This is the true sense

temple, within its walls? of in, generally speaking.

2. Wherever into is found in the Scriptures, the sense must be determined by circumstances. Into the wilderness, into a mountain, into a tree. Here the reader must regulate his thoughts by the circumstances of the cases. But in reference to the use of into, in the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, we are to understand it thus, that whether both were at the edge of the water, or in the water up to their chins, Philip baptized the eunuch by affusion, if he followed up John's mode, which was a baptism with water, not a baptism in water.

3. And wherever we find with connected with baptism, we are to view it in this light, that it simply denotes the manner in which the people were baptized, which was evidently by affusion, immersing in water being incompatible with every idea of baptizing WITH WATER, the very thing John did.

The reader can now perceive that we can allow the immersionist to carry the eunuch by the word into up to his chin in water, and then keep him from being baptized by immersion, the Scriptures declaring, wherever they speak of mode, that the act was with water, not in water. This is the decision of the Book, the court of Cæsar to us all. With this decision before our eyes, we implicitly believe and record the pleasing fact, that Philip baptized the eunuch by affusion. All this we make plain from the English translation, by an English argument, taking it for granted that Philip and John baptized alike. (See Chapter X, where this matter is carefully examined.)

CHAPTER XX.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

HAVING particularly noticed all the baptisms by John, and the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, we shall now proceed to examine the baptism spoken of in Romans vi, 4: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." Immersionists do greatly err here, when they assert that immersion is unequivocally spoken of in this passage. We e say they do greatly err here; and now for the reasons for this belief.

1. The Christians at Rome had not been visited by any member of the apostolic college when the epistle from which the above passage is taken was written; and from this fact the presumption is, that they only knew whatever baptism the day of Pentecost revealed to them; for some of them were then there, and returned to Rome believers in Christ, which entitled them to the name of Christians, which they honorably maintained until the apostle informed them of being buried with Christ by baptism. Now, in view of this state of the case, which opens up before us a people without apostolic organization, do not immersionists venture too far when they dogmatically preach that these Romans were immersed? Who immersed them? Where were they immersed? The only answer that can be given here is, that they were baptized, at least the first fruits of them, on the day of Pentecost; and if any baptisms took place after this, they had to be performed by some of their own number. This is a fair aspect of the case, and this, we think, ought to cause men to speak with becoming modesty, under such circumstances, especially on the exact nature of the baptism mentioned by the apostle.

2. The Christians at Rome could not have been said to be in a state of water baptism when the apostle wrote, seeing that the apostle did not write to them for many years after the first of them had been baptized on the day of Pentecost; and this fact of itself is sufficient to startle us from water baptism, when we read, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death," which evidently sets forth a state of their condition incompatible with a state of water baptism, which must have taken place previous to this declaration of the apostle, which embraced their state when he wrote, and not, in the abstract, their state when baptized with water, which was in the past, and not in the present. This we consider an insurmountable difficulty to all who consider the passage as including the idea of water baptism. Of a truth, these Christians could not have been under the influence of any mode of water baptism at the time the apostle wrote; for, as the language speaks of their state when it was written, one mode of baptisin would be as much against its true sense as another.

3. When we view the time and place of the apostle's baptism, and the time and place of the baptism of the Roman Christians, we cannot for a moment think that the apostle intended to convey the idea that he and these Romans were in a state of baptism by water when he wrote, seeing he used a verb in the present tense, are buried, not were buried. This verb being in the indicative mood, present tense, passive voice, an act by water baptism, which had taken place long previous, would seem most positively excluded. This reason receives additional force from the fact, that the new translation of the Scriptures, which was a subject of great excitement before the Baptist Bible Society in New York, this year, has rendered the passage thus, "were buried." This embraces

of Pentecost; but we insist, for the sake of truth, that John baptized WITH WATER, and that they were so baptized on the day of Pentecost, whether in the city of Jerusalem, in the brook Kedron, or in the pool of Siloam. We cannot too often give the language of John. Hear it, and think while you do hear, "I indeed baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." We here persuade ourself, that the reader must be satisfied that it was impossible to immerse three thousand under such circumstances; and moreover, that if John's mode of baptism was respected, they were all baptized by affusion.

The jailor's baptism, Acts xvi, 19-39. Was it possible that this personage could have been baptized by immersion? It was not; seeing the act was in the night, and under circumstances that forbid the idea of going forth to seek water. Baptism was evidently performed in the principal room of the prison, and performed by affusion, unless we believe Paul departed from John's mode, which was to baptize with water-not in water.

The baptism of the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius, Acts x, 47, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?” Here we not only perceive that the Holy Ghost fell on them before baptism, but that Peter put forth the question, "Can any man forbid water ?"-that is, forbid water to be brought. Now, if Peter had been thinking of immersion, would he not have said, "Can any man forbid us to go out to the water, and baptize these?" Of a truth they were baptized with water, when it was brought, and not in water, unless Peter departed from his own remembrance of John's manner of baptizing, which was with

water.

In confirmation of our conclusion on the mode

practiced on the day of Pentecost, we shall here add that it was the belief of the ancients that the three thousand were baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Zinchy deposeth thus: "Three thousand were baptized no other way than by sprinkling of water, Lib. 2. Nicholson, Chamier, Lynwood and Bonoventura, and others, gave to the world the same belief. Pond says, p. 40, "On the whole, I cannot doubt that the three thousand were baptized the same day they believed, and that the ordinance was administered by pouring or sprinkling."

The reader may consider this branch of the subject dismissed. What we have said on one baptism would apply to all-namely, that John did not baptize in water, but WITH water.

BAPTISM OF SAUL, OF TARSUS.

We now invite particular attention to Paul's baptism. We reserved this for a separate consideration, being apprised that we could not do it justice without an appeal to an original word.— The account runs thus, Acts xxii: "Arise [anastas] and be baptized." We shall now quote a few passages in which the verb anastas is found, which will enable the reader to judge whether it is a verb that will admit of an action, such as running to and fro to find water to immerse. Matthew xxvi, 62: "And the high priest arose [anastas] and said unto him, answerest thou nothing?" In this case, did not the priest stand at once to his feet and speak? Mark xiv, 57: "And there arose [anastantes] certain, and bare false witness against him." Was not this a sudden act? Acts i, 15: "And in those days Peter stood up, [anastas,] in the midst of the disciples, and said." "Did not Peter speak instantly on rising up? Acts xv, 7, "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up [anastas] and