sprinkling! But thoroughly tired of replying to groundless assumptions and preposterous inferences, we will conclude with the following from Pædobaptists, preceded only by extracts from a Baptist:

Dr. CARSON.-"Were I engaged with Mr. Ewing even in an historical controversy, with respect to the supply of water in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, I could easily show that his conclusions are unwarranted. He depends on the accounts of modern travellers. I would admit their statements, and deny the consequence. Must the supply of water be the same now as it was then? Aqueducts and reservoirs may have then existed of which there are no remains. Herod, at great expense, brought water to the city, by aqueducts, from a considerable distance; and the pools and fountains, and rivers, cannot now be estimated. The supply of water to the city of God could not be inadequate to the supply of the inhabitants, and to the use of it in legal purifications, which required abundant resources. Shall we judge of the supply of water in the days of the apostles by that of the present time, when Jerusalem is suffering under the curse? How much depended at that time upon rain? Is there reason to think that the supply is equal at present? Earthquakes alter the course of rivers, and often seal up fountains. In the year 1182, as Goldsmith relates, most of the cities of Syria, and the kingdom of Jerusalem, were destroyed by an earthquake. Mr. Gibbon makes a like objection to the Scripture account of the fertility of Judea. The present barrenness of that country he considers as proof of the falsehood of the accounts of its ancient fertility. This, which may appear to many very sage, is in reality very shallow. There are many possible ways in which the fertility of a country may differ at different times. The peasants of Switzerland draw walls of stone across their declivities, to keep up the mould which industry has brought to the nourishment of their vines. If these were for a few years neglected, the rains would sweep away all their labours, and there would be nothing in the place of luxuriance but barrenness and naked rocks. Must the brook Kedron have been as scanty as it is now? Mr. Ewing tells us that, like other brooks in cities, it was contaminated. Did the filth run up the stream? And could they not baptize where it entered the city, or upwards? The very attempt to prove, at this distance of time, that there could not be water in or near Jerusalem for immersion, is absurd. I would hold this, were the question merely an historical one. But if the Holy Spirit testifies that the disciples were baptized on believing the Gospel, and if I have proved that this word signifies to immerse, then, though there were real difficulties on the subject, I am entitled to suppose that there must have been in some place a supply of water" (pp. 166, 167). Afterwards, replying to Mr. Hall, he says: "I tell Mr. H. that I can immerse the three thousand on the day of Pentecost without the assistance of the brook Kedron, or any proof from history. There may have been many conveniences in Jerusalem of which we can know nothing. This is enough for me. . . If we refer to the number of reservoirs, and baths, and pools in Jerusalem, it is out of compassion for the weakness of our opponents. In a city where purifications by bathing were every day so numerous, with respect to both rich and poor, there could be no want of conveniences for immersion" (p. 414). Previously, to Dr. Miller: "In baptizing the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, I will trouble neither the twelve nor the seventy, if they have more important work. ... It does not lie on us to show that there is any evidence of sufficient water, except the evidence implied in the word. Many writers on our side have shown that there is independent evidence of the sufficiency of water in Jerusalem. This is highly useful, with a view of putting obstinacy to the blush; but it is not necessary to prove the fact by direct evidence in any instance. I trample on such objections. If it is asserted by credible testimony that a man was shot, are you to refuse belief unless you are informed where the powder and ball were purchased, in order to kill him?" (pp. 370, 371).

...

Bp. PATRICK, referring to the law of Moses, says: "There are so many washings prescribed, that it is reasonable to believe there were not only at Jerusalem, and in all other cities, but in every village, several bathing-places contrived for these legal purifications, that men might, without much labour, be capable to fulfil these precepts."-On Lev. xv. 12.

STACKHOUSE."The only question is, How such a multitude of converts could possibly be baptized in one day? To which some reply, that this rite of initiation

into the Christian church was then performed by way of sprinkling, as it is among us; but whoever looks into history will find that the form of baptism among the Jews was plunging the whole body under water, and that, in conformity to them, the primitive Christians did, and the Eastern church even to this day, does, administer that sacrament in this manner."-His. of the Bible, vol. ii., p. 1516.

