and fancy for argument" (p. 224). Thus do those who should bring forward evidence that sprinkling or pouring took place, and not immersion, "trifle with the Word of God," and "abuse our reason by giving us" "fancy for argument."

The Baptist has more reason to picture the Philippian jailor and all his as being refreshed by the luxury of an immersion than to fancy them shivering and wretched. Let the reader remember, in contrast with the frightened and bewildered fancy of Mr. S., the assurances of Drs. Buchanan, Thomson, Hackett, Pye Smith, Jamieson, Livingstone, of Buckingham, and every Eastern traveller, respecting the reviving and invigorating influence of bathing. Mr. S. is incapable of denying the probability that in the Philippian jail there was every facility for immersion, and yet he most contemptuously speaks of calling up the vision of a tank or cistern. Does Mr. S. ignore the rule respecting secondary meanings of a word, or deny that, than which, in Dr. Halley's judgment, nothing can be more reasonable? If this is Mr. S.'s condition, we will quote the following from Dr. Carson, not for his sake, but for the sake of those who will not leap to a conclusion in defiance of necessary principles of interpretation. Dr. C. says:

"I never assume the meaning of any word: I assign no meaning till the occurrences of a word are ascertained and examined. Whether a word has one meaning, or several meanings, I determine by this examination on philosophical principles. When I have ascertained the primary meaning of a word, I apply it to every case where it will serve, admitting no new meaning till occurrences prove it. When I have ascertained a second meaning, I will not admit a third, as long as the first or second will serve. Thus I proceed with respect to any number of meanings, never admitting a new meaning without proof. Submission to these principles I demand on the ground of self-evidence. Submission to them I yield with respect to every opponent. These laws are for truth, not for party. Perverseness may reject them; perverseness has rejected every first principle; but I have no doubt that all candid persons will acquiesce in them. Without first principles interpretation is impossible. Mathematics may as well demonstrate without axioms. The criticism of our opponents is altogether without science: instead of leading to sound conclusions, it introduces universal confusion and uncertainty" (pp. 360, 361). Again: “If a word is found to have two meanings, it is lawful in every instance of its occurrence to bring their respective claims to the test. But if a secondary meaning is not in proof, previous probability as to the fact has nothing to do; because a thing previously impossible may be received as truth, with perfect confidence, on sufficient testimony. To allege probability against the ascertained meaning of a word is to deny testimony as a source of evidence; for the meaning of testimony must be known from the words used" (p. 464).

The Rev. DAWSON BURNS says: "Let the defenders of affusion collect and treasure every obstacle conceivable, the most trivial and the most important, as if each was valuable and weighty as a bar of gold; let them array them in the most formidable order, and let them add a number purely fictitious, the production of an inflamed imagination, like those spectral appearances which frequently result from disease of the optic nerve; let all these difficulties, solid and sham, be advanced, and at their best estate they will prove altogether vanity; yea, lighter than vanity, since other instances are producible in which events unquestionably occurred where the obstacles were equal or superior, and, consequently, against the belief of which the same or greater improbability might be affirmed. Are we told that the impediments were great in the way of the immersion of the jailor and his rejoicing family? or that obstacles of no ordinary kind must have environed the immersion of the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost? Allow the alleged difficulties to have existed,* are not as many and forcible connected with the account

"The succinct style of Scripture narratives, and our ignorance of the full circumstances of the case, and the facilities that may have existed of which we are unapprised,

of our Lord's expulsion from the temple of the money-changers and traders in doves? Might it not be said, Is it possible that the meek and lowly Jesus would have resorted to this act of physical violence? Do not the recorded incidents clash with our views of His amiable character? And are we to conceive that the objects of this usage would have quietly borne it? They were many, and He but one; and what more likely to rouse their passions than this high assumption of authority, aiming, as it did, to deprive them of worldly lucre? Is it not morally certain that they would make resistance? And, making resistance, can we think of such a contention without a revulsion of feeling at the position which the Saviour would thus be made to sustain? Is this style of reasoning censurable? We heartily agree: but let those who bestow a similar treatment on Scripture cases of baptism throw the first stone at it, if their consciences permit them. Refer also to the case of those who were shipwrecked with Paul. They who could swim were ordered to do so: And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship; and so it came to pass that they escaped all safe to land.' 'How incredible,' cries some captious reader. 'How could even strong swimmers bear up where two seas met and formed a hissing whirlpool? And as for those who clung to boards, &c., their probable fate was that of being engulphed in the vortex of waters; at any rate, to state that two hundred and seventy-six persons all got safe to land through such swelling dangers, is more than falls to our power to credit.' We properly repel and condemn this vicious mode of discussion, for we know that such an entire rescue was possible, though admittedly not common or likely and being possible, we give sincere and complete credence to the historic statement. Yet if we could not have produced parallel instances in which the occurrence of events, though attended with numerous difficulties, is believed without doubting,' we should still have firmly contended that it was wrong to deny the fact of immersion in any case, unless it could have been established beyond all question that it was naturally impossible." -G. B. Repos., pp. 411, 412. 1850.

