name things, without any definite reference to modes.

1 Corinthians x: "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” The dew or drops from the cloud, and spray of the ocean, that fell on the people of Israel, is called a baptism: still, as it regards the exact mode, the word was not used to express it, but to call the circumstance a baptism.

Cyprian so used the term; for he called affusion a baptism, and washing a baptism. The thing accomplished was what he applied the word to. He would have called immersion a baptism, pouring a baptism, sprinkling a baptism, in the same paragraph, had circumstances called him out.

Origen so used the term; for he called the wetting of the wood on the altar a baptism. The act was what he aimed at, and not mode, though the mode is understood by his detailed description.

Irenæus so used the term; for he spoke of Christians as "baptizing by an affusion of water mixed with oil." The act was what he set forth by the word, and nothing more. The mode is expressed by other words in the quotation.

The Council of Carthage so used the term, and so did the Council of Neocæsarea. The Council of Trent decided thus: "Those that are baptized, are either plunged into the water, or water is poured on them, or they are sprinkled with water: now, whichsoever of these ways is observed, we ought to believe the baptism to be valid." This council, it will be perceived, used the word apart from any exclusive mode, calling the application of water to the person, or the person to the water, a baptism. This is a princely illustration of our position on the office of baptizo.

Damascene called Noah's flood "a baptism." Surely he did not intend, by the use of the word,

mode, but the thing accomplished. The mode, however, is directly unfavorable to immersion. Did not the fountains of the deep flow up on the land?

And was not the rain poured forth out of the windows of heaven? In either case the water came on the world, which favors affusions. The world was not plunged into water. We repeat, however, that the act was what was intended, and not the mode.

Tertullian called it "the baptism of the world." All the previous thoughts, on the same case, apply here.

We trust the reader is now satisfied that we have sustained our position on the office of baptizo, that it calls acts baptisms, without any definite reference to the exact modes involved; and moreover, that this, when taken in connection with our previous proof, in the beginning of this chapter, will leave him fully satisfied on the doctrine of affusion in baptism, the only plain doctrine of the Scrip

tures.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

WELL, as we purpose to begin with the next chapter an English argument, purely of a Scriptural character, and have some considerations to notice in this of interest, we shall begin by remarking that it is as natural for an immersionist to think of dip when he sees bap, as to think of light when he speaks of day. Hear how Campbell, who declares "wherever there is bap there is dip," speaks for all on this subject. "I most conscientiously avow my conviction, that he who has not been immersed in

water into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has never received Christian baptism. All Baptists believe this." (See his Debate with Dr. Rice, p. 257.) To this we reply, that the holy men of God thought otherwise and talked otherwise, who lived near the time of the apostles. This can easily be perceived by turning back to our last The proof there is infallible on this point.

But after all the evidence we have produced from the classics, the Scriptures, and the fathers, to show that the application of water to a subject, in any form, can be and ever was, called a baptism, the immersionist stands before us a chained slave to his water idol. In short, the man that followed the Armagh coach to Dublin, Ireland, could see no reason why the great wheels should not overtake the little ones; and so we may speak of every exclusive immersionist, for when the bap appears he can see no reason why it should not find water, even in a jail, a city, a private house, and present a total immersion.

Men of this stamp are hopeless. Men that will so speak and so write are beyond the influence of reason, wedded to one of the most absurd theories that ever was unfolded to the eye of the world.— Do we doubt this? If so, look at the above avowal of Campbell, and doubt will give place to an abiding conviction of the truth of what we have just stated. But the next thing in order that meets us is a declaration made by Carson, not much inferior in point of absurdity to the one we have glanced at made by Campbell. Hear it, and reflect while you hear: "I deny that eis signifies at.— I maintain that it never has this signification." Why all this? Ah! gentle reader, we shall let you into the secret, which is this, eis is the word employed to put the eunuch into the water, and it inust be so construed as to signify into, not to or at.

To let it get the sense of at would, to the understanding of the immersionist, be opening a door to a latitude in the meaning ruinous to his cause; hence he boldly affirms "that eis never signifies at." And this, with many Baptists, passes for law and gospel. Now, let us place alongside of this the declaration of inspiration: "And they repented [eis] at the preaching of Jonas." This needs no comment. It is, of itself, sufficient to make the pale face of immersion, as now advocated, blush.— But while on this feature we shall remark, that we made it appear by a statement carefully recorded in another chapter, that eis occurs eleven times in the eighth chapter, of the Acts of the Apostles, and is only translated once into, in the case of the eunuch's baptism by Philip. We then intimated that this fact gave us evidence of the influence of trine immersion on the minds of the king's translators— a thing that cannot be doubted by any reading un biased man. We also then remarked that eis was generally connected with another word, when motion into a place was intended. And just right here we shall disclose this fact, that while cis is found single eleven times in the above mentioned chapter, it is found allied to a word in the third verse, to denote an action into a place. Is this not a remarkable fact, to be found in such a connection? Will not this shed a flood of light on what we have said on the eunuch's baptism, as to the intention of Luke in showing where it took place. The account runs thus: "As for Saul he made havoc of the church, [eisporeuomenos,] entering into every house." Thus we have, in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, eis used twelve times, once with another word to set forth an action into a place, and eleven times without any such connection, to express an action to, &c.— The reader will please keep this in mind, and al

ways think of it, when he hears a Baptist minister emphasize on the words, into the water.

We shall now make a few remarks on the impossibility of John immersing all the Scriptures send to his baptism, as it will open up the way for some reflections, that could not, consistently with our contemplated plan, be introduced in any future chapter. Carson felt the force of this objection, and labored to break the force of the blow. He speaks thus on the point: "There is no necessity to suppose that John baptized all personally. He might have employed the instrumentality of others along with himself." (See his work on Baptism, p. 335.) The Scriptures, without human supposition or calculation, emphatically represent John as having baptized immense numbers of people. This cannot be doubted. No wonder then that Carson provides him assistance! In the language of Carson, though for a different purpose, we would say that there is no necessity to fix a mode to his baptism that will make the work assigned to him impossible, or to drive him from necessity to call in help. Give him the mode of sprinkling or pouring, and all difficulty is at an end.

The way being now clearly opened for our thoughts, we take occasion to state here, without details, that immersion was not required by the law of Moses, so far as we can learn; and moreover, that Moses did do an act that John may have taken as a precedent. The act is thus spoken of, Hebrews ix, 19: "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and the people." He simply took a bunch of hyssop and bound it together with threads made of scarlet wool, then dipped it in a basin which contained the blood and water, and sprinkled the mix