; 
 
 'And liugcr, shiv'ring on the brink, 
 
 « And fear to launch away.' 
 
 They feel, as Dr. Ryland justly remarks, that ' they are 
 ' about to be immersed in that element, beneath which, if 
 
 * they were to continue a short time, death must ensue;'* 
 and not knowing positively how long they shall have to 
 
 1 Rob. p. 50. 2 Lect. on Bapt. by Evans, &c. p. 128, 
 
 3 Fellow's Hymns, p. 07. i P. 27- 
 
Hi 
 
 continue, they feel a little backward in befog put beneath 
 
 lit all. Observe, also, the many encouraging 
 
 dropped by the minister at the baptistry, to iufpifl 
 
 Minid with confidence — such KB 4 Fear not to descend into 
 
 ' this watery grave: you will soon emerge from thence :' : and 
 
 words of strength are put into their mouths and echot ■« 
 
 the initiated audience — 
 
 * We will no longer trembling M 
 
 4 But boldly plunge beneath the Hood.' - 
 
 But let us relate a couple of facts already before the public. 
 4 A certain pious female, in a dangerous state of health, and 
 4 deeply impressed with the conviction that she should not 
 4 live long, requested that she might partake of the Lord's 
 ' Supper with a Baptist communion. The answer was, No — 
 ' unless she would be immersed. To which she replied, 
 
 * that I cannot possibly do. I can scarcely walk — the shock 
 
 * would be too great for my poor body — therefore, if you 
 1 will not suffer me to receive the sacrament without im- 
 ' mersion, the responsibility rests with you.' a 
 
 * Another lady, far advanced in the family-way, had a 
 ' deep impression that she should not survive her eontine- 
 
 * ment,and requested that she might receive the sacrament 
 4 of the Lord's Supper — but was answered, as in the pre- 
 4 ceding case, not unless she would be first immersed. 
 
 * which she replied, that, I believe would be my death and 
 4 the death of the infant, and since you compel me to die 
 4 in the neglect of a commandment in which all C 
 
 4 are agreed, see that you answer for it.' ' 
 
 ii. There is temporary danger. — That many people 
 gllffer materially from baptizing others, or from being bap- 
 
 ' Kyland, p. .'51. - Fellow's Hymoe, p. », 
 
 3 Scripture Heasons &c. p. 1-M. 
 
tized themselves, is a fact which few persons acquainted 
 with the human constitution and the Baptist denomination 
 will presume to doubt. Cases of this kind are frequently 
 brought under our notice, notwithstanding all the efforts to 
 hide them. Indeed, the precautions taken, on many occa- 
 sions, are evidently founded on a knowledge that disease 
 has often been the consequence of implicitly following what 
 our brethren consider the practice of the primitive age. 
 Such as warming the water, having fires in the vestry, giving 
 the baptized spirits and water as soon as they are able to 
 drink, the hurried manner of changing their wet dresses, 
 the minister's wearing mud or boatmen's boots, or something 
 answerable to them, with various preventives of disease. 
 The very adoption of these measures implies, that accidents 
 have ensued, since on no other ground could they rest their 
 observance. To use umbrellas in a country where it never 
 rained, would be no more inconsistent than for our oppo- 
 nents to guard against dangers which never occurred. 
 Whatever some theoretic Baptists may say respecting God's 
 preserving his people in the path of duty, and that none 
 ever suffered from being dipped, while it is contrary to fact, 
 also opposes the judgment of well-taught practitioners, 
 whose precautions fully develop their sentiments on this 
 subject. But let us apply to facts, and give one respecting 
 the baptized and another respecting the baptizer ; these will 
 be sufficient as specimens: if more cases are needed to es- 
 tablish our position, they are easily forthcoming : — 
 
 * A young woman was dipped a short time since with 
 * every possible care. The effect, however, was an imme- 
 ' diate imflammation of the throat, which placed her life for 
 1 a time in very critical circumstances. The Baptist friends 
 1 provided her with medicine, gruel, and other necessaries, 
 
in 
 
 ' in a very kind, though ;i very snug manner. She wu ill 
 
 * a considerable while, but ultimately rec 
 
 !1 authenticated. The other, to be mentioned, i* 
 equally so : — 
 
 • The Hcv. Mr. P., of \\\, preached B sermon in his 
 4 own chapel, prior to baptizing two or three persons. 1 )• 
 1 somewhat animated, as our brethren mostly are on such 
 1 an occasion, he was thrown into a great perspiration. 1 ki 
 1 then descended from the pulpit and entered the baptistry, 
 1 where he stood a considerable while up to the knees in 
 ' water. A surgeon present declared that he expected his 
 
 * death would be the effect of his imprudence. The folks 
 
 * being dipped, the minister came up out of the water, 
 
 * shifted his clothes, retired to his house, about half-a-mile 
 
 * distant, was taken ill, went to bed, and his life was in 
 1 imminent danger for several weeks— and, for three months, 
 1 he was unable to attend on the work of the ministry.' 
 