:

On the principles of interpretation adopted by Mr. S. and the Pædobaptists generally, we might suppose a foreigner to read in English that a prisoner was immersed in the jail at Halifax or Winchester, and imagining it improbable that there was a sufficiency of water in this jail to plunge the prisoner over head, that he might justly conclude that to immerse does not signify to cover and surround with the element, but to sprinkle, to pour, to purify, or to apply water in any way; and that he might justly treat with scorn the simpletons who believed from such a declaration that the man was dipped. Thus the Neologian can deem it very improbable "that Samson killed so many people with a jaw-bone of an ass; therefore the word does not here signify the jaw-bone of an ass, but the tooth of a rock, which, being loosely attached, was pulled down on his enemies by the hero." And thus may vanish all the miracles of the Bible, and all the doctrines of revelation. Our friends unconsciously to themselves, instead of learning facts from history, dictate to history, by proceeding on "an axiom that is false, fanatical, and subversive of all revealed truth." To prove the probability or even the possibility of immersion from any facts with which we are acquainted respecting the jail at Philippi, is more than our opponents by the laws of interpretation can demand from us. Having proved the meaning of the Greek word from lexicons, use, &c., it is the business of our opponents to prove that immersion did not take place. We nevertheless do know that with many in the East and in Greece bathing was as common as sleeping; and concerning prisons and their conveniences for immersion, we can adduce, in

give room for the supposition of difficulties which a more intimate acquaintance with the places and times would perhaps immediately dispel," &c.

addition to other testimony, that of one who in the East has spent a lengthened and honoured life.

Dr. JUDSON, on the immersion of the jailor, says: "This case can present no difficulty to the minds of any of you, my brethren, who may have been within the yard of the prison in this city, or are acquainted with the fact that prison-yards in the East, as well as the yards and gardens of private houses, are usually furnished with tanks of water."

66

was

"GROTIUS (said to be the most learned and best-informed man in Europe in his time) held it highly probable," says Pengilly, "from the practice of the country, that the jail at Philippi was provided with baths (as is now the case in Calcutta).' The rite may have been performed, says De Wette, in the same fountain or tank in which the jailor had washed them. "Perhaps the water," says Meyer, in the court of the house; and the baptism was that of immersion, which formed an essential part of the symbolism of the act. (See Rom. vi. 3, seq.)" "Ancient houses," says Dr. Hackett, as usually built, enclosed a rectangular reservoir or basin (the impluvium, so called), for receiving the rain which flowed from the slightly-inclined roof. Some suggest that they may have used a swimming-bath, found within the walls of the prison. (Grsb., Rosenm., Kuin.) Such a bath was a common appurtenance of houses and public edifices among the Greeks and Romans. Whether the Gangas flowed near the prison, so as to be easily accessible, cannot be decided."-On Acts xvi. 33.

66

It is certain that every probability is in favour of the public prison having its tanks or baths, which the governor could employ for his baptism. If this were not the case, the inspired language does not forbid the contiguity of the river, or an immersion in the same. It is, however, no business of ours to go in quest of the water, which in a foreign country, two thousand years ago, might be obtained in many ways of which we are now ignorant. Let our opponents prove a solitary case of sprinkling from this or from any other baptism recorded in God's Word, and not pervert the clearest import of baptism because the Spirit of inspiration has not supplied every particular respecting the waters in and near this prison.

As we know not that anything is adduced as an objection to immersion from the context where other baptisms, as those of Crispus, of the Corinthians, and of the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 8; xix. 1-7), are mentioned, we need say no more than that, in our judgment, the recorded fact of baptism is a record of immersion. We have minutely passed over and patiently examined all those which are adduced to encourage pouring or sprinkling, and our solemn conviction is, that nothing in any one passage, or in the whole united, affords the least countenance to the idea that baptism is or may be something else than immersion. As we are unable to make one by the addition of ciphers to ciphers, whether we append six or eight, or sixty or eighty, so the sum total from our whole examination is nothing of proof that baptizo in any part of God's Word means to pour or to sprinkle. As these are all the passages recording instances of baptism to which our opponents direct our attention, we have now examined both the chief props and the minor supports from the examples of baptism. The main props have appeared to us as insufficient supports as any of the rest. We have seen the apostles physically immersed in the emblems of the Spirit, when the Spirit in His emblems "filled all the house where they were sitting." We have seen them as to their souls immersed in the Spirit by the abundance of His communications imparted on that interesting and

glorious day. We have noticed the baptism of the children of Israel by the possible splashing of the spray for miles when the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea, or by the possible pelting of rain from the clouds, there being a tremendous thunderstorm, well nigh drenching them, when they passed over on dry ground; or by the possible dispersion of the aqueous contents of that fiery cloud, the miraculous symbol of God's presence, which shone upon them and gave them light! We think that the two chief props, whether supporting or carried by Dr. H. or Mr. S.,the latter of whom concludes that in these cases "there was demonstrably no immersion,”—instead of being supports on which they may lean, are rods giving to them a severe and well-merited flagellation. We are not angry whilst thus writing. Our mind is deeply solemnized and painfully affected whilst meditating on these proofs adduced by our Pædobaptist brethren of the marvellous doctrine that the Greek word, which before the Christian era signified immersion, and never anything less, and which among the Greeks has never since had another signification, when once regularly applied to the ordinance of Christ, in the words of the Rev. E. Bickersteth, "received a new and more important element of meaning, and that thenceforward the idea of one specific mode was no longer essential"!

