having been buried and raised with Christ in baptism; and were he to observe that the author always uses a word for the ordinance which, in its primary acceptation, signifies immersion, but never talks of bringing water to the candidate, or of using a basin, as preparatory to the administration, he would, I presume, be ready to say: "This author, whoever he be, writes like a Baptist. He speaks the language of one that considers baptism as nothing short of immersion.'. . . A similarity of practice, in other cases, usually produces a similarity of language, when that practice is narrated."-Pad. Ex., vol. i., pp. 208–210.

§ 15-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF PAUL.

HON, AND REV. H. M. VILLIERS.-"Which, from want of a better name, I must designate as the Dangers of Plausibility; I mean those which arise, not from any wilful perversion of the truth, but," &c.-Er. Hall Lec., p. 261. 1851.

H. W. BEECHER -"The church is God's window; and if it is so obscured by errors that its light is darkness, how great is that darkness !"-Life Thoughts, p. 21.

Dr. ANGUS."1. Nothing should be made a matter of faith which is not a matter of revelation. 2. In studying the Bible, there must be an indifferent judgment till the truth itself decides. Allow no bias but that which is received from the Scriptures themselves; otherwise, our knowledge will be only inclination and fancy. 3. The same prominence should be given to each doctrine, as is given to it in Scripture. 4. Where the doctrine of Scripture is important and necessary, the Scripture will be found full and clear. Where Scripture is not full and clear, the doctrine is either in itself not important, or the certain knowledge of it does not belong to our present state. 5. The Bible, being inspired, cannot really contradict itself."-Bi. Hand-Book, p. 316.

T. H. HORNE."It is evident that we proceed on just and rational principles, in comparing together passages that have some degree of resemblance; and in applying those, the meaning of which is clear, to the illustration of such as are involved in some degree of obscurity." "Wherever any doctrine for meaning of a word) is manifest, either from the whole tenor of divine revelation or from its scope, it must not be weakened or set aside by a few obscure passages."-Intro., vol. ii., pp. 377, 412.

THE Holy Spirit thus testifies respecting Paul's baptism. "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized" (Acts ix. 18). Again, "And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (xxii. 16). The connection of these quotations the reader can examine. It is said by one of our opponents that "the case of Paul is equally conclusive" with that of the Samaritans. To this we do not object. But it is added, "He was evidently baptized in the room where he was sitting. He was ordered to STAND UP (not to go away, but) to be baptized there-right" (Thorn, p. 19). The propriety of reasoning with those who so glaringly add to the Word of God might be more than questioned, if we believed it to be wilful, and if we did not write for the sake of others. Certainly the Scriptures do not say, and we think do not make it evident, that he was baptized in the room where he was sitting. He adds, "This act is called washing away his sins (ceremonially, of course), which was always done by sprinkling the penitent offender with blood or water." We deny that sprinkling with water (alone) had any place in the law of Moses. If this had been the case, it is also true that the writers of the New Testament, and the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament, and all classic writers with which we are acquainted, never use baptizo when they speak of sprinkling.

Dr. Halley is silent respecting Paul's immersion; but Mr. Stacey says, "St. Paul's baptism appears to have taken place in a private house, in which we are not at liberty to say there was a bath large enough for immersion." Mr. S. ignores the proof that baptizo means to immerse;

or reasons on the supposition of its being proved that it means the application of water in any way; or is regardless of the fact that the burden of proof that the word has another meaning than immerse and if this is the case, that it is used here in a secondary meaning-devolves on himself. Such is the meaning of the word, even according to his own declarations, that it belongs to him to prove that Paul was not immersed, and not to ourselves, or to any one, to prove that there was in that house a bath large enough for immersion. He adds, "Moreover, it occurred while the apostle was sick both in body and mind" (p. 219). On what authority does Mr. S. affirm the bodily sickness of Paul? This is more than affirming a belief in his comparative feebleness and exhaustion from fasting and mental anxiety. Must we commend those who thus "attempt to evade the established meaning of a word, and confer on it a meaning that cannot plead the authority of a single example"? In the words of Dr. Carson, we say, "Were we to admit, as a canon of interpretation, that difficulties and views of probability ought to set aside the usual meaning of words, and give them meanings for which there is no other sanction, what facts in history could stand their ground? Every fanatic, every religionist, every heretic, would give words whatever meaning they pleased. In all cases of contested meaning, we must proceed on the authority of ascertained examples, without any deference to the authority of previous probability. If Paul was baptized in a state of exhaustion, before partaking of refreshment, we are not from this to deny the meaning of the word, but to learn that baptism ought to be attended to immediately on believing. It is connected with the faith that saves the soul, and ought as closely as possible to be connected with it in practice" (p. 356). The Baptists, as we think, are blameable in many instances for their delays in connection with baptism. If Paul was baptized, as Mr. S. asserts, in a state of exhaustion, and before partaking of food; instead of scarcely supposing "that in such circumstances dipping would have been safe," why not learn that baptism should be attended to without delay by every believer in Christ Jesus? If Paul, in these circumstances, was baptized, rather than conclude with Mr. S., ought we not to conclude that clinical circumfusion and clinical sprinkling, the invention of human policy, ought never to have been a substitute for baptism; and that the advocates of sprinkling instead of immersion for the sake of convenience, ought to be ashamed? But Mr. S. can scarcely think that dipping "would have been so described"! And Dr. Miller says, "there is no hint that Paul changed his raiment"; to which Dr. C. says, "No more is there any account from what point the wind blew on the occasion" (p. 374); a reply deserved, as we think, by those who thus trifle with and oppose God's ordinances. Dr. C. adds, and his remarks are a reply to some of Mr. S.'s objections, as well as those of Dr. M.: "Is there no evidence that such a man was hanged, because there is no account whether he wore his ordinary dress or obtained one for the occasion? There may be honesty in this sort of reasoning, but there is no logic. But our author has not yet done with this species of logic. There is no account,' it seems, 'that Paul and Ananias went out of the house to a neighbouring stream.' What need of such information? When I hear that Dr. M. is immersed in

