medied, when a real entrance into a thing or place was to be clearly denoted, by doubling the preposition, i. e. by using it singly, and also compounding it with the verb.

When the subject, therefore, is fairly understood, the circumstance under consideration is of no real weight to prove immersion to have been the primitive mode.

In respect to the circumstance of John's baptizing in Enon because there was much water there, I would remark, that the reasons already assigned for his baptizing in or at the river of Jordan, will apply to this case also. This place might have been selected for other purposes than that of immersion, allowing it to have been strictly a place of much water.

But the Greek terms, "hudata polla," literally rendered, are many waters, and therefore may simply denote a place of many rivulets, or springs of water, which rendering, it is said, is favoured by the geography of the country.

But if the present rendering is retained, the passage does not conclusively prove that immersion was the mode, though it is a circumstance which, if not counteracted by other considerations, might naturally lead to that conclusion.

These are the most material circumstances in favour of the mode of immersion, and they are all, evidently, inconclusive. The circumstances, on the other hand, which are unfavourable to that mode, and corroborative of the general sense which I have given of baptizo, are the following, viz.: The improbability that the multitudes which were baptized by John and by the apostles, were provided, under the circumstances of the case, with proper change of apparel for such a mode. A constant miracle, or that which, at least, would have been very little short of a miracle, would have been required to sustain John, day after day, up to his waist in water, to baptize in this mode; and yet we are told that he "did no miracle." Also, it can hardly be supposed, that under the benigu reign of the Prince of Peace, so great an inconvenience as the mode of immersion implies under certain circumstances, viz. those which existed when such multitudes were baptized by a single individual, or a few individuals, and that without their having any previous notice, or very little previous opportunity to prepare. The inconvenience of baptizing a few individuals, at this day, in this mode, when the thing is understood beforehand, is allowed to be not very great. And, indeed, were it ever so great, it ought to be performed in this mode if the candidate is not otherwise satisfied. But under the circumstances attending baptism in many cases, in the primitive ages, the inconvenience was great. And it would be highly inconvenient in many cases which

might be stated in our own day. Another circumstance unfavourable to immersion, is the little time afforded, on the day of pentecost, and the want of accommodations for the baptism of the three thousand. Another such circumstance is that of the jailer and his family being baptized in the outer prison, (for it appears plain from the record that they were baptized there) in the dead of the night. And again; there is no mention made in all the New Testament history of baptism, of their going from the place of preaching to administer this ordinance. If the preaching was held by the side of a river, they were baptized in or at the river; if in the temple, (for aught appears,) they were baptized in the temple; if in a jail, they were baptized in the jail; and if in a private house, they were baptized in the house.

This last circumstance is decidedly unfavourable to immersion as the mode, or certainly as the only mode.

Indeed, if it were commonly and ever so clearly related, that after the preaching and conversions that took place, the preacher and converts repaired to a river or fountain of water for the purpose of baptism, this, though a circumstance favourable to immersion, would not have been decisive, as I have already shown; because they might have repaired thither to be washed, sprinkled, or poured upon, conceiving that a plenitude of water would more strikingly represent the plenitude of divine grace, and the atoning merits of Christ, than a little, and therefore have preferred taking the fluid directly therefrom, to taking it from a small vessel. There are various instances, in these days, of people's going to a river, lake, or pond to receive baptism, without being immersed. So that such a circumstance, had it existed, would not have been conclusive in favour of immersion. But the truth is, it did not exist. We are no where informed of their going from the place of preaching to a river or fountain to obtain baptism. So far as appears, the converts were uniformly baptized in the place where the preaching was held, or the other means were used that were blessed to their conversion. This, therefore, is a strong circumstance in favour of the more general signification of baptism.

Although neither this nor any other circmmstance is conclusive against immersion, so the circumstances before mentioned are not conclusive in its favour. For aught appears from the several circumstances attending the administration of baptism in the primitive ages, it might have been performed in either of the beforementioned modes.

CHAPTER V.

Containing an examination of the argument in favour of Immersion from Ecclesiastical History.

MANY have asserted with confidence, that immersion was the mode ordinarily practised in the early ages. Dr. Wall, an eminent writer and a strong Pedobaptist, allows that" the whole church practised immersion for thirteen hundred years after Christ, except in the case of the clinicks," i. e. persons of feeble health, and hence labours to bring the church back to that mode of administration. I believe his testimony is as strong as any which can be found. It is one upon which the Baptists place great reliance. And yet it will be perceived that even this author, after a diligent research, does not affirm that immersion was invariably practised in those ages; nor does he offer any thing to show that it was considered essential to the validity of the ordinance. Instead of this, he brings satisfactory proof from the writings of the early fathers that it was not so considered, but that other modes of applying water were viewed as constituting a real baptism. This was decidedly his own opin

ion.