D'OUTREINIUS.- "Whoever considers the number of unclean persons who daily had need of washing, and he who reads the Talmudic Treatises concerning purifications, and collections of water convenient for these purposes, will be easily persuaded that Bethesda and other pools at Jerusalem subserved that design."—Biblioth. Bremens, class i., p. 614.

BUDDEUS. "When those three thousand persons that were brought to repentance in one day by the preaching of Peter were to be baptized, they were led to another place; and might be baptized by the apostles, by others in company with them, and also by the seventy disciples."-Theol. Dogm., l. v., c. i., § 5.

Bp. BOSSUET, speaking of immersion as apostolic baptism, says: "It appears not that the three thousand and the five thousand mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, who were converted at the first sermons of St. Peter, were baptized any other way; and the great numbers of those converts is no proof that they were baptized by sprinkling, as some have conjectured. For, besides that nothing obliges us to say that they were all baptized on the same day, it is certain that St. John the Baptist, who baptized no less numbers, seeing all Judea flocked to him, baptized no other way than by dipping: and his example shows us that to baptize a great number of people those places were chosen where there was abundance of water. Add to this, that the baths and purifications of the ancients rendered this ceremony easy and familiar at that time."-In Stennett's Answer to Russen, pp. 175, 176.

VICECOMES, who, like Bossuet, belongs to Rome, after saying, "I will never cease to profess and teach that only immersion in water, except in cases of necessity, is lawful baptism in the church. I will refute that false notion that baptism was administered in the primitive church by pouring or sprinkling," proceeds to refute the objection taken from the baptism of the three thousand in one day by the apostles, maintaining that it was a long summer day; that the words pronounced in baptism are as long in the mode of sprinkling as in that of dipping, &c.—Obs. Eccle. de Antiq. Bap., Ritib., l. iv., c. vi., vii.

Bp. TAYLOR, referring to the supposition that the apostles sprinkled, says: "Aquinas supposes the apostles did so, when the three thousand and when the five thousand were at once converted and baptized. But this is but a conjecture, and hath no tradition and no record to warrant it."-Duc. Dub., b. iii., c. iv., p. 644.

§ 13.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF THE SAMARITANS.

Dr. OWEN.-"Every undue presumption hath one lameness or other accompanying it; it is truth alone which is square and steady."-In Tes. of Em. Pa., p. 5.

Dr. CARSON.-"It is strange if the words of the Spirit are like the oracle of Delphi, that can be intended in two opposite senses."-Do., p. 5.

J. A. JAMES.There are men, I repeat, of such subtle minds, of such logical power, and so clever in argument, as to make the worse appear the better cause; who can by fallacy and sophistry sustain the most palpable error, and make that truth doubtful which has to you the luminousness of the sun."-Young Man's Guide, p. 130.

Dr. ANGUS. "There is such clearness in the command, that he that runneth may read; but withal, such possibility of error as proves God to be testing what is in our hearts, and whether we will keep His commandments or not.'"--Bi. Hand Book, p. 319.

WE read in Acts viii. 5, 6, 12, that "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake." And "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.' A want of the Greek article in the fifth verse justifies the rendering "to a city of Samaria." Dr. Barnes, the well-known commentator, says: "The city of Samaria. This does not mean a city whose name was Samaria, for no such city at that time existed. Samaria was a region

[Acts viii. 1]. The ancient city, Samaria, the capital of that region, had been destroyed by Hyrcanus so completely as to leave no vestige of it remaining; and he took away,' says Josephus, the very marks that there had ever been such a city there' (Antiq., b. xiii., c. x., § 3). Herod the Great afterwards built a city on this site, and called it Sebaste, that is, Augusta, in honour of Augustus (Jos. Antiq., b. xv., c. viii., § 5). Perhaps this city is intended, as being the principal city of Samaria; or, possibly, Sychar, another city where the Gospel had been before preached by the Saviour himself (John iv.)." Perhaps Sebaste, the principal city, anciently Samaria; but POSSIBLY Sychar. The Annotated Paragraph Bible says: "Rather to a city of Samaria, as in John iv. 5, where the phrase is used of Shechem, which was at that time the chief city of the Samaritans. If this were the place to which Philip went, he began to reap the fruit of our Lord's sowing. (See John iv. 35-38.)”—On Acts viii. 5.

