comparison in the two texts now before us any thing like them? Are Christ's sufferings best represented by an immersion, or by having a few drops of water sprinkled or poured upon the face? Would the latter process have suggested the metaphor used by Christ? His suf

ever mortal man meet with so loose, and unsatisfactory-(I will not use a stronger epithet) so loose and unsatisfactory an interpretation of inspired words? Does not this paraphrase get rid of the fact of the baptism of the eunuch altogether? I trust, my friend will not consider me as dealing out hard measure to him. I ac-ferings were overwhelmingly great and knowledge I tremble, and I fancy he terrible; they occupied His whole frame. will blush, at the havoc made with God's Body and mind were, so to speak, seized, Word by his mode of explaining Scrip- buried, covered with them; hence the ture adopted in this instance. The text language He employs; an illustration, I tells us, Philip baptized the eunuch. Of conceive, that the meaning of "baptize" course we must not, and Mr. Clayton is not to sprinkle or affuse, but to immerse. must not, take for granted the very Read either of the passages, as you thing in dispute. The question is, what did the last text under consideration, was done to the eunuch? Read the in various ways. "I have a sprinkling text in the several ways our respective with which to be sprinkled !" "I have sentiments require. Take Mr. Clayton's a pouring with which to be poured!" first: "And he sprinkled him." Why, More monstrous still does the comthen, did they go down into the water? parison become if it be read, "I "And he poured him." This makes have a purification with which to be nonsense of the text. "And he purified him." An idea is here brought into the text, over and above what the historian records. "And he dipped him." The sense is clear and natural; and I confess I despair of demonstrating any thing from plain Scripture statement, if this be left in doubt.

purified." Let it be read, "I have an immersion with which to be immersed," and the figure is natural, poetic, and impressive. Thus far, then, you will be satisfied, that Mr. Clayton is not right in his version of the word "baptize."

He adverts to two passages, however, which with considerable confidence are

6

(Luke xii. 50; Matt. xx. 22)-Nei-urged as supporting his views. Let us ther of these passages pertains to bap- see how far they do so. They are Acts tism directly; the ordinance serves the xvi. 33; and Acts ii. 41. As to the purpose of an illustration, and the terms first, Mr. Clayton asks, "Is it to be supemployed are used allusively. In one posed, that in the dead of the night and of them, our Lord expresses His anti-that same hour,' the jailor and all his cipation of His own sufferings-"I have were immediately baptized by being ima baptism to be baptized with, and how mersed in water?" Surely there is nothing am I straitened till it be accomplished!" more incredible in this supposition, than Christ uses the figure evidently to ex- that they were sprinkled or poured upon. press the character and amount of His Most houses of any size in Asiatic towns sufferings. In the other, he intimates to and cities, were furnished with a bath the ambitious, mistaken sons of Zebedee, kept ready for use; and it is just as likely that they would have to endure sufferings that in the public jail of a chief city of like His own: "Are ye able to drink of Macedonia, "the jailer and all his" had the cup that I shall drink of, and to be recourse to their bath, as that the ewer baptized with the baptism that I am was introduced, and a sprinkling probaptized with?" The figure is of the cess conducted. As to the second, Mr. same import; it expresses the character Clayton asks, "How would it have been and amount of the Redeemer's suffer- possible to have baptized [to baptize] ings. We may be assured of the pro-three thousand persons in the afternoon priety, the perfectly good keeping of the of a single day, had the laborious and figure used by the Saviour. Now what onerous process of immersion been the do the sufferings of Christ most re-mode practised?" Peter's address was semble? Affiictions, when very heavy, are compared to floods of great waters "At the noise of Thy waterspouts all Thy waves and Thy billows are gone over me:" "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee." Is the

being delivered at nine in the morning, previously to which hour the multitude had come together on account of the miracle. There were twelve men to conduct this "laborious and onerous process," even suppose they availed them

selves of no assistance from their commands. That they would do what seems panions, of whom there were more than to us unreasonable, extreme, or even abone hundred-(Acts i. 15). And fur- surd, is perfectly credible. Did they not ther; suppose that the baptism was all "strain at their gnats and swallow effected within the very day of twelve camels?" Thirdly, The passage properly hours in length, on which the Spirit had read contains a climax, not brought out descended, it would give but two hun- indeed in our version, for there two words, dred and fifty per man; and is there not at all alike,are both rendered "wash," any reasonable doubt that this was, one in each verse; words too, which the even with facility, to be effected? sense of the text requires to be considered On Christmas day last, my friend Mr. as set in contrast with each other. Dr. Philippo baptized one hundred and sixty- Campbell, a sprinkler, thus renders the eight persons in the sea in Jamaica, even text; "For the Pharisees, and indeed all before it was high day. He immersed the Jews, observing the tradition of the them most certainly; and so far as time elders, eat not until they have washed and physical strength are concerned, their hands by pouring a little water would, had it been necessary, have bap-upon them; and if they be come from tized twice the number. A cause can- market, by dipping them; and many not be good that seeks support in con-other usages there are, which they have jectures and doubts, such as Mr. Clayton throws out. But, dear friends, though he asks the questions I have quoted and answered, do not suppose either that he would rest his sprinkling, or I my immersion, on the questions or the answers you have heard.

