Lord's baptism, in the language of Ripley, a Baptist writer, "furnish no decision in respect to the meaning of the ordinance." It would be useless

to dwell on these words, as our position is, whether John baptized in Jordan, or on the banks, that he baptized with water. Cannot we press this idea on the mind of the immersionist, by reminding him that while he contends that John baptized the Savior by immersion, he is found at war with John, who assures us, "I baptize with water." But we are brought to a pause here. Is it not a useless task to speak to men who cannot distinguish between baptizing with water and in water?

As we are now on the principal points at issue, and confined to an English argument, we refer the reader to Chapter X, for the true position of the word represented by out of in our Lord's baptism.

So far as this baptism is concerned, the truth would seem thus,-that he underwent a baptismal washing, standing in the edge of Jordan, by which he became a legal antitypical priest, fulfilling the law of righteousness, bearing on him from the days of Aaron, in a most impressive light, till then. Well did St. Bernard say, "The creature poured water on the head of the Creator." This was the understanding the early churches had of his baptism, as may be seen by reference to figures of representation there found, before any of the present denominations had a name. (See the original term used in Chapter IX, to express the place of our Lord's baptism, also cut No. 1, at the end of this work.)

It remains for us here to notice the baptism by John in Enon, because of much water. To this our attention is turned by a question in this chapter. It is said that the words much water are infallible proof of immersion; but here we make the issue, that the words much water are an infallible proof against immersion, and show, beyond the

possibility of a doubt, that they were introduced for a different purpose than that of setting forth the idea of John going to hunt up much water to immerse men and women. Pray, what did John want with much water to immerse an individual? Would not a pond 20 feet by 12, or less, have done? Certainly. Can any man then in his sober reason show us what John wanted with much water in case immersion was his object? He cannot. The truth is, he did not want much water to baptize by immersion; yet no attitude would have suited him, nor met the wants of the Jewish people, except a place abounding with water. The reason is obvious, and runs thus: The Jewish people would not eat without first washing their hands; nor is this all, since we find by turning to Mark vii, 3, 4, that they washed or baptized their cups, pots, and beds. Here we see why John went to a place of many waters. Had he been at a place devoid of water to serve the demands of the Jews, they would have suddenly left for their homes, as they would not have eaten without first washing their hands. This accounts for the fact of John going to a place of much water, and no other reasonable account can be given. In short, it is quite satisfactory to our mind that the very mention of the words much water is calculated to drive us to seek for a meaning beyond immersion,-even the meaning, the exact meaning, we have given above.

Surely when it can be made appear that John wanted much water for the purpose of immersion, it will be time enough to go into detail on the reverse principle; but as this cannot be done, hence the foolishness of an argument based the con, and of all anticipations and replies thereto. But in disposing of our arguments on John's baptism we would here remark, that we proved that the word in simply means he baptized within the limits of

the channel of Jordan, within the limits of the wilderness, and within the limits of Bethabara, also within the limits of Enon; that the Scriptures always speak of him as having baptized with water, when presenting his mode, but never in water; and that the fact of John baptizing at Enon because there was much water there, establishes another fact, that he did not want much water for the purpose of immersion, but for the purpose of meeting the wants of a people who baptized their hands, cups, tables, and pots, continually. So much then for John's baptism, and for the doctrine of baptism by affusion. Immersion finds no encouragement here. In excludes it, and MUCH WATER frowns on it. We do remember with Peter the word of the Lord, how John did baptize WITH water. is enough for us. (See cut No. 3, at the end of this work.

This

CHAPTER XIX.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

IN Chapter XVII, and also in Chapter XVIII, we turned the careful attention of the reader to the Scriptural fact, that where baptism is spoken of in reference to place, the term IN is always used, but where spoken of in reference to mode, the term WITH is ever employed. In the course of these chapters we made it evident, that there is a world of difference between baptizing with water and in water; that to baptize with water is to apply it to the subject; and that to baptize in water is to apply the subject to the water by plunging or dipping. The reader will please keep in mind these necessary distinctions, when reading the Scriptures, and

above all this leading one, that the true sign of the places of baptism is in, which never expresses the mode of the action; and that the true sign of the mode of baptism is with, which is ever expressive of the manner of the act, but never of the place. In the light of these undeniable and unresistible truths, we found that John baptized in the channel of the Jordan, or in Jordan, in the wilderness, in Bethabara, and in Enon; and moreover, that it makes no difference where he baptized, whether in a river, in the ocean, or on the house-top, or on the mountain summit, inasmuch as the Scriptures assure us that he baptized with water. Now, go and read the New Testament with these clear and striking distinctions before your minds, and you will not only be satisfied that immersion is neither made probable nor possible, but that many have confounded the place of John's baptism with his mode, the fruitful cause of all the confusion of thought on this question, though the direct teachings of inspiration distinctly keep them apart, and speak of them as if to guard the student of theology against the fatal and erroneous doctrine of their unity.

In proceeding from this point of our investigation, we would remark, that we have no objection to the idea of carrying the manner of John's baptism, in part, into the Christian dispensation, but have every objection to it being taken as a perfect model, by which the apostles acted.. Robert Hall, a strict advocate for immersion, could easily perceive that John's baptism was not exactly in accordance with the formula presented by the Savior. John baptized unto repentance; but the apostles baptized all in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, excepting the proselytes of John, or members of the Jewish state of the church, who were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, or

Jesus Christ, terms that do not include the Trinity. This will be noticed in Chapter XXII, and the reasons assigned.

Here we have the difference. All men ought to perceive it. We said a moment ago that we had no objection to the idea of carrying the manner of John's baptism, in part, into the Christian state of the church. By this we mean his blending repentance with the application of water to the subject; for in reference to the latter, which we heartily subscribe to, he speaks for himself thus: "I indeed baptize you with water: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." These considerations, when summed up, set forth vital distinctions, which ought to be carefully noted by every Bible reader. Affusion, however, is the principal idea embodied in their tendency.

Now, as our position is as plain as our procedure of reasoning, we shall, without another word of explanation, invite the attention of the reader to the celebrated baptism of the eunuch by Philip. The narration of this event runs thus,--that both went down INTO the water, and that after the completion of the baptism, they went up out of the water. The question, of course, is, was the eunuch immersed by Philip? Or was he subjected to the process of baptism by affusion? Immersionists may infer, do infer, that he was baptized by immersion. We say infer; for there is no proof beyond an unwarrantable inference. We, while defending our side of the question, exclude inference-needing it not; and in view of which we make here an issue with the immersionist of no ordinary character, that is, that we shall test the mode of the baptism of the eunuch by the exact mode of John's baptism, as above stated by himself, promising to abide by the result. John says he baptized with water, and Peter and Luke say