 Here an observation suggested by the last recital sh6uld 
 be made. The method commonly pursued by our oppo- 
 nents, of one preaching and another baptizing, in order to 
 avoid the probable evil consequences on the health of the 
 ofliciator, is a precaution of which we read not a word in the 
 holy writings. He that preached in the days of Christ and 
 immediately after, had no sooner by his appeals induced 
 the people to submit to baptism, than he himself actually 
 baptized them. Though his discourse were long, his mind 
 animated, his body heated, his audience large, and the 
 weather unfavourable, there was no intermediate delay, 
 nor were other persons appointed to the work of dipping. 
 John preached and baptized — the Saviour sent his disciples 
 to preach and baptize — and this system was invariably 
 '<(! — and yet we discover no instance of the preacher's 
 
:J7l 
 
 suffering from the administration as then performed — nor of 
 the chills, sore throats, or the like, of the baptized, who, in 
 heated and almost suffocated crowds, listened to thesermon, 
 and were baptized immediately. A plausible argument 
 surely, that the mode of the primitive church and that of our 
 opponents differ essentially from each other. 
 
 in. There are fatal consequences. — We shall select those 
 on which an implicit reliance can be placed in respect both 
 of the fact and the induction from it. We have heard of 
 many more, well authenticated, and on the narrators of which 
 the fullest reliance might be placed. Those we shall men- 
 tion are related by pious and intelligent ministers, who are 
 doubtless ready to vouch for the truth of their reports. We 
 shall notice those only in which the connexion between dip- 
 ping and death is clearly discovered ; for instances may arise 
 where a person is immersed and dies shortly after, and yet 
 the link of the chain which unites these events may not be 
 discernible. To illustrate what we mean — we will recite a 
 case : — ' The Rev. Mr. R., of B., was sometime ago urging 
 ' upon his hearers the necessity of an immediate conversion 
 ' to God, and enforced the point by the following remark - 
 ' able anecdote :— " I very lately baptized a person on a 
 ' Thursday, and he was a corpse on the following Sabbath/' 
 Now, it does not appear whether this person was in dying 
 circumstances when dipped, or whether he died from some 
 accident on the Lord's Day, or whether his death was 
 caused or accelerated by the operation on the Thursday. 
 Our conjecture would lead us to the last conclusion; but 
 still it is only conjecture. The instances we shall cite are 
 conclusive — at least as much so as those we read of in the 
 works of our opponents. 
 
 1. The Rev. Mr. W. says, ' my friend Mr. G, took cold 
 
-ire 
 
 4 by immersion, and WM brought into a consumption, of 
 4 which he died. I then endeavoured, with all my soul, tO 
 4 drown my convictions by overpowering the evidence with 
 1 the advice: We must not say it was so, for it will b 
 4 disgrace upon the ways of God. But I have been com- 
 1 pclled to alter my opinion [as a Baptist minister] and of 
 
 * course my practice.' ' 
 
 2. The Rev. Mr. R , late of B., relates thai ■ a young 
 4 woman resident in the same town, was persuaded to be 
 4 baptized by immersion — to which she consented. The 
 4 time was fixed without her knowledge, and she under- 
 1 went the ceremony. The consequence was that she took 
 
 * a violent chill, was seized with shivering fits, and in eight 
 4 and forty hours was a corpse.' 
 
 3. The Rev. Mr. F., of L., and other ministers, relate that 
 4 a gentleman was immersed a short time ago at P. He 
 
 ' taken out of the water, staggered back into the vestry, and 
 4 dropped dead in the place, of an apoplectic fit. A jury sat 
 4 over his body on the spot, and two eminent physicians 
 4 gave it as their decided opinion that his death was caused 
 4 by a rush of blood to the head, in consequence of dip- 
 4 ping his feet and legs into the cold water. The jury were 
 4 of the same opinion and returned a verdict accordingly. 
 
 4. The Rev. Mr. J. W. B., of W., says, that 4 a young 
 4 woman at C. N., was induced, by the arguments of the 
 4 Baptists, to be immersed. She was perfectly well before, 
 4 but immediately after was taken dangerously ill, went into 
 
 * a consumption, and in the space of a few months expired.' 
 