Allowing, therefore, that this, and other similar declarations of ecclesiastical writers, contain the real matter of fact, all which they prove is, that immersion was considered the most significant mode, and, therefore, preferable to any other, when the health and circumstances of the subject would permit.

All appear to allow, that the Clinicks were baptized in some mode short of immersion. And this shows conclusively that immersion was not deemed essential to the validity of the ordinance; and, therefore, the early practice of the church, allow. ing it to be as above stated, does not prove the position which is taken by the Baptists.

We should, however, beware of placing too much confidence in the testimony of Doctor Wall, or any other writer, respecting the ancient practice of baptizing, ordinarily, by immersion. For many things are affirmed of the practice of the church in the ages subsequent to the time of the Apostles, which are not found

in the Bible; and, for that reason, ought not to be received. The Baptists, in particular, ought to beware of relying too much on what the above mentioned Doctor says about the mode of baptism in the early ages; for he tells us with equal confidence, that the whole church, with few exceptions, for many centuries, practised infant baptism. This part of his testimony they reject, because they find no scriptural warrant for the practice. The other part, then, should be regarded with caution, and not adopted, unless it decidedly comports with the Bible. Under these circumstances, it is, in itself, of little consequence to show what the Apostolick practice was. If we leave the Scriptures, and follow the traditions of men, we shall be involved in great darkness and inconsistency.

It is far from being proved from the New Testament records, that immersion was exclusively, or even prevailingly practised in the apostolick age; much less that it was considered essential to the validity of the ordinance.

It is possible that immersion was introduced subsequent to the times of the Apostles, under the notion that it was more expressive and emphatick, or that it would more effectually wash away sin. For it is manifest, that after the lapse of two centuries, or more, many began to attribute an improper influence to this ordinance; supposing that it did really cleanse from sin, and was connected with immediate forgiveness; and that it was, moreover, essential to salvation. In this view of the case, much water would naturally be preferred to a little; and, hence, immersion might have been introduced in this way, without having the sanction of apostolick practice. Why might not this have been thus introduced, as well as many other things that then obtained, which were manifestly not scriptural, and which the great body of evangelical Christians reject?

It does, indeed, appear, from the best accounts which we have of the transactions of the church from about the commencement of the third century to that of the thirteenth, that immersion was commonly the mode of baptism; but I cannot find that, during that period, it was, at any time, considered essential to the validity of the ordinance, or that it was, at any time, practised uniformly. Those who speak most positively merely say, it was practised" in the ordinary use." But this ordinary use, for the reasons above stated, might have been an innovation.

The earliest account extant of the manner of Christian baptism, after the age of the apostles, is that which is given by Justin Martyr, in the second century, in his apology to the Emperour, Antoninus Pious, in the following words, viz. " And we will declare after what manner when we were renewed by

Christ, we devoted ourselves to God: lest omitting this we should seem to act a bad part in this declaration. As many as are persuaded, and believe the things taught and said by us to be true, and promise to live according to them, are instructed to pray, and to ask, fasting, the forgiveness of their sins of God, we praying and fasting together with them. After that they are brought where water is, and they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration as we have been regenerated; for they are washed in water in the name of the Father and Lord God of all, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." In this account, the leading idea attributed to baptism is a washing, rather than that of immersion. He does not say they were immersed in water, but washed in water.

But as to the true import of baptism, I would rely mainly up-on the testimonies which have been produced from the Scriptures. And as long as they do not appear to make the mode of immersion essential, we may safely conclude that it is not so. Washing in general comes within the import of baptizo, and is indeed, the principal, or leading idea, expressed. Baptism is much oftener and much more clearly represented as a washing than as a burial. Indeed, it is never directly called a burial, though Christians were said to, be buried with Christ by baptism, but, here, it is rather the cause of a burial than the burial itself. But baptism is plainly and repeatedly represented as a washing. Washing is actually one of the meanings of the word used in the institution. Besides, the action of baptizing is several times denoted by another term (louo) which properly sig. nifies to wash. Washing, then, in any mode, is valid baptism.

Even sprinkling is a small degree of washing, wetting, or cleansing, and, of course, valid; though it is not so significant, and does not so properly come within the true import of baptizo, as a real washing, or the application of water with some degree of friction.

Immersion, also, is a washing in a larger sense than sprinkling. But it is not so properly a washing, as the applying of water with friction, or rubbing. Yet it is a valid baptism, and truly a significant mode; and I am not prepared to say that it is not the most significant; but I can see no grounds for considering it essential, and it is here that the point at issue lies.