How these facts agree with considering and treating persons as unbaptized simply because they have not been wholly immersed, or plunged in water, is submitted to the candour of our brethren to decide.

Another instance of Baptism recorded in the NewTestament is, that of our Saviour, by John his forerunner; the circumstances of which are related by the Evangelists, Matthew and Mark in the following manner. Says St. Matthew-Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.* The Evangelist Mark relates that John Baptized him in Jordan.fLuke simply states the fact. John makes no men

tion of it.

Our brethren suppose that they have here a certain instance of immersion, and this supposition in the use which they have made of it, has had more influence in leading persons of a certain description to adopt their theory and practice, than all other considerations united.

Though the baptism, administered by John, was not the baptism which Christ instituted after his resurrection, as our more judicious and enlightened brethren freely acknowledge, yet in determining the mode of baptism, we may properly attend to it.

Confident as our brethren are that Christ was bapti zed by immersion, and as essential as this is to their own scheme, several important circumstances