 5. The Rev. Mr. L., late of W., relates the following 
 melancholy event: — * A young woman was lately baptized 
 
 * in that place, by immersion, the consequence was an ran- 
 
 Sciipture Reasons, fcc. p. 194. 
 
:)73 
 
 v mediate illness, of w bich slie died in about a fortnight after, 
 
 • to the great grief of her relatives and the sad mortification 
 
 * of the Baptists.' 
 
 6. The Rev. Mr. J., of A., mentioned a similar catas- 
 trophe, which lately occurred in the town where lie resides: 
 ' A young female was dipped into cold water by the Bap- 
 1 tist minister, from which she took a severe chill, and, in 
 ' the space of a very few weeks, gave up the ghost.' 
 
 VII. On these well attested though melancholy relations, 
 few comments are requisite — your own reflections will sup- 
 ply every -deficiency of the speaker. This is certain, that 
 dangers apprehended, temporary, and fatal, are the frequent 
 precursor and attendants of the system we are opposing, and 
 which our respected brethren, in the face of all these facts, 
 maintain with so much eloquence and zeal. The inference 
 is easy and natural — that unless w r e have the most decided 
 and unquestionable proof that immersion baptism was not 
 only practised in the first Christian churches, but of its being 
 now and ever imperative on all believers of all climates, 
 constitutions, ages, and circumstances, we ought not to sub- 
 mit to it ourselves nor countenance the method in others. 
 That it was not the practice of the first churches we presume 
 to have convinced you — that it was not to be observed in 
 after-times we also think has been made apparent, and that 
 it is not obligatory on us, we consider fully established. To 
 be immersed in baptism, therefore, is not only unscriptural, 
 but flying needlessly in the face of danger — exposing our 
 health and lives through a zeal for God without a proper 
 knowledge of his word. 
 
 To enlarge on the medicinal advantages of dipping as an 
 evidence in favour of immersion baptism, is perfectly in- 
 conclusive. A few people might, by the fright of a plunge, 
 
 i i 
 
be benefitted under some ?er) peculiar rirrumntancwi — I>i > t 
 
 . what are the legitimate tendencies of dip- 
 ping all kinds and degrees of persons, at all seasons of the 
 
 . people nursed in a closet and scarcely e\«-r exposed 
 before to wet feet or a pelting shower ? We say, mo?t de- 
 
 .iy pernicious. The order of nature may indeed be re- 
 versed in particular cases — a dose of poison might be re- 
 ceived into a di>t -nlered stomach and cure it — the alarm of 
 a fire might raise a paralytic from his couch and restore him 
 to health — and so might a plunge into a baptistry. Bit* 
 these results would be accidental and unexpected — and such 
 pg were never contemplated by the parties — and when ef- 
 fected, have been deemed almost miraculous — and retailed 
 by Baptists as a wonderful intervention of heaven, which 
 has rendered their font a second Bethesda. AV'hen we talk 
 of the results of an operation, they are such, as from past 
 experience, we are led to anticipate in future. These, as 
 our recitals show, are adverse, to the scheme of our oppo- 
 nents, and prove that it was unlikely to have been institu- 
 ted by Jesus Christ. 
 
 Our opponents cannot justly complain of our adopting 
 this kind of argument against them, they led the way. they 
 rendered this line of reasoning unavoidable, and, of cour»e. 
 should honourably bear with it. And yet the inconsiste; 
 of some people are egregious. A person debating on the 
 subject adduced the case of a woman, who. he said, had 
 l>een materially benefitted by immersion, as an argument that 
 Christ very probably instituted such a mode. However, 
 when this was rebutted by a narrative of accidents and 
 deaths, this same person was almost in a blaze, denouncing 
 the declaration as a most unjust and iniquitous method ot 
 reasoning on the subject. Indeed, throughout the whole of 
 
ftttt 
 
 this investigation our train of argumentation lias been inva- 
 riably directed by the method pursued on the opposite side. 
 
 Should it be objected that the instances of accident ad- 
 duced are from Pedobaptists and ought to be received with 
 suspicion, we reply that Baptists were not likely to send the 
 preacher narratives of events which operate so powerfully 
 against their own avowed principles. It is, however, no 
 uncommon thing to find open-minded Baptists sometimes 
 conceding the existence of such cases as are now enume- 
 rated. Their writings broadly insinuate the same evils, and 
 their precautions and contrivances place their opinions on 
 this point beyond controversy. We have, however, the best 
 authority available — ministers of religion, whose characters 
 and office stand as pledges of their veracity. One instance 
 we have noticed, was published by a minister on whose 
 mind the circumstance narrated made such a powerful im- 
 pression as to lead him to review the controversy and re- 
 linquish connexion with the Baptist denomination. Nor 
 should it be forgotten, that the cures and benefits said to 
 arise from immersion, and which our opponents would have 
 us believe to be valid evidence in favour of their scheme, 
 are related by themselves and not by us. Consequently they 
 cannot reasonably object to the source of our evidence while 
 they wish us to believe their own. 
 
