".

this great reformer and prophet baptized at Jordon and Enon is no certain evidence that he baptized by immersion. The convenience of the multitudes by which he was thronged made it necessary that he should reside, for the most part, in the vicinity of "much. water." Many circumstances of his baptism seem inconsistent with immersion, and render it probable that he practised. ordinarily some other mode. He baptized in the desert," as well as at Jordon. He baptized with water, as well as in it. He baptized in the open fields, where there were no accommodations for a change of apparel. And more than all, he baptized vast multitudes in a little time. His ministry could not have continued more than a year and a half; in which time he baptized "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan." Matt. iii. 5. Some Baptists have thought it probable that he baptized, at least, 500,000 persons. But to immerse these in a year and a half, allowing only a minute for the immersion of each, he must have been constantly in the water, every day, for more than fifteen hours. Is it credible that he should do this; especially since we are assured that he "did no miracle?" John. x. 41. Is it credible, then, that, in ordinary cases, John baptized by immersion ?t

*'Ebαлτισεν ev ddati. Acts i. 5. John traces an analogy between his baptism, and that of the Spirit. "I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. iii. 11. If the word baptize may be translated immerse in the former part of this sentence, doubtless it may in the latter part. But what translator would be satisfied to say, " He shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire ?"

Not a few of the ancients entertained the opinion that John baptized by pouring. After this manner, Aurelius Prudentius, who wrote A. D. 390, represents him as baptizing "Perfundit fluvio," &c.-A few years later, Paulinus, bishop of Nola, says, “ He (John Baptist) washes away the sins of believers (infusis lymphis) by the pouring of water.-Numerous ancient pictures represent Christ as having been baptized by pouring.-Bernard speaks of John as having baptized his Lord after this manner." Infundit

.

The baptism of the three thousand next claims attention. The Scriptures furnish not an incident that would lead to the conclusion that this multitude were immersed. Many circumstances, on the contrary, seem to indicate that some other mode must have been adopted. The occasion was sudden; the multitude were principally strangers, who had made no previous preparation for a change of garments; they were in Jerusalem, several miles from Jordon and Enon; no public baths had been engaged, or could be, as the rulers were violently opposed to the Christians; no mention is made of their leaving the place, not even the house, where they were assembled; and above all, the time was short. The Apostles came together at the third hour, or nine o'clock. Besides the discourse, of which we have an epitome in the acts, it is said they "testified and exhorted with many other words." Three thousand were awakened, convinced, converted, professed their faith in Christ, and concluded to be baptized. These various important transactions must have occupied at least four hours. Five hours of the day now remained, and three thousand were to be baptized by twelve men. Could they be immersed? The circumstances of the case, as it seems to me, plainly forbid the supposition. Besides, they had all just been baptized by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. They had received spiritual baptism, the thing signified, under the similitude of pouring. How natural to suppose that they received water baptism, the sign, in the same way?

I know it is said, that it is not recorded that the three thousand were baptized the same day, but only that they were added to the number of the disciples. But it is re

aquam capiti Creatoris creatura. See Walker's Doctrine of Baptisms, Chap. 10. Lightfoot says, ແ As it is beyond a doubt that John took those whom he baptized into the river, so it is scarcely less certain that he there sprinkled them with water." Com. on Luke iii. 16.

corded that " they who gladly received the word were baptized;" and I would inquire whether any were added to the number of the disciples who did not gladly receive the word ?".

It is also said, that the whole hundred and twenty disciples might have been employed in baptizing on this great occasion. But it remains to be proved, that the whole of this number, females as well as males, were officially qualified to administer baptism.

On the whole, I cannot entertain a doubt that the three thousand were baptized by the Apostles the same day they believed, and that the ordinance was administered by pouring or sprinkling.*

The baptism of the eunuch is usually cited in proof of immersion. And suppose it be admitted that the eunuch was immersed. This would be only admitting that immersion is baptism, a point which we have never called in question. I see no great reason, however, to suppose that the eunuch was immersed. No circumstance indicates it, except its being said that both he and Philip went down into, or (s) to the water, and afterwards came up out of, or (ex) from it; and this they might and. probably would have done, had the eunuch been sprinkled.

In the baptism of Paul, nothing looks like immersion, but every circumstance appears against it. He had been three days in Damascus" without sight, and neither ate nor drank." Acts ix. 10. Ananias comes in and salutes him as a Christian brother, Immediately he rises up, and is baptized. And after baptism," when he had re

In this opinion I am happy to concur with many ancient and learned writers. Zanchy, in his "Cultu Dei Externo," Lib. i. says, "The three thousand were baptized, non alia ratione quam aspersione aquæ." Lyn wood, and Bonaventure, and Nicolaus de Orbellis, and Chamier, and many others, say the same.

ceived meat, he was strengthened." He does not repair to a river, or bath, or so much as leave the house. Indeed, in his weak state, it is hardly probable that he was able to leave it. With the precise mode of Paul's baptism I pretend not to be acquainted; but I do think it in the highest degree improbable that he was immersed.

The instance of Cornelius and his family is equally convincing. They believed on the preaching of Peter; the Holy Ghost fell on them; and the astonished Apostle, perceiving the event, exclaimed, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts x. 47. "Can any man forbid water—that is, that it should be brought? "Is not this the most natural and obvious meaning an idea, which the form of words and mode of expression instantly and fully excite in the mind? Accordingly, there is no hint of their going abroad, or of any other preparation being made in order to baptism, than that of bringing water into the room. The history leads

us to believe, that they were baptized at the very juncture when Peter commanded it, and in the very apartment where they were at the time assembled." They had just received the thing signified in baptism, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them; and in all probability they received the external sign by the pouring or sprinkling of water.

The circumstances of the jailer's baptism prove as conclusively as evidence of this nature will admit, that he and his family were not immersed. They were baptized at home, at midnight, at the same hour in which they believed. Acts xvi. 33. We have much reason to suppose that, during the whole transaction, Paul and Silas never left the prison. They would not leave it the following day, till those who had unjustly apprehended and beaten them came and honorably brought them out. Is it like

ly, then, that they left it in a clandestine manner the night before, regardless of the strict charge which the jailer had received to keep them safely, and this, foo, at a moment when every one was awake, and the whole city had just been roused and terrified with an earthquake? Is it likely that, under these circumstances, and in their bruised and distressed condition, they went abroad, and into the water, for the purpose of immersion? To me, I must acknowledge, the thing appears altogether incredible.

The circumstances of some of the principal instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament-those calculated to afford light in regard to the mode of administration, have now been examined; and the reader must judge whether they do not satisfactorily indicate some other mode besides immersion.

5. Immersion was never considered as essential to baptism, till subsequent to the reformation in the sixteenth century. That immersions have been frequent in the Christian church, and that they have been more generally practised at some periods, than they now are among the Pedobaptists of this country, or than they were in the days of the Apostles, I see no reason to doubt. There is a disposition in men to overdo in the externals of religion, while they underdo, and perhaps do little or nothing, in things more essential. The Pharisees, not satisfied with the yoke of the ceremonial law, must add to it "the tradition of the elders." Peter, not satisfied with that degree of washing which his Master judged to be sufficient, said, "Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." And Christians, in some past ages, not satisfied to be baptized by pouring, washing, or sprinkling, which is as much, I think, as the Saviour requires, must be plunged completely under water. Indeed, at some periods they have not been satisfied even with this. They must be