Dr. WORDSWORTH is less favourable to immersion than most of his brethren. He teaches, on this passage, that "in baptism our sins are drowned and buried.

And we emerge from the Baptismal Red Sea of Christ's blood" (Gr. Tes., on Rom. vi. 3). It is more profitable, we would say to Canon W. and others, to compare Scripture with Scripture, than to compare it with "the Fathers."

Dr. BLOOMFIELD.- "There is plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of baptism.' "Wetstein adverts to the figurative use of bury as employed of plunging under water." Theophylact observes that as we are by baptism buried in the water, so Christ was buried in the earth."-Crit. Dig., on Rom. vi. 4.

66

CONYBEARE AND HOWSON." This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."-Life and Epis. of Paul, vol. ii., p. 209.

T. LEWIN."Shall we continue in sin, that His grace may be the greater in still saving us? Far be it! says the apostle, for our baptism or submersion was a symbol of our death to sin, and of our resurrection to newness of life.”—Life and Epis. of Paul, p. 542.

WEBSTER AND WILKINSON.-"Doubtless there is an allusion to immersion, as the usual mode of baptism, introduced to show that baptism symbolized also our spiritual resurrection" (Gr. Tes., on Rom. vi. 1–4). "In omoiomati there is no allusion to the mode in which baptism is performed. The omoioma is explained in (11). There is a reference to a double resurrection-one to newness of life, the other (8) to eternal life; the fut. esometha expressing the certainty of the one, and the futurity of the other (Compare viii. 10, 11).”—Do., vers. 5–7.

Thus unequivocally do some of the most eminent Pædobaptist divines, English and Continental, living and departed, of recent and remote date, testify to the primitive practice of immersion, and assert their conviction that apostolic language in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, refers to the Christian ordinance, and necessarily alludes to this as immersion, and not pouring or sprinkling. We need not "the shelter of these great names," and we regard the "patient inquiry" by Mr. S. into the import of this passage as having, in his case and in several others, by the influence of prepossession, led only to the darkening of Divine instruction by human "verbiage," to the obscuring and perverting of what to the unprejudiced conveys an obvious and momentous import. Even Dr. Williams, who was "of opinion that the allusion is not to any mode of baptism whatever, but to a spiritual disposition," seems to have the conviction that apostolic language to some extent favoured immersion, because, said he, "there is a greater resemblance between that practice and a burial than between the said plunging and the active communication and application of Divine influences to the soul" (vol. i., p. 196). He should rather have said, Than between sprinkling and pouring, and a burial. As long as the apostolic allusions remain, we believe that we shall maintain that there is a greater approach to profanity in what Dr. H. says, and Mr. S. quotes, respecting baptism as a scenic representation of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, than in anything that has been said by Baptists and Pædobaptists who have written alike respecting a representation in the Christian ordinance of these solemn facts relative to our adorable Redeemer. We believe that, until the exigencies of sprinkling required another interpretation of these words, all commentators admitted that the apostle evidently and undoubtedly alludes to the Christian immersion; and, consequently, we agree with

Bishop Hoadley, that if baptism had been performed by the apostles as it is now by the Pædobaptists, we should never have heard of this form of speech (Works, vol. iii., p. 890). Finally, we believe that apostolic language in Rom. vi. is as much opposed to infants as the subjects of baptism, as it is to sprinkling or pouring as the action of baptism; and that what many Pædobaptists have written on this part of Scripture is as condemnatory of their own practice in substituting infants for professing believers, as in substituting sprinkling or pouring for immersion.

§ 6.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM 1 PETER III. 20, 21.

Dr. D. DAVIDSON.-"Have we any instance of an emblem being the type of an emblem?"— Fam. Comp. Bi., on 1 Peter iii. 21.

Dr. F. WAYLAND.-"Our brethren who differ from us relieve themselves of one difficulty by plunging into a greater."-Prin. of Bap., p. 66.

W. JAY.-"Paley observes that we should never suffer what we know to be disturbed by what we know not. And Butler remarks nearly the same when he says, If a truth be established, objections are nothing. The one is founded on our knowledge, and the other in our ignorance.". Autobi., p. 167.

THE apostle Peter's words, in 1 Peter iii. 20, 21, are referred to by Dr. Halley as unfavourable to immersion. He says that " some resemblance between our baptism and the state of the family of Noah in the flood, is implied in the words. But the eight souls were not immersed. In the strict sense of immersion, even the old world was not immersed -not dipped-for the water came upon them. In no sense was Noah immersed in water. We baptize with the like figure whereunto' according to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized, and not according to that in which the antediluvians were drowned; for our baptism is significant of salvation, and not of destruction" (p. 292). He then proceeds immediately to the baptism of the Pentecost. We do not know that Mr. Stacey has cited this passage in opposition to immersion. Dr. H., it will be perceived, asserts the inapplicability of the apostolic language to immersion, because Noah and because the eight souls were not immersed. He makes no attempt to prove that they were sprinkled. He does not positively affirm that the eight souls were either sprinkled or poured; but his language implies a belief that they were sprinkled, for he says: "We baptize with 'the like figure whereunto' according to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized." He appears to proceed here and elsewhere, as do Mr. S. and many of the Pædobaptists, &c., on the assumption that any difficulty, we had almost said real or imaginary, because these alleged difficulties appear to us to belong exclusively to the latter class,— is so much proof in favour of the application of water in whatever way you like. He says that "the eight souls were not immersed." The Word of God does not say that they were. Nor does it say or imply that they were sprinkled. It says that they "were saved by water." If the old world had been destroyed in some other way, as by fire, Noah and they that were with him would have perished. By following God's directions, as a consequence of believing God's word, Noah was prepared for the flood, and the eight souls who entered the ark were saved by water. And in like manner baptism saves, not as an outward washing, but as "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Seeing nothing

in this passage opposed to immersion, we had thought, when previously referring to it, of making no further remarks; but on re-examining Dr. H.'s assertions, we have deemed it right thus, and still further, to advert to his objections. Dr. H. says: "In the strict sense of immersion, even the old world was not immersed." He and Mr. S., and Prof. Wilson, &c., are deeply solicitous that we abide by what they believe to be the primary sense of immersion; although they, and all Pædobaptists who know the English language, know certainly that this is not the exclusive sense of the English word. Otherwise so many of them would not speak of the immersion of the Egyptians, and in other connections adopt a similar usage of immersion. Would that there were in them a tenth or a hundredth part of this solicitude to abide by the strict sense of the word which the DIVINE SPIRIT has invariably used to designate the Christian ordinance! The controversy on the action in baptism, and the inconsistency between practice and innumerable acknowledgments, would then come to a speedy and happy close. For the present, we are obliged to notice what our Pædobaptist friends are pleased to write. And Dr. H. says: "In no sense was Noah immersed in water. We baptize with the like figure whereunto according to the mode in which Noah," &c. We think that we have a right to ask from Dr. H. how Noah was sprinkled. Did the ark leak? Was there somewhere a bubbling up of water, which by some means besprinkled these eight souls? Or, through some defect, was not "the covering of the ark" waterproof? And from this defect did the eight souls obtain an aspersion, so that "we baptize with the like figure," &c.? We think either of these hypotheses quite as clearly revealed, and quite as accordant with reason, as that the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night scattered its aqueous contents on the children of Israel, or that a portion of that water which stood on heaps, and was a wall on the right and on the left, was splashed to the distance of a mile, or of miles, falling on the children of Israel, who, nevertheless, all walked on dry ground. We recollect, too, that we are animadverting on the writings of one who sets his face as a flint against all interpolations of God's Word. Shall we humbly and charitably conclude that this sprinkling of the eight souls is a fact somewhere in God's Word plainly revealed, but that we have overlooked the passage, and that both Dr. Halley and the Congregational Union will not long allow the continued issuing of this volume with the kind of sanction which the latter give to it, without affording to us the information absolutely necessary, before we can practise sprinkling, and say that we "baptize with the like figure whereunto according to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized"?

The Rev. D. Fraser says: "The baptism to which Peter alludes is that which was poured down from the opened windows of heaven." Was the baptism poured down? If it was indeed effected by the torrents of water poured down at that time from the opened windows of heaven, how is its resemblance to a sprinkling of the face proved? And was the sprinkling of the ark, whether in this or in any other way effected, the sprinkling of the eight souls?