There are two other passages, to which Mr. Clayton refers with equal, perhaps with even greater confidence. These also we will examine. They are-Mark vii. 3, 4; and 1 Cor. x. 2.

adopted, as baptism of cups and pots and brazen vessels and beds." Among the notes by which this translation is supported, Dr. Campbell remarks on the word "wash," in verse 4, or "dipping," as he renders it-" This word limits us to a particular mode of washing, for baptizo denotes to plunge,' to dip." Fourthly, Dipping (not sprinkling, but dipping) " cups and pots and brazen vessels and beds" was common among the Jews in every case of ceremonial defilement. Their canons or rules for religious practices say, "A bed that is defiled, if it be dipped part by part, it is made pure.' Again; "If the bed be dipped in a pool of water, it is made clean." I fancy you will see now, that immersing the couches or beds was no such irrational thing as Mr. Clayton would have us conceive; or absurd and irrational as the practice was, the Pharisees and all the Jews adopted it, and this is all our present argument requires.*

First, Mark vii. 3, 4. "Is it at all rational to suppose," asks Mr. Clayton, "that the couches on which the ancients reclined at their repasts, were immersed in water? rather were they not sprinkled?" In reply, I beg to remark on the whole passage. First, Mr. Clayton has no reason for saying that the evangelist refers to the couches, on which the ancients reclined at their repasts. They used other couches, and the reference might be to them; not to their divans, or the couches in ordinary use in their dining Secondly, 1 Cor. x. 2. The people rooms. Beds,' my friend will say; it is were baptized unto Moses.' Mr. more unlikely still that these should be Clayton says," By the spray of the water, dipped.' I shall have something to add or by the showers which descended at on that subject in a moment or two; in that very time, for it is said, that the the meantime, you must not think of beds clouds poured out water." He adds, like ours—(Matt. ix. 6.) Secondly," Their baptism was the baptism of the The evangelist is speaking of what an rain, which descended at the time of this exceedingly superstitious class of per- remarkable miracle." Let us examine sons, even Pharisees, were in the habit whether this be a simple and natural of doing, in obedience to what they construction of the text. deemed religious and ceremonial com

6

To be "baptized into Christ" is a

* Commentators, albeit sprinklers, or pourers, as to their baptismal practice, might be quoted almost out of number, to show that this passage, till lately, has never been thought to offer any difficulty in the way of the immersionist. I may be permitted to suggest the following observations of a learned Jewish Archeologist to Mr. Clayton's attention.

"The Pharisees judged the omission of ablution to be a crime of equal magnitude with fornication,

upon them? He supposes, moreover, that rain fell upon them from the cloud above; his reference to Psalm lxxvii. 17, indicates a total misunderstanding of the psalmist's meaning, and the supposition of rain is as unlikely as that of the sea spray. In his ordinary ministrations, my esteemed neighbour, I am sure, explains the Word of God with greater correctness and judgment. From improbable suppositions, turn to the narrative as it is, and it will be seen that the sea and the cloud combined to cover and protect the host of Israel. Whether this be nearer to sprinkling or pouring than to immersing, I need not say. The youngest Sunday School child here present can instantly tell.

phrase employed (Gal. iii. 27) for put- imagined the walls were coming down ting on a profession of Christianity. To be " baptized unto Moses," precisely the same form of speech, seems to be used in this text to convey a similar idea. The scope of the passage is to guard the Corinthians against carelessness and sin -they might trust in their privileges. 'We are the baptized disciples of Christ, we partake of the elements of bread and wine in token of our relation to Him;' 'think not on that account,' the apostle says, 'to escape with impunity; the fathers were in a similar condition. They were baptized unto Moses, they ate and drank of spiritual food and drink; their manna and their water from the rock typified to them some such thing, as that which to you is set forth in the bread and wine of which you partake' (verses 3, 4). The argument does not turn upon the mode in which the Israelites were baptized-" baptism" is used in the text altogether allusively-the argument turns simply on the Israelites having made a profession, not much unlike that which, by being baptized into Christ, the Corinthians had made.