 Upon the whole we may fairly come to this conclusion, 
 that the institution of a rite which endangers the lives of 
 believers, was not likely to have been appointed by Christ, 
 to be of universal and perpetual obligation — that he did not 
 enjoin such a ceremony, we conceive we have, from a dili- 
 gent consideration of the holy oracles, fully established. 
 The mode observed in the apostolic age was not dipping, 
 plunging, or applying the person to the element — but pour- 
 
ing, sprinkling, or applying the element to the person — and 
 the mode to be scriptural and valid, must he performed in 
 this manner in the present day, unless our opponent- 
 show substantial reasons for its alteration. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In bringing these discourses to a close, we beg to n 
 few concise observations. 
 
 I. We shall offer a few remarks respecting the manner 
 in which we have conducted this investigation. 
 
 i. We have been as concise as the nature of the subject 
 would fairly admit — perhaps have, in some parts, injured 
 the strength of our positions by a too great condensation 
 of the arguments. With all this brevity, however, we are 
 not aware of having omitted a single point of importance on 
 either side of the question. Whatever our opponents have 
 said, in favour of immersion, has been clearly stated, and 
 few answers, adduced by Pedobaptists, in support of pour- 
 ing or sprinkling, have been overlooked. We have pre- 
 sented you with a tolerably correct epitome of the debate 
 on the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 ii. Though many things have been advanced that may 
 be considered offensive by our opponents, we can ess 
 them that nothing has been said which we do not consider 
 fair and valid argument and relative to the subject. On the 
 other side, all is brought forward, which immediately or re- 
 motely makes for their doctrine ; and surely offence cannot 
 be taken, if we conscientiously do the same. We ibould 
 have acted unfaithfully in this dispute, if a. single argument 
 
:*77 
 
 we have adduced had been kept out of sight. At all events, 
 those who treat the affusion of infants with so much con- 
 tempt, and oft times with asperity — who ridicule our prac- 
 tice as childish and unmeaning — will have no reason, con- 
 sistent witli their own conduct, to condemn any kind of 
 treatment from Pedobaptists. 
 
 in. We can most sincerely aver, that, in arguing this 
 point, we are actuated by no disposition unfriendly toward 
 the Baptists. We do regard them with unfeigned affection 
 as the children of God ; and if any expression has been 
 dropped, which might indicate a different feeling, we are 
 sorry for it ; and hope our regrets will be construed into an 
 ample apology. We debate with their principles, and seek 
 only to correct an error, which, we imagine, they have 
 fallen into. For this, we rather merit their thanks than de- 
 serve their censure. We have been candid and fearless in 
 our statements and deductions — openly avowed our inten- 
 tion — and assidiously laboured to carry it into effect. We 
 despise any thing like manoeuvring in matters involving our 
 religious pinciples. 
 
 iv. In the diversified methods of contemplating and ar- 
 guing the numerous topics which have come under our 
 notice, not a species of debate has been adopted, for which 
 our opponents have not afforded us ample precedents. 
 Whether we have had recourse to history — classics — de- 
 duction — concession — Greek — Hebrew — Latin — or Eng- 
 lish — fathers — utility — inutility — or the like — we have 
 either shown you, or might have shown you, from the 
 principal authors on the other side, that such weapons are. 
 used by themselves, or that the character of their reasonings 
 obliged us to employ them. 
 
 v. We haye been careful to avoid mis-stating the practice 
 
 ii 5 
 
and sentiments of the Baptists, or to take any unl.n 
 tage of their remarks. As our dispute is not with any 
 individual hut with the system of our brethren, M pour- 
 trayed in their writings, we have not been led into any 
 thing like personalities; nor have we thought it worth our 
 while to pay any regard to many things which too often till 
 the pages of polemical treatises. Our object has been to 
 seize upon our opponents' arguments and objections, and 
 to examine them to the best of our ability— to show what 
 was not relative to the subject, and what was invalid. It 
 is well known that, in most controversies, much is frequently 
 introduced having nothing in reality to do with the <[ 
 tion at issue — of which Dr. Cox has given us a curious ex- 
 ample, in devoting two-and-twenty octavo pages in com- 
 batting an etymological conjecture of Mr. Ewing, on which 
 he professedly lays not the smallest weight in the course of 
 his philological arguments.' 
 