But Mr. Stacey, in summing up his arguments in proof of pouring or sprinkling, informs us that in one case, "from the spirituality of the operation, mode is naturally inconceivable." From this baptism he has previously argued at great length that baptism is pouring! He says, "finally, that in the instances of apostolical baptism recorded in the Acts, there is no ground, real or apparent, for the assumption that the first converts to Christianity were initiated into the kingdom of God by dipping, except the use of certain prepositions, which, as far as they have authority at all, lend equal support to every form of administration" (p. 226). Thus the Greek words by which baptisms are recorded to have taken place convey no idea whatever as to whether immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, or any other describable or conceivable application of water, took place! The form of administration is indicated only by certain prepositions; and whether their primary meaning is in, into, out of, from, by, near, at, with, &c., they all lend EQUAL support to EVERY FORM of administration! Consequently, these prepositions lend the same support to that very immersion which is so lacking not only in convenience, but in propriety and delicacy, as to pouring and sprinkling! If this is not, under the blinding influence of prepossessions, with a witness outraging veracity and common sense, we are much mistaken. We leave it, however, with our readers to agree with us or to differ from us, according to evidence adduced or not adduced, that John immersed the Jews who came to him confessing their sins and desiring to be baptized, and that at His request he immersed our Saviour, who had no sins to confess, but who would set an example of fulfilling all righteousness; that our Saviour immersed by means of His disciples; that He enjoined immersion on the apostles; and that in every instance of the New Testament baptisms immersion was practised.

§ 19.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS TO "ONE IMMERSION" IN EPH. IV. 5.

Dr. CARSON.-"I cannot wrest the Scriptures in order to please men, nor to retain popularity even among Christians. I have lost this world. I do not wish to lose both worlds. What Christ has shown me in His Word, I cannot conceal or pervert: I must not be ashamed of His words more than of himself" (p. 258).

Prof. J. H. GODWIN."We must dismiss prejudice when we open the Bible, if we would discern truth; and we must search for instruction rather than confirmations of our creed, if we would be set right when we have been wrong, and be led onward in the noblest and best of studies."-Chr. Bap., p. 45.

one

WE maintain not that this passage contains anything in favour of immersion, except the use of the word whose meaning is disputed by our opponents. A portion of the Pædobaptists maintain that spiritual, not water baptism, is here described; an idea which we believe to be destitute equally of proof and probability. Dr. Cumming repeatedly asserts that there are four baptisms, or four different kinds of baptism. 1. Baptism with sufferings. 2. Baptism in the sense of miraculous gifts. 3. Baptism with water. 4. Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is regeneration. He admits, too, that there is but "one baptism;" ay, says he, "but that one baptism for the remission of sins," and this is regeneration. We believe it just as capable of proof and opposed to truth, that regeneration is baptism, as that baptism is regeneration. Also, if the " baptism" is spiritual, is regeneration, is not the baptism with water an abrogated ceremony, or an apostolic blunder? Some of our opponents with one breath favour this idea, and with the next that baptism is the opus operatum of Dr. Pusey and Co.! (See Dr. Cumming's Sab. Eve. Readings on Luke, p. 44.) By some Pædobaptists, as by the Rev. Dr. Barnes, we are reminded that nothing is here said about the mode of baptism. Dr. B., discarding the idea that the baptism of the Spirit is intended, agrees with us that "they all had been baptized with water." But he also says, "One baptism.-This does not affirm that there is one mode of baptism, but it refers to the thing itself. They are baptized in the name of the same Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier. They have all in this manner been consecrated unto God, and devoted to his service " (Com., on Eph. iv. 5). We fully admit that Paul here says not a word about the mode of baptism; and further, that there is no command anywhere respecting the mode of baptism (immersion), unless we apply to it such a command as, "Let all things be done decently and in order." These words of Paul to the Ephesians refer simply to the thing itself. This is all that we contend for. It is true that we read elsewhere of being buried by baptism, of Philip and the eunuch going down into the water, and of John's baptizing in the Jordan. But Dr. Barnes will break no command expressly associated with baptism with which we are acquainted, whether he immerses backwards or forwards;* whether, without entering the water, he stands by its edge whilst he immerses the candidate; whether he and the candidate, together or separately, walk or jump into the water; or whether he immerses in a tank, or baptistery, a river, or the sea; or whether, if practicable, he pours water into a vessel until the candidate is immersed. He may absurdly and sinfully discard common

*The plan of baptizing forwards was adopted, at least on one occasion, by Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge.