at the present day go down into the water, a few inches deep, and are there baptized by pouring or sprinkling the water upon them while kneeling. One of the clergymen, and a number of the members of the Congregational and Methodist churches of this village, were thus baptized, and this is a common method. If, then, Philip and the eunuch went into and came out of the water, it furnishes no positive proof that he was immersed. But there is no certain evidence that they even stepped into the water an inch deep. The Greek word eis, here, (Acts 8: 38,) rendered into, is very frequently, though not always, rendered to and unto. It is rendered to and unto 285 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts; and the word ek is often, though not always, rendered from. This word eis is rendered to four times in this very chapter. The language of Luke then may read, (and the authority for this reading is undoubted,) they went down to the water and came up from the water. This is as two travelers on the road would naturally do, if they wished to baptize by affusion. There is another strong circumstance in this case. The eunuch was reading the passage, (Isaiah, 52 and 53; this was then all one paragraph, the division into chapters being of modern date,) where the Prophet describes the sufferings and mission of Christ. In this very passage, it was predicted among other things, that Christ, when he should come, would sprinkle or baptize many nations. The eunuch, being told that Christ had actually come and suffered all that was foretold, inquired, "what doth hinder me to be baptized? This Savior who was to sprinkle or baptize many nations has come, and I am one of them - let me be baptized." And they went down from the carriage to the water, and he was baptized; and to make the act correspond with the prediction, the mode must have been by affusion. Now, I ask, is there a particle of positive proof that the eunuch was immersed? On the other hand, is it not highly probable from these circumstances, and from the fact that one prominent meaning of baptizo is to pour and sprinkle, that even the eunuch was baptized by affusion ?*

* The advocates of immersion dwell upon it as their main argument, that they find these expressions used, to wit; they went into and came out of the water. But when we show that the words rendered into and out of, are more generally rendered to and from, and that therefore no conclusive argument can be built upon these expressions - and that if they prove anything, they prove in favor of

7

Let us look next at the practice of Christ and the twelve Apostles. "After these things, (John, 3: 22,) came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized."*

"When therefore, (John 4: 1, 2,) the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," &c. Now though the disciples baptized such immense multitudes, (more than John,) not a word is said about their going to Enon, or Jordan, or any other river, brook, or pond. It is not even intimated that they immersed a single person, or that they even went to a river or fountain for the purpose of baptizing: what can be the reason? Plainly, because they baptized with water, not in water. Why, we ask, is so much said at the present day about John's baptism, which was not Christian baptism, and so little said about the baptism by Christ and his disciples ? Christ sent forth the twelve, two and two, to go from city to city and from house to house to preach and baptize, and where they preached, there, in those very houses, for aught that appears, they baptized. How can, we doubt, with these facts before us, that the mode was ordinarily by affusion ?

Is it necessary to proceed further? We have examined, I trust fairly, the circumstances attending John's baptism - the baptism of Jesus Christ of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost - of the Apostle Paul - of Cornelius and his friends - of the Jailer and his household - of the eunuch - and those under the immediate direction of Christ and the twelve; and what is the result? Do all or either of these cases furnish any positive proof that immersion was the mode practiced? If so, which is it? There is no positive proof that John baptized by immersion nor that Christ was baptized by immersion - nor that the eunuch was:- the balance of evidence arising from the circumstances in each of these cases, is in favor of affusion. And in the case of the three thousand - of Paul - of Cornelius - of the Jailer - and of those baptized by Christ and the twelve, the circumstances show beyond all reasonable doubt, to every unbiased mind, that affusion was the mode practiced. Where, then, do we find a single case of baptism recorded in the Bible which furnishes positive proof that immersion was practiced ? No-where. - There is no such case in the Bible. Whereas on the other hand, the proof is as conclusive as circumstantial proof can be, that affusion was generally, perhaps always practiced. The supposition of the advocates of exclusive immersion therefore falls to the ground, while our position stands firm and immovable, sustained by the testimony of such witnesses as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and Jesus Christ. Being found in such company, if we are humble and believing, we need not fear: the ordinances of God will be preserved, let who may misrepresent, and sneer and ridicule.

