Allowing the latter to be meant, viz. a baptism with water, it is by no means necessary that we should have a form of baptism answering in all respects to this idea. Or if it were, it would be difficult to determine whether, on the whole, immersion would be a more perfect representation of it than washing in some other mode.

The operation of the Spirit in producing the spiritual renovation, is commonly denoted by his being shed forth," "or poured out," or by "his coming upon" the people of God, and not by their being immersed into him. In conformity to this representation, Christian baptism appears to be the thing referred to by the prophet Isaiah, chap. lii. 15, in these words: "So shall he sprinkle many nations ;" and by the prophet Ezekiel, chap. xxxvi. 25, in these words: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." These predictions both relate, unquestionably, to gospel times, and Christian baptism appears to be the thing referred to. Consequently, they decidedly favour the practice of applying water to the subject, and not of applying the subject to the water, as in immersion.

There is another passage urged with much confidence in favour of immersion as the only valid mode. It is Eph. iv. 5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

It is contended that water baptism is here meant, and that there being but one baptism, implies that there is but one mode.

It is by no means clear that water baptism is the one intended. There are weighty reasons for supposing the apostle refers to the spiritual baptism, which is emphatically one-the common blessing and privilege of all the children of God. In that case it proves nothing in favour of this mode.

But, allowing that water baptism is meant, it will not be necessary to consider immersion as essential to the oneness of the ordinance. The baptism may be emphatically one, though. the water be applied in different ways. All which is necessary to its being one baptism, is that it should be administered to a proper subject by the sole authority of Jesus Christ in the name of the Trinity with the use of water. It is not said there is one mode of baptism, but simply one baptism. And if this be administered as just described, it is with obvious propriety denominated one, though performed in different ways: as there is one Lord's Supper, too-one simple ordinance, designed to commemorate the dying love of Christ; and its oneness is not affected by the circumstance of its being received in an upper room, as at the first, or in a meeting house, school house, or private house, or in the open air, or in the posture of sitting, stand

ing, or kneeling; or by the circumstance of coming to a table, or by that of the elements' being carried round to the different seats, or by its being administered on Friday, as at first, or on the Sabbath, or on any other day of the week. These things evidently do not affect the oneness of this ordinance; neither do the different applications of water in baptism affect the oneness of that ordinance.

CHAPTER IV.

The circumstances attending the Administration of Baptism considered.

THERE are several circumstances connected with the performance of this rite in the primitive ages favourable to the mode of immersion; and there are several, also, which are unfavourable to it; but nothing, in either case, which is decisive.

As belonging to the first class of circumstances, we may notice the people's being baptized "in a river;" their "going down into and coming up out of the water;" and John's “baptizing in Enon because there was much water there."

In regard to the people's being baptized in a river, I would observe that they might have been baptized therein by washing, pouring, or sprinkling, as well as by immersion. Christ might have been baptized in the river of Jordan in either of these modes. To be washed in that river, although the application of water was made only to a part of his body, might have been` very naturally the mode.

But, it will be inquired, why did they repair to this river for baptism, instead of fetching the water from it, or from some other fountain, seeing but little water was required in any other mode except in that of immersion? I will answer this question by asking another. Why did the women mentioned in the xvi. chap. of Acts repair to the river's side where prayer was wont to be made? or why was prayer wont to be made there? This place could not have been selected for the purpose of baptism, because the ordinance was not known among them till Paul came there and preached. The selection, therefore, was evidently made for its pleasantness and convenience. So in the other case. The banks of Jordan afforded a pleasant and convenient place for a field-preacher to labour in like John the Baptist. And then it would be very natural to baptize the converts in or at the river. There is no mention made here or elsewhere, of their going from the place of preaching to obtain baptism. This place, therefore, might have been selected because of its pleasantness and convenience for preaching, and the

accommodation of the multitudes in other respects than that of baptism. Besides, the great number who applied for baptism made it convenient to go to the river itself, especially as the preaching took place on its banks. Moreover, it might have been thought preferable to go to a river or fountain of water, when convenient, and take the water from thence, or to wash therein, because it was considered as more fully and strikingly representing the fulness of the gospel provisions, than the bringing of water in a vessel.

Go.

As to the circumstance of their going down into the water, and coming up out of it, I would remark, that allowing they actually did so, it will not prove immersion to be the mode. ing into the water was not baptism. For the baptism was subsequently performed, as it is clear from the case of Philip and the eunuch. Whether in that case, or in any other, the subject was immersed, or washed in some part of his body, or had water applied by pouring or sprinkling, we are not informed. And we must not be wise above what is written. If, indeed, baptizo meant only to immerse, it would be clear that the subject was immersed, but as it does not merely mean this, the manner of the baptism is undecided from the circumstance in question. To go into the water for the purpose of washing is not at all unnatural.

Besides, it is well known by all that have access to the scriptures in the original Greek, that the prepositions translated "into" and "out of," might have been correctly rendered to and from. They are often so rendered. The preposition "eis," is rendered to, or unto, nearly as many times in the New Testament as it is into. The preposition "apo," which is translated "out of," in Mat. iii. 16, and Mark, i. 10, is translated "from" more than five times as often as it is "out of." And the preposition "ek," which is translated "out of" in Acts, viii. 39, is also translated "from" oftener than "out of." So that from the ordinary use of these prepositions, the balance of evidence is in favour of rendering them "to" and "from," instead of "into" and "out of." If, then, these words might have been as properly, or more properly, translated to and from, then all which is necessary to be understood from the record is, that they went down to, and came up from, the water. It may seem strange that these Greek terms were thus indefinite, and that they will admit of being rendered either way. But such is the fact. The connexion, however, will ordinarily show how they are to be understood, where it is important to know the precise meaning. Besides, the evil arising from the indefinite import of eis," which may be rendered either to, into, or unto, was re

66