New York, I shall never inquire whether it was in a river, in a pond, or in a bath. . . . Adverting to Paul's situation, he asks, 'Can it be imagined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances, would have had him carried forth and plunged into cold water?' The wisdom and humanity of Ananias had nothing to do in the matter; he had the express command of God. If Dr. M. has any charge against the wisdom and humanity of the institution, no doubt its Author, in due time, will give him a sufficient answer" (p. 374). Also, says Dr. C., "I can, however, see nothing in Paul's situation that would render immersion either dangerous or disagreeable" (p. 374). But Mr. S. informs us that

as soon as Ananias commanded, he rose from his couch, and was baptized;" and he conceives that a baptism "so described" must have taken place in the room, no space of time intervening betwixt the standing up of Paul and his being baptized; just as if we might say that God's command to Moses, "Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh," naturally, if not inevitably, teaches that no time would intervene between his rising up and his standing before Pharaoh. Or as if the language of Moses, "Now rise up, said I, and get you over the brook Zered," implied that no time could intervene between the command and the action in those who were obedient; or perhaps implied that they must have been in the brook Zered when such language was used. It is not necessary to mention the fact of Ulysses returning to the ship with a stag, throwing it from his shoulders, and saying to his hungry companions, "Rise and eat," as proving that the stag was eaten before it was skinned or cooked; and as proving, contrary to the fact, that it was not eaten in a different place from that in which the address was given. What need have we of information as to Paul's going out of the house, and as to the place, and kind of place, &c., where Paul was baptized? If the want of these facts proves that he was sprinkled or poured, what is there that cannot be proved? Does the context, in any volume, sacred or profane, always afford a confirmation of the true meaning of a word? Do the records of immersions, in Baptist periodicals, always or usually mention the place where the baptism took place, and give details respecting the taking off of sandals or shoes, &c.? Can we in charity hope that learned Pædobaptists write from entire ignorance, or sheer forgetfulness of Eastern customs, that they know not, or remember not, that one of the first acts of hospitality was to furnish guests with a bath for the feet, or for the whole body (Luke vii. 44)? We doubt not that some of them have read of the shipwrecked Ulysses, "weak and exhausted with three days' fasting and excitement," found on the coast by the king's daughter, and conducted immediately to a place where he could "bathe his fainting limbs."

If

Further, whilst scarcity of water is not pleaded here, Paul being in that part respecting which the renowned Syrian who dipped himself seven times in Jordan, said, "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?" we maintain that the connection is confirmatory of immersion rather than opposed to it. baptism was immersion, might not Ananias, in allusion to it, appropriately add, "and wash away thy sins"? Does not immersion suggest and justify the term wash, which is subsequently and immediately used by Ananias? Is it an improvement to say, Arise and be sprinkled, and

wash away thy sins; or, Arise and be poured, and wash away thy sins; or, Arise and be washed, and wash away thy sins? These questions are justifiable in ourselves, although they are not needed, since the burden of proving that immersion did not or could not take place, devolves on our opponents.