Dr. Adam Clarke is more explicit, and possibly more venturesome, than Dr. Halley, respecting the sprinkling that took place when the

eight souls were saved. We cannot, however, give any pledge to the reader that Dr. H. agrees with his brother doctor. Indeed, it seems to us that one doctor looks upon the eight souls as being sprinkled, and the other doctor, upon the ark as being sprinkled. But this difference betwixt one and the other is of no consequence, if they are only both against immersion. Although they may contradict one another, and one or the other must be false, yet, against immersion their contradictory assertions may be accepted as positive arguments! It is only like? coming by two roads to one goal! But what does Dr. Clarke say? "Noah and his family were saved by water; that is, it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God." How excellent and scriptural thus far! He adds: "So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now, as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark; so the water of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification." These contain some important truths; although we might animadvert on baptism as the means of getting the heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and on the inconsistency of the whole with infant baptism. He adds: "The ark was not immersed in the water; had it been so, they must all have perished; but it was borne up on the water, and sprinkled with the rain that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of immersion in baptism, but is rather, from the circumstance mentioned above, in favour of sprinkling."-Com., on 1 Peter iii. 21.

Thus, according to the good doctor, when "all the fountains of the great deep" were "broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights" (Gen. vii. 11, 12), the sprinkling which the ark received from the rain that fell down from heaven rather favours sprinkling as the action which Christ enjoined as the initiatory ordinance in His kingdom! To what absurd hypotheses does the advocacy of sprinkling lead doctors in divinity! We believe that the evidence which our Pædobaptist friends gain from this sprinkling, which we trow was rather an unusual sprinkling,-torrents of rain falling from the opened windows of heaven,-is about as much as is gained from Heb. ix. 21, which is sometimes quoted in proof of sprinkling in opposition to immersion in the Christian ordinance; the proof being that because Moses sprinkled with blood the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry, therefore baptism (immersion) is sprinkling. Let Pædobaptists, and Baptists too, again peruse "the Scripture of truth" on this subject:-"When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It might be read more literally, but with exactly the same import, instead of, "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,” According to which the antitype, baptism, doth also now save us. Instead of the word of God saying either

that Noah was immersed, or that Noah or the ark was sprinkled, the words immediately preceding Peter's declaration respecting baptism as an antitype, are, that "eight souls were SAVED by water;" and the words immediately following the mention of baptism as an antitype are, "doth also now save us." What evidence can be justly demanded that the eight souls were baptized at all? The inspired record says that they were saved by water. We know that Noah, believing God and obeying His commands, was prepared for God's destroying of the world by water, and that this, not its destruction by fire, was God's purpose, and became God's deed. Noah went, as it were, out of the old world into the ark; in the ark he went down into the water; and eventually he came forth out of the ark, and out of the water in the sense in which he had been in the water, into a new world. We do not say that this is thus expressed, but we say that this is taught in God's Word. We do not say that this took place emblematically of immersion: we simply say that these are facts. The passage does not require an external resemblance in the action of baptism to Noah's condition in the ark, but a resemblance in the element, water, and in the result, salvation. The former, water, will not be denied as belonging to the antitype; the latter, salvation, is asserted on the highest authority, with an addition which we should be sorry to withhold "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Thus the words of the apostle, as we maintain,—and we know not that any other inspired writer refers to this,-require not that we consider the action in the Christian ordinance to have been emblematized by anything that took place at the flood. He speaks respecting the emblem of water only, and being saved; and respecting the antitype he teaches only that baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the putting away, &c. Who may not properly be reminded of our Lord's words, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Since the preceding was written we have read the following in Prof. Wilson:

-

"In the original, baptism is styled the antitupos, corresponding in its effects to the preservation of Noah and his family, which thus occupies by implication the place of the tupos or type. That the safety extended to Noah and his family by water typified the salvation of the Christian by the baptism of the text, is evidently the substance of the apostolic statement. In both instances there is deliverance, and both employ the instrumentality of water. These are indisputable points of resemblance; and they abundantly warrant the application of the terms type and antitype" (pp. 284, 285). Also we have read the following from the Rev. J. Sutcliffe: "The figure' is immersion, the mode of baptizing among the Jews."-Com., on 1 Peter iii. 21, 22.

§ 7.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS FROM CERTAIN PREPOSITIONS.

MOSES."The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”—Deut. xxix.

29.

PAUL.-"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."-1 Thess. v. 21.

JAMES.-"Do not err, my beloved brethren."-Epis. i. 16.

Dr. F. WAYLAND.-"It is obvious that, no matter in what language a sentiment is written, we can never understand it unless we understand with sufficient accuracy the meaning of the words in which it is composed. If we attach to them no meaning whatever, or an inaccurate, vague,