 vi. With respect to the plan of the work, and the style 
 we have adopted, we would merely say, that they were the 
 best we could devise and the simplest we could employ. We 
 are aware that two or three sections in the latter part might 
 have been placed in the former — and that many things said in 
 the first might as well have been deferred till the second. But 
 to divide the work as near as might be into equal h< 
 and to render the arguments increasingly interesting, 
 deemed our present arrangement the best. Repetitions will 
 have been observed, but they were unavoidable: and the 
 composition was intended to convey arguments, rather than 
 display itself. 
 
 II. We shall briefly recapitulate the arguments adduced 
 in these discourses to establish our position. These may be 
 
 I Cox, p. 13 34; Ewing, p. 30. 
 
classed udder two heads — first, such as overturn the exclu- 
 sive system of our opponents — and, secondly, such as main- 
 tain our own. 
 
 i. With regard to the former, we have endeavoured to 
 show you that all our antagonists have said respecting the 
 natural conclusions of common readers — the concessions of 
 numerous Pedobaptists — the history and practice of the 
 Christian church — the meaning of the Greek word baptize — 
 the import of certain Greek prepositions — the circumstances 
 of the first baptisms — and certain allusions to this scripture 
 rite — by no means prove their point. We have also shown 
 that all the parade about scripture precept and apostolical 
 example, amounts to nothing like tangible evidence. We 
 have proved likewise that their writers are at issue among 
 themselves on every material principle of this enquiry ; 
 and that, from the various difficulties and dangers attending 
 their mode, we have, a priori, evidence that immersion- 
 baptism is unscriptural and improper. Whether the force of 
 the reasonings has satisfied all your minds, it is not for us 
 to determine — to ourselves, it is entirely conclusive. 
 
 11. In establishing our own position, that pouring, 
 sprinkling, or applying the element to the subject, is exclu- 
 sively Christian baptism, we have shown — that this action 
 is in accordance with the frequent use of the verb baptize 
 — that the mode of ministerial baptism among the Jews, was 
 only sprinkling or pouring— that the instances of the New 
 Testament baptisms, in which the mode of administration is 
 at all intimated, support the idea of pouring or aspersion — 
 that the vast multitudes baptized by John, and by our Lord's 
 disciples, on the day of Pentecost and subsequently, must 
 have received the rite in this manner. The mode of baptism 
 by the Holy Ghost was always by coming to or upon the 
 
persons baptized. We have, as said before, adduced the 
 dangers and difficulties of immersion as auxiliary 
 in defence of our sentiment. Our assumption was, that the 
 original mode of baptism could not be discovered by the 
 import of isolated terms, but by the circumstances of its 
 administration. These we have extensively investig. 
 and shown from evidence, anterior and collateral, that dip- 
 ping one another was never practised, and that pouring or 
 sprinkling was the only mode observed formerly and is the 
 only one valid now. 
 
 III. Deductions from the whole discourse : — 
 i. We come now to the conclusion that immersing, dip- 
 ping, or plunging one another is not baptism at all — and 
 that those who have not received this sacrament by pouring 
 or aspersion are yet unbaptized. That our opponents may 
 not regard this inference as uncharitable, however they may 
 deem it unscriptural, we have only to observe that this is 
 precisely their assumption with respect to Pedobaptists. A 
 few citations will prove this declaration. — Mr. Booth - 
 
 * it appears to us, on the most deliberate enquiry, that im- 
 ' mersion is not a mere circumstance or mode of baptism, 
 
 * but essential to the ordinance — so that, in our judgment, 
 ' he who is not immersed is not baptized." — Dr. Roland 
 says, * Christian baptism is neither more nor less than an 
 'immersion of the whole body in water.'* — Dr. Gale 
 
 . • Tertullian's maxim will hold true: They who are 
 ' not duly baptized are certainly not baptized at all.' 3 — 
 Again, ' I think it is clear that nothing can be Christian 
 4 baptism which varies from Christ's institution.' 4 — Mr,Dore 
 says, ' baptism is properly administered by immersion and 
 
 " Apology Misc. W. p. 349. 2 C S. p. ... 3 Gale, p. 66. 
 
 « lb. <;:. 
 