I might dismiss this text, therefore, as not at all pertaining to our present in quiry, but that, if I did so, it might be said I had not met the question as to the meaning of the word which the apostle employs. It is expressly said, the fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea."

66

"The

But my neighbour employs another argument against immersion, founded on the thing which baptism is intended to represent. This thing, he says, is not the death and resurrection of Christ(you will look perhaps at Romans vi. 3-10, and at Col. ii. 12, at your leisure, for information on this point)—it is the purification of our character. ordinance of baptism," Mr. Clayton adds, "is the symbol of purification; the spiritual purification of the mind from the defilement of sin, is the thing represented in baptism." Be it so. Is the argument which Mr. Clayton employs, therefore, a good one? The mind is How? Brethren, just conceive purified by the blood of Christ sprinkled of the condition of the Israelites at the upon the conscience, and by the Holy remarkable period referred to. They Spirit's grace shed, or poured out; therewent down into the bed of the sea; the fore sprinkling or pouring is baptism, waters stood as a wall on each side of and immersion is not baptism.' You them; the cloud covered them; it went will at once perceive, that this argument, before them to mark their way, it rested such as it is, is not made to rest upon upon them, it fell behind them to con- the meaning of any part of God's Word; ceal them from their pursuers. Mr. it is not in answer to the inquiry of Clayton has to suppose a spray thrown" What saith the Scripture?" but, what upon the Israelites from the miraculous on a certain principle of criticism, must it walls on their right hand and their left be understood to say? That principle is, an exceeding unlikely thing, since this that the thing signified, and the figure would have had the effect of terrifying employed, must agree in all respects. If and throwing them into disorder. When not, Mr. Clayton will see that the agreethey felt the spray, must they not have ment required by his argument is the

and worthy of death. Those who had departed from their house (as, for instance, to the market) washed in a bath, or at least immersed their hands in water with the fingers distended.”—Jahu's Sac. Antiq. 320.

The sanie learned author's account of the Jewish beds, § 40, also shows that they might easily be immersed. Why not as easily immersed as carried?-John v. 8--12.

By the way, I may observe here, that any one who will turn to his Greek Testament, will see cause to question the correctness of any translation of verse 4, which makes the washing to refer to the hands. The hands are mentioned in verse 3, as the objects of the verb "wash." In verse 4 no object to the verb is mentioned. It is of the middle or reciprocal voice; and without an object would be properly translated-" They wash themselves." I mention this, not however as laying much stress upon it.

very thing to be proved. I would like, moreover, to know whether in this argument Mr. Clayton considers the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the conscience, and the pouring of Divine influence upon the mind, a reality-a literal reality; or whether he will regard it as itself a figure employed to set forth something which is literal and most potent and gracious. Does he mean to say, that a man's conscience is literally sprinkled with the blood of Christ; as the altar, and all things about the altar, were sprinkled with the blood of the slain victim under the Levitical economy? Is the grace of the Holy Spirit literally, like oil or water, poured out on that which it is intended to purify? I think I can anticipate his reply. He conceives of nothing so gross and material. But what then becomes of his principle? The thing signified and the sign must resemble each other. And what, of the conclusion from it-'therefore sprinkling or pouring is baptism?' Figures are employed to set forth realities, not figures. Should purification be the thing intended in baptism, in contradistinction from the death and resurrection of Christ, which Mr. Clayton affirnis, still baptism, in the mode of its administration, cer. tainly does not prefigure the emblem by which that purification is said to be effected.

in immersion, nor in pouring, is there strictly a likeness to the mode of Divine operation on the mind. The ideas conveyed are of the utmost importance; but they are of another kind from that, which is the exclusive principle of Mr. Clayton's most unsatisfactory argument. The Spirit is said to be poured out, because of the resemblance, in the respects already mentioned, between His influences and those of a copious supply of water in an arid country. They refresh and fructify and adorn the character. It is an accommo dation to our ways of thinking. In like manner, as when the blood of the sacrificed victim was sprinkled on the priest or other party, he was cleansed from ceremonial defilement, or delivered perhaps from moral guilt, and SO placed in a condition to come near to God's altar, by the application of the blood of Christ to the conscience (or, if it be deemed better to keep to Scripture phraseology, by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ,) the penitent obtains a sense of pardon, and can come to God with humble boldness; he is accepted of Him. Oh that Mr. Clayton had not seemed to lose sight of this purpose, of these sacred resemblances, in his eagerness to construct an argument for his favourite practice !