In proof of our position that immersion is not the only gospel baptism - and that affusion is a valid mode, we urge,

IV. The Bible ALLUSIONS to this ordinance. Here, a few references will suffice. Isaiah, (52: 15,) referring to gospel days, (as all who read the passage may see, and as all judicious commentators affirm,) speaks of Christ and says, "he shall sprinkle many nations." What Christ does by his ministers, he is said to do himself; how then does he sprinkle many nations, unless it be by water baptism? Again - Ezekiel, (36: 25,) speaking in the name of Jehovah to the Jews, utters a promise that should be fulfilled under the gospel: - "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; and a new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c. There can be no mistake here, Creating the heart anew, and sprinkling clean water are so joined together that no one need mistake the fact, that under the gospel, baptism would represent purification by the Holy Ghost; and that it should be performed by sprinkling. The mode is here designated as specifically as language can do it. If there were one passage in the whole Bible in favor of immersion, as definite as these two are in favor of sprinkling, it would certainly be considered a striking allusion. And how do the advocates of immersion evade these plain passages? They cannot deny that they are predictions of what would take place under the gospel. They cannot say that they are not explicit in foretelling that the mode of applying the water would be by sprinkling. How then do they meet them? I will tell you, my hearers. They say, (and it is all they can say,) that these texts are found in the Old Testament, and there they leave them.

Again: under the Jewish economy the unclean were sprinkled with the water of purification, and many things were cleansed by sprinkling water and blood - and these various sprinklings the Apostle Paul calls divers baptisms. So again, the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling. And again, our hearts and consciences are said to be sprinkled. And again, the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of water are represented by the same language "I baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."* And this baptizing with the Holy Ghost is explained in the Bible to mean to come upon to fall upon to be shed forth to pour out - to come down like rain. And, my hearers, is there no meaning in all this language? Are not these expressions clear, and pertinent and decisive? In that passage also, (John 13,) where we are taught how Christ washed the disciples' feet, there is a principle laid down by the Savior which cannot be controverted. That washing, as the Savior affirmed, was a symbol of the purification of the soul through the blood of Christ; and he taught the disciples that a symbolical washing is complete, although it be applied only to the feet; as complete as if it were applied to the hands and the head; "He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." This principle is applicable to every other symbolical washing, and therefore to baptism. If water be applied to any part of the body in baptism, the design of the ordinance is answered.

Another consideration is, that immersion is not fitted for universal practice. It cannot be administered in all situations, and to all persons. "There are inhabited portions of the earth, where water sufficient for this mode of baptism might not occur, once in a hundred miles. There are other portions, where, amidst mountains of ice, and almost perpetual snow," immersion must, for a considerable portion of the year, be imprudent, nay, impracticable. Yet the religion of Christ will ere long be spread over "these arid and these frozen regions," and all the people there will be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is plain that they will not be immersed. There are many, also, in all our towns who become the children of God while in declining health, and on a sick bed, and whose hearts are drawn forth to desire the ordinances of Christ. It is impossible that they should be taken to a river or pond and immersed. On the ground that nothing but immersion is baptism, all these persons must die without the ordinance. I have baptized a devout and humble disciple of Christ in her sick room, and then given her the bread and the cup, in company with a few other brethren and sisters assembled around that bed; and it was one of the most solemn, heavenly and delightful seasons I ever enjoyed. Now has the Lord Jesus Christ, who designs that his religion shall fill the earth, required an outward form that cannot be universally practiced? It cannot be so.

L

There is another consideration: baptism by immersion is not adapted to the circumstances of the occasion on which it is usually administered. By affusion, it may be administered here in the house of God, in connection with the other ordinances of religion, silently and solemnly, and without that distraction of mind attendant upon going to a river or pond. Here it can be done decently, and devoutly, and in a manner which is calculated to make a deep impression upon every soul present, and to point