381 
 
 ' Only by immersion.' ' — ' If',' says Dr. Jenkins, ' the words 
 ' of tiie apostle (Eph. iv. 5) are to be regarded, there can 
 
 * be but one baptism, as but one faith. So that dipping or 
 'sprinkling must be the true. Both cannot be true.'-' — 
 Mr, J. Slennelt contends, that ' baptism ought not to be 
 4 administered more than once." After these assertions they 
 may controvert our arguments, but must not question our 
 charity. Now as we have proved that one person dipping 
 another is not baptism, and that this rite was always per- 
 formed by pouring or sprinkling, we must come to the con- 
 clusion that the Baptists are all wrong, in fact, are unbap- 
 tized ; and ought, without delay, in order to fulfil all 
 righteousness, to receive this sacrament by affusion or as- 
 persion — and that whoever is induced by persuasion to be 
 immersed, will submit to a rite that has no foundation in 
 scripture, but is the mere invention of men, and ' a part of 
 
 • will worship.' 
 
 ii. In closing these remarks, we beg to remind you that 
 if it be of importance that water baptism should be scrip- 
 turally administered, and that to comply with the injunc- 
 tions of scripture is a duty we owe to God, of how much 
 greater importance is it that we should be baptized or imbued 
 with the Holy Ghost ; without whose gracious influence all 
 forms and ceremonies, however scriptural and proper, will 
 avail us nothing in the day of judgment. Unless the Spirit 
 be poured out upon us, and our hearts are regenerated by 
 his energy, and our lives made conformable to his blessed 
 will — unless we have sincere and saving faith in Christ, and 
 holiness flowing from it, all our rites and sacraments will do 
 us no real good. Let us never so occupy our thoughts and 
 
 1 Ii.tr. p. |& 2 C. R. p. 12. See also Maclean, v. 1, p. 111. 
 
 3 P. 37. Sec (Jibbs, l •_>.;. 
 
m 
 
 hearts about external ceremonies as to overlook or slight the 
 internal operations of divine grace Lei us nevi r MVt I 
 ndary consideration to the renewal of our natures ami 
 moral sanctity of our conduct. While we contend for tin- 
 faith once delivered to the saints in the exhibition of signs 
 and symbols, let us never forget that ■ the thing signified, in- 
 * ward and spiritual grace,' must be the chief matter of in- 
 vestigation and the supreme object of our research and 
 prayers — may we be right in both — and, above all things, 
 may * our consciences be sprinkled from all dead works to 
 4 serve the living and true God.' — Amen. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 WINCHESTER: 
 ROBBINS AND WHEELER, PRINTERS. 
 
%)ttbli0fK& &£ tlje same Sutpr, 
 
 AND SOLD BT MESSRS. 1IOLDSWOKTH AND BALI,, 
 18, St. PAUL'* CHURCH-YARD, LONDON; 
 
 LECTURES 
 ON THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 
 
 SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED, PKICE 3*. M. 
 
 This work (of which about Nine Thousand Copies have been already circulated 
 is printed in a cheap form, and sold at half the original price, in order to pro- 
 mote a still more extensive circulation. 
 
 This volume is considered a suitable present for young persons. 
 
 lixtracts from tfte licuutu*. 
 
 ' The pious and intelligent author of the work before us, has brought into a 
 ■mall compass what we take to be, iu the main, a very accurate, as well as a 
 very comprehensive, view of the whole subject of the sabbath. There is scarcely 
 auy question of doctrinal interest, or of practical importance, connected with 
 this great topic, which he has omitted. We cordially recommend the volume 
 to the purchase and perusal of all classes of our readers. Theological students 
 may profitably refer to it as a text-book, in which the argument of more elabo- 
 rate treatises is condensed and methodized ; while at the same time it is so in- 
 termixed with pious exhortation, and occasionally enlivened by appropriate 
 anecdote, as to be excellently adapted for popular use.' — Methodist Mag: 
 
 'There is scarcely a mode of violating the sabbath, a motive for keeping it, or 
 a benefit to be derived from it, which has escaped the preacher's notice. Iu 
 many parts, there is a degree of originality, which we should not have expeeted 
 to find on a topic which, in a certain view, may be considered as trite. The 
 anecdotes introduced are quite a propos, and some of them are new to us, and 
 highly interesting. We can, therefore, conscientiously recommend the work.' 
 Evangelical Mug. 
 
 ♦ For the appearance of this work, the discreet and pious an thor deserves well 
 of the whole Christian community. The originality of thought, the judicious 
 arrangement of the subject, the terseness and ease of the style, the highly ap- 
 propriate and commendable selections from other authors, the apt illustrations, 
 the numerous references, the clear and comprehensive reasoning, the sound 
 judgment every where displayed, stamp a charac:er and value upon this work, 
 and prove it to be worthy of a very extensive circulation.' — Tent Metfi, Mag. 
 