If illustration be necessary of the In connection with this consideration truth of what I have said here, call to I may be referred to Acts i. 5-"Ye mind the fact, that the Spirit's influences shall be baptized with the Spirit not are compared to many other things. If many days hence ;" and it may be said, "the sign and the thing signified must this figure must of course be explained (in all respects) agree," how strange, in harmony with other passages, in how motley a notion must be formed on which the Spirit's influence is compared this sublime and delightful topic! The to dew, to floods, to copious rain poured communication of the Spirit, spoken of forth. Certainly it must; and my ques- as a pouring, is set forth by baptism; the tion is, what do such comparisons indi-sign and the thing signified must agree; cate; the manner in which Divine in- therefore baptism is pouring. The same fluence is communicated, or the abun- subject is set forth by another figure, dance, the fructifying, refreshing effect as may be seen in John iv. 14. of that influence? Take, for instance, What will be Mr. Clayton's conclusion Isaiah xliv. 3, or any similar passage, on this resemblance? Again (see and let my question be fairly answered. Psalm xlvi. 4)—the figure or sign is If the latter of these two things, not the furnished by streams irrigating and reformer, be the purport of the figure, let freshing a crowded city. What are we the text now before us be explained by to say to this passage? And what to those all means in harmony therewith. It in which fire and the wind, not to menmay be said, we cannot be immersed tion other things, are taken as the signs with or in the Spirit. True. Neither can to set forth Divine influence on the the Spirit be poured upon us. However heart? Must we not fall back upon the well common the latter form of expression known canon of interpretation-'Strain be, it is figurative altogether. Neither not a resemblance. Do not force a

VOL. XIII.

Y

figure. It is enough, if it clearly ex-ing them so much currency belongs to a press one idea.' You will make absurd nonsense of the Bible, if this rule be overlooked.

Other passages might be examined, and other points of my neighbour's argument might be analyzed; but I have said enough, I apprehend, to show, that the ordinance, as we attend to it, is not so "positively, in every feature, unlike the original," as he considers it to be; and perhaps enough, also, to entitle me to expect a little less dogmatism, a little less confidence, and a little less flippancy, when next it shall be opposed.

church, from which my venerated neighbour is at as great a distance, in every feeling of his bosom, as any man can be.

I have said nothing of the subjects of this rite; my reason is, that I have had another topic to discuss. My friend, however, ventures a sentence or two; and I may perhaps so far follow his example. Singularly enough, when his text was borne in mind, my friend acknowledges, that the Scriptures contain no direction to baptize infants. "We want none," he says. Is not baptism, however, an ordinance pertaining not to any former dispensation, but to Christianity alone? Was it not new, perfectly new, when Christianity began to be taught? It is said in favour of the baptism of infants, that this ordinance took the place of circumcision; but Christianity did not abolish circumcision; it could not therefore appoint anything in its place. moreover, we have express command to baptize such as believe the Gospel. A command which specifies the cases

And

Of two facts, matters of history, perhaps I may take leave to remind you. One is, that on the meaning of the word "" baptize," not one authority worth quoting, till of modern date, ventures even a doubt. Admissions on this point, are not that "immersion is one meaning of the term" made in the spirit of amiable candour. I could quote a hundred unquestionable authorities, who say with the illustrious Calvin "The very word baptize, how-to which it applies, excludes all other ever, signifies to immerse, and the rite cases, except where such conclusion of immersion was observed by the ancient would contradict some other command church" (Instit. Lib. iv. cap 15 § 19): equally express, or some known and well language employed by that celebrated confirmed law or principle of the governman, moreover, after the maintaining, ment commanding. We do want, therefore, that whether immersion once or thrice, a command, or something equivalent to a or only pouring or sprinkling be adopted, command, to warrant the administration "is of no importance; churches ought of this rite to any others than those who to be left at liberty in this respect, to act believe in the Son of God. The account according to the difference of countries." ." given in the New Testament of what bapHe places pouring or sprinkling on its tism is, so far as the party baptized is true ground; whether you will be satis- concerned, utterly precludes the admisfied that it is good ground, I have not sion of infants to it-See, for instance, much doubt. It is, that though Christ's 1 Peter ii. 21. language is precise, the very word meaning to immerse, churches or countries are at liberty to alter His appointment; something else than what He commands may be practised, because the church has ordained it.

My brother, in common with almost all who take his view of baptism, adverts to the baptism of households in support of the right of infants to the ordinance. Now not to employ against him the fact of there being scores of households everywhere, in which there are no infants, I am disposed to use here the inquiry of the text, "What saith the Scripture ?" Exclusive of the baptism of Christ, and of the multitudes by John, and also of the disciples whom Jesus, as it was rumoured, made and baptized, (John iv.1)-there are, I believe, eleven recorded instances of baptism in the New Testament. Multitudes more were baptized unquestionably; but these are the only instances, so far as I remember,