Finally, which is also unnecessary, we remark, that the expression, Arise and, or Rise and, is idiomatic, both with ourselves and in the East; and that thus, very frequently, nothing is conveyed by the term different from, or in addition to, the action mentioned in the subsequent verb. Thus, what should we think of the man who attempted to prove that the prodigal was seated, or was laid down, when he said, and because he said, "I will arise, and go to my father," &c. The word arise is oft a participle in the Greek, as in this case, and without the conjunction and, in accordance with the Greek idiom, and with the frequently occurring sentence rendered, He "answered and said." In Luke's writings the verb arise similarly occurs in Luke xvii. 19; xxii. 46; Acts ix. 11; x. 13, 20; xi. 7; and xxii. 10. When the Greek is not a participle, and when the conjunction is expressed, more than earnestness and authority is expressed. When there are two distinct imperatives in Greek united by the copulative conjunction, the meaning is-do this, and, do that. But we are never misunderstood when, in accordance with the translation of the participle without the conjunction, we say in English, "Arise, and act like men;" "Rise, men, and let us do our duty;" or when we exhort sinners to adopt the resolution, "I will arise, and go to my father." In this common import of the term did Ananias address Paul. Let it not, therefore, be again argued that this passage proves clearly that Paul was baptized in the room; and baptized STANDING, and consequently, not immersed. Whilst the phrase "arise" proves nothing in favour of our opponents, we might assure them that Paul could have been sprinkled sitting, and that their assumptions and inferences from this Scripture prove, as we think, the inveterate and blinding prejudice with which good men may be swayed.

How different from some sentiments which we have quoted are those of the Rev. Geo. Gilfillan: "The scales which fell from his eyes were only typical of the prejudices which were abandoned, the passions which subsided, and the false confidences which were relinquished, during that memorable agony of three days. Not a sadder, but a gladder and a wiser man, he submitted to the healing and teaching of Ananias; and in fine, was, we doubt not, immersed in one of those lucid rivers of Damascus, and rose up like an eagle 'newly bathed,' to pursue a flight of unequalled strength and swiftness, till the close of his career" (Alpha and Omega, vol. ii., p. 321). Does the sarcastic reader say, And, like Saul among the prophets, is Geo. Gilfillan among the Baptists? Might we add, Was ever Saul in better company? Did he ever appear to greater advantage? It has been recorded, and as we believe truthfully, that "Damascus, at the present day, abounds in water, and all the better houses have a reservoir in their court, or stand beside a natural or an artificial stream." On the safe, the refreshing, and invigorating character of immersion, and on the special frequency and advantage of bathing in the warmer climates, we shall have occasion again to speak.

§ 16.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE IMMERSION OF CORNELIUS.

Bp. GIBSON,-"Be sure that you have a mind sincerely desirous to know the will of God, and firmly resolved to comply with whatever shall appear to be his will."-Pas. Let., p. 4.

Dr. CHANNING.-"I wish to conform myself wholly to the Bible. Let me read it with the docility and simplicity of a child, sensible of my blindness, and praying for light." "Let me strive to discover the errors of the party to which I belong."-Memoirs, vol. i., pp. 117, 118.

Dr. CARSON." A good conscience is a good thing; but a good conscience may be married to very bad logic."-In Tes. of Em. P., p. 8.

J. G. MANLY."Nothing that can guard the truth from corruption, that can elucidate its meaning, that can multiply and diffuse its accurate transcription and translation, its due rehearsal and exposition, and that can worthily promote its prevalence, should be neglected by the church of Christ."-Eccle., p. 253.

Dr. R. VAUGHAN.-"There are no doctrines so obvious in themselves, or that can be so clearly stated, as to be secure from gross misconception."-Cong. Lec., p. 14.

THE Word of God informs us that Cornelius, "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," under Divine direction sent for Peter, who came and preached Christ to him and them that were with him; and that while Peter preached, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word," and they were heard to "speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts x.). Here the word baptize occurs twice, and twice in the following chapter, where the same event is also spoken of; but, as we judge, without anything in the context to illustrate the action which is included in baptism; although it is thought by some of the Pædobaptists that, as Peter said "Can any man forbid water," it may be inferred that water was brought. Hence, one says that nothing is here said about the "candidates for baptism being led out of the house to a river or pool, for the purpose of being dipped," as if anything more was requisite than informing us that they were baptized. But Dr. Miller thus interprets the sacred record: "Can any man forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be applied by pouring or sprinkling?" If we take such liberties with the unerring document, when shall we be at a loss for proof? We do not affirm that water was not brought, even to fill a bath; but we maintain that the apostle's words do not prove that water was brought at all. The apostle's words teach plainly his conviction of the undoubted suitability of these persons for baptism; that the element in which baptism was to be administered was water; and that these persons by Peter's direction were baptized. The expression, "Can any man forbid water," we regard as equivalent to, Can any man forbid baptism? If the language of Peter proves that water was brought, it appears to us that the command of Ananias to Paul that he should "arise," proves that Paul went to the water. But we believe not in this pretended proof from one or the other; although Mr. Stacey says that Peter's question "directly implies, not that the individuals who had received the gift of the Spirit were to be conducted to the water and plunged in it, but that the water was to be brought to them, and in some convenient manner employed in their baptism" (p. 221). Similarly reasons Dr. Wardlaw. And whilst we deny that the question of Peter proves any such thing, Mr. S. asserts, "This is certainly not the form into which his thought would have shaped itself had immersion been