 ' For popular use, the work before us is excellently adapted. The industrious 
 research which the author has made, the ardent piety and Christian simplicity 
 which he displays, and the interesting manner in which he brings his various 
 topics to bear upon the great point under consideration, entitle him to our 
 cordial thanks, and well deserve our recommendation of his work to the reli- 
 gious public.' Eclectic Review. 
 
I=xtratt0 from tljc ttttoietw. 
 
 ■ Hi- has produced an exceedingly in nine, riefa in evangelical 
 
 •nt ; an I by his numerous and appropriate extracts from many of our 
 
 riters in prose and verse, he hasren dered it uncommonly instructive and 
 
 • lining. We venture to pledtte ourselves that it is a book in Rself worthy 
 
 notice of our readers. • — Nete EvangtUcml Mag. 
 
 illustrate all the vnriety of abuses, and profanations of the sacred day, 
 
 ire most refer our readers to the above works, and especially to the more ample 
 
 details of Mr. Thorn, in hiscxcellcnt and popular 'Lectures;' who has brought 
 
 .t number of « gent arguments, Important facts, lob i 
 
 •es, and persuasive illustrations on the Christian Sabbath. For aught 
 
 we k.iou , every thing that refers either politically or religiously to this impor- 
 
 taal sniject, Mr. Thorn seems to have brought forward wMi great care and 
 
 suitableness. The pious Christian, the itud ;nt, and the minister, will do well 
 
 iemselves of the Lectures of Mr. Thorn.' Evangelical /,' . 
 
 ' Most cordially do wc recommend this comparatively small, but truly 
 prehensive work to onr renders. Published at the low price of 3s. fid. it is 
 within the reach of a very large number of professing Christians, and we sin- 
 Must that they will avail themselves of its important lessons. Mr.Thorn 
 his taken an extensive view of his subject, touched upon every point deserving 
 of notice, and urged the due observance of the si!. bath, both on professor and 
 profane, with inirenuily, cogency, and affection. We hope that it will pass 
 through many editions, and find a place in the library of every Christian family. 
 The younger members of our families should have an opportunity of reading 
 it, particularly those who are indifferent to the claims of the sabbath.' — 
 JF'ortd Seirspnprr. 
 
 Ifcecomiiun&attona of tfje _2Horfc. 
 
 * Having tahen into serious consideration the (front and growing profanation 
 <,t //,-• Lord's day in this kingdom . t/ir numerous evils necessarily attendant on 
 such notorious breaches of the lairs of God and man ; the beneficial results of 
 duty regarding this hallowed institution; and the incumbent duty of every Chris- 
 tian to promote its proper observance; as also the utility of Mr. T 
 lures on the Christian Sabbath ;' the purity of the style in wktck they are written; 
 the comprehensive view of the subject whi,h the author has taken; the correct 
 delineation of character which he exhibits; the entire freedom of the work from 
 all sectarian sentiments; and its perfect adaption to every class of the commu- 
 nity : fl'c, (he undersigned ministers, do most cor<: "servedlyre- 
 I tmmmd the above named publication.* 
 
 Jabez Bunting. A.M. Willi. | Joseph BateHfll . A.M. 
 
 John Clayton, Jun. Joseph I vimy Mill lam Thorp 
 
 \\ . I'.. Coflyef, l».l>. fcc. William Manuel, D.D. Ralph War.llaw, IU>. 
 
 Fran< is A. <\x, LI..1>. William Newman, D D. Ki« bird Watson 
 
 Ceorge Collison Robert Newton \\<-\. Mauuh, I> J>. 
 
 John Foster T. Raffles. UL D. Matthew Wilks 
 
 Robert Hall John Rij.pon, I».D. Robert « inter, I>.1>. 
 
 William Harris, LL.D. John Roland, D.l>. James Wood 
 
 Thomas Juckson J. Pyc Smith, D.D. 
 
ANTIQUARIAN, TOPOGRAPHICAL, 
 
 AND OTHER WORKS, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROBBINS AND WHEELER, 
 
 BOOKSELLERS TO WINCHESTER COLLEGE. 
 
 I. 
 
 In 2 vols. 4to. with numerous Engravings, Price Three Guineas, 
 
 THE 
 HISTORY, CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL, AND SURVEY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ANTIQUITIES OF WINCHESTER, 
 
 BY THE REV. JOHN MILNER, D.D. F.S.A. 
 