Whilst we maintain that the meaning of the Greek baptizo has been proved to be to immerse, our opponents deem it improbable that the immersion of the Samaritans took place, overlooking the fact that it does not devolve on us to adduce details respecting water, but on them to bring forwards proof that the immersion did not take place. If the Bible had related every detail of events and of conversation in connection with events which it records, it would have consisted of hundreds of volumes, instead of happily being its present size. But it is by some first concluded with certainty that this city of Samaria was Sychar, or Sichem, called Shechem in the Old Testament, although the Word of God does not say so; and, secondly, it is asserted that "they had no river or fountain of pure water in the city or immediate neighbourhood: what was required for domestic use being fetched from Jacob's well, which was both distant and deep" (Thorn, p. 19). We are not writing for the sake of men who, from groundless suppositions, will so rashly affirm what is as destitute of probability as it is of declaration in the inspired record, but for the sake of those who are liable to be deluded by such fallacious reasoning and positive but untruthful declarations. Mr. Stacey enters into no detail respecting the Samaritans. Prof. J. H. Godwin asserts: "They were dipped into the name of the Lord Jesus.' That this cannot be its meaning is evident. They were purified for the Lord Jesus'" (Chr. Bap., p. 111). What a mental revolution would be effected by the conversion to our sentiments of Prof. G., who, on the examples of Christian baptism recorded in Holy Writ, says: "In only one case is there anything in the least to favour the notion that the baptized went into the water; and in not one is there anything to lead us to imagine that they were dipped into the water" (p. 122).

Dr. Halley argues at some length in favour of the application of water otherwise than by immersion. First, he declares it "probable" that this city "was Sychem, the ancient metropolis of Samaria." Then, instead of proving to us that there was no river, no bath, or water in which these believers could be baptized, he asks: "But what were the conveniences in Sychem for immersing the male and female population of the city?" He kindly informs us that Jacob's well was there, and says: "It will not be pretended that the people were immersed in that well."

We believe this; but not the next. "That there was no other considerable collection of pure water, suitable for drinking or for ablutions, would appear from the fact not only that the woman of Samaria resorted to it, but that she supposed it impossible for Jesus to give her living water." Here are two reasons assigned why in this "ancient metropolis of Samaria" there was not water elsewhere suitable either for drinking or for ablutions. First, a woman of Samaria went to this well to draw water! Of course it would be quite irrational, having this fact, to believe that she or any other woman of Samaria, in whatever part of the city, ever went to any other place for water! It would be absurd to suppose that the well being deep, the water might be more cool and pleasant than water from some other places! And quite impossible that she should have a predilection for this well from its interesting association with Jacob and with historic facts! * But, secondly, this woman of Sychar, the supposed city, thought it "impossible for Jesus to give her living water:" therefore there was no other well in the city, or in its suburbs! There was no pool, like those of Bethesda and Siloam in Jerusalem, or inferior to them; no pool at all suitable for drinking or for ablutions! And because this woman "supposed it impossible for Jesus to give her living water,"- -even supposing that the woman deemed running water to be meant,-it is evident that there was none to which He could have directed her! If He could not GIVE living water to the woman with whom He was conversing, it is quite impossible that He "could TELL her of any other water" than what was in that well! To give living water and to tell of any other water are facts equally possible, or terms clearly and perfectly synonymous! We read in God's Word: "He would have given thee living water." "From whence then hast Thou that living water?" Not a word is there about being able or unable to tell her of any water but that which He himself gave.

But, thirdly, and what is the weightiest of all: "Had there been a stream of any consequence in the neighbourhood, would the cattle of Jacob, as she imagined, have been supplied from that deep well?" Before we deal largely with what "she imagined," it seems to us fair to have evidence that she did so imagine, if not also that her imaginings had some foundation. Were we to grant that what "she imagined" is undoubtedly true, did she imagine that all his cattle drank there along with himself, and that regularly whilst located in that part? Could it never be truly said that a man and his cattle drank of a certain well without its being true that they all and always drank of it, and that it was the only water in all that part suitable for drinking or for bathing? If all that is imagined is true as Gospel, we must not object to the doctor's affirmation, for we do not doubt that he imagines it true when he says: "That well was the customary place of resort for water, and the woman knew of none more convenient." "The distance from Shechem and Jacob's well," says Dr. Kitto, "may be about six or seven miles" (Scrip. Lands, p. 192. Bohn's edition). A well at this possible distance from

We are aware that the doctor says "no other considerable collection of pure water, suitable for drinking or for ablutions;" yet his arguments and necessities do not allow him to admit that there were smaller collections "suitable for drinking or for ablutions."

the city shall we suppose, and also the customary place of resort for water! And that THIS WOMAN KNEW Of none more CONVENIENT! Since this woman at this time went to Jacob's well, no doubt it was the customary place of resort for water, and more convenient than any other with which she was acquainted! Even this, however, is not so strong as Mr. Thorn's language previously given. But "the woman knew of none more convenient"! Of course no woman ever went for water to one place in preference to another, but from convenience! At least this woman's language in exaltation of the well, and in honour of the patriarch Jacob, proves clearly that there was no stream except at a great distance! If the understanding of any should be so obtuse as not to discern and appreciate this logical demonstration, they need but be reminded that not woman in Manchester, or in England, would go to a well for water if it were not "the customary place of resort for water," or if she knew of a stream or river that was "more convenient"!

Finally, we are requested to observe "that this conversation with the woman of Samaria took place, not in the dry and sultry season, when the brooks fail, but in January or February." As the language itself has already been affirmed to prove that there were then no brooks, or springs, or other wells than this for this "ancient metropolis of Samaria,” nothing but this well for all the inhabitants of this city for drinking purposes, for Divinely-appointed ablutions, and for all the bathing which health, pleasure, custom, religion, or superstition might enforce, so the time, "four months before harvest," when the words of this woman were spoken, proves that whilst there was not then, there could not in any other part of the year be, any "other considerable collection of pure water suitable for drinking or for ablutions"! And as in Jacob's well "the water was deep, and it could not be obtained without something to draw with, it will not be pretended that" ablutions took place "in that well;" consequently the men and women of Samaria could never obtain an ablution or immersion either in the city of Sychar or its neighbourhood; and if the words of man or of God assert it, we are not to believe that their words mean it! That a provision for ablutions of human adoption or of Divine appointment would be a provision for immersion, is our assertion. But if the good doctor has not done his best, as in other instances, to make out a case against immersion, and if the whole of this does not deserve unmingled contempt, or the severest censure, we are mistaken. But neither his conscience nor his intelligence will allow him to leave matters thus. He immediately adds: "I must here acknowledge I cannot reconcile with these inferences from the Gospel the accounts which travellers give of the flowing stream and the fertility of the country, on account of its perpetual water in the neighbourhood of Sychem or Neapolis." We do not wonder at the doctor's difficulty with "these inferences," which are neither legitimately deduced from the law nor from the Gospel, from history profane or sacred, and which are a libel on Divine revelation respecting the "ancient metropolis" of a portion of "the glory of all lands,” a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills;" a land that "drinketh water of the rain of heaven." All that we have quoted from Dr. H. is written by that learned writer, who knows on whom the

66

EE