 A very few Copies remain of this learned and very popular work, the 
 graphical illustrations of which bid fair to become, in a very short time, the 
 only memorial of the numerous and venerable relics which formerly dignified 
 and enriched the City of Winchester. 
 
 II. 
 
 In royal 8vo. handsomely printed, with several aquatiuta Illustrations, very 
 beautiful ly executed, 
 
 ISall'a mialiw tfjrougf) fSJBint^mtt; 
 
 An entertaining and well-written History, and a convenient substitute for the 
 larger and more comprehensive Work of Dr. Milner. 
 
 III. 
 
 In Six 4to. Parts, each containing THREE ENGRAVINGS, by John Le Ketu, 
 with Descriptive Letter-press, by the Rev. Peter Hall, M.A. 
 
 Uicttirrfcqitt JfHttnorfalft of HBUmt&SUt; 
 
 A Series of Original Views of the most interesting Buildings in that City and 
 Neighbourhood ; dedicated, by permission, to the Right Rev. the Warden, and 
 the Rev. the Fellows, of Winchester College. Demy 4to. Parts, 2s. Gd. each ; 
 India Proofs, , r »s. ; India Proofs, large paper, 7s. 6d. each. 
 
 This hcnittiful work is just committed, and is rrcoiiunmrfrd with confidence to 
 every lover of the arts, the Sketches being taken with exquisite taste, and en~ 
 trraved in Le R'cux's best style. 
 
IV. 
 
 HARM0N1A WYKEHAMICA; 
 
 THE ORIGINAL MUSIC USBD at WINCHB8TBR COLLBQB AND 
 
 \i-;u < (.i.[.i:<,i:, AllOBD, 
 
 Printed under the direction of the late Venerable Archdeacon Hcathcotc, 
 Fellow of Winchester College, Price 8b. 
 
 V. 
 
 THE 
 
 WINCHESTER SPELLING-BOOK 
 Ztn& Complete UnqliQl) iiraftcr, 
 
 WITH NUMEROUS ENGRAVING ■ 
 
 A New Edition of the Universal Spelling Book, improved and enlarged. 
 
 'So many improvements have taken place In the system of early education, 
 since Fennfng published his Universal Spelling- Book, nearly a century ago, that 
 even the best modern editions of his work are considered cumbersome aud de- 
 fective. Still, the machinery of his system being practically true, and philo- 
 sophically irood, no discredit will attach to the present improved edition, from 
 the circumstance of its containing the good and unexceptionable portions of 
 that old and once-popular compilation. 
 
 ' In modernizing and correcting the impressive stories of Fenning. selections 
 have been introduced from the Psalm* and other portions of Holy Writ, toge- 
 ther with a series of Lessons in Natural History, from works of scientific 
 authority, illustrated by admirable engravings in wood and metal. 
 
 ' An ample collection of Spelling Lessons, properly accentuated, and divided 
 into easy portions, suited to the capacities of children, has been substituted 
 for the former mcairrc dictionary of words; whilst a selection of pleasing 
 Poetry, equally calculated to Interest the minds and to strengthen the memory 
 of learners, has been introduced, with a compendium of Reading I 
 advanced in matter aud style, to obviate the necessity of a detached Header or 
 Class Book. Correct Arithmetical Tables are also Inserted, after the plan of 
 the most approved Spelling-Books. 
 
 ' With these arc comhined a short view of English Grammar, and an accu- 
 rate anah>is ot" Omgtmphg. collated with the best modern authorities. aad M 
 no education can be 'permanently useful and effective, the basis of which is not 
 laid in piety, the K<litor has annexed that admirable summary of Christian faith 
 and practice, the Catechism of the Church of England, with the excellent ele- 
 mentary Catechism of Dr. traits, and a few appropriate Prayers. 
 
 « Such are the varied contents of the TVinchestcr Spelling- Book; combining, 
 in a small volume, and at an easy expense, a Text-book of Information, be- 
 yond which multitudes who learn to read, have neither the time nor the oppor- 
 tunity of advancing. The boldness of the type, the beauty of the engrai 
 and the pains bestowed on the literary arrangement of the work, cannot nil, it 
 is presumed, of recommendimr it to the increased patronage of those who arc 
 entrusted with the elementary education either of children or adults.' 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE JUNIOR CLASS BOOK ; 
 
 M-.i OMD BDTTtON, 12mo. Price 2s. 6d. 
 
 This elementary work was first printed for nse in the author's school 
 though never advertised, is rapidly becoming one of the most popular, 
 is beyond doubt one ot the most useful, publications that has ever been dc- 
 viW for the improvement of young persons. 
 
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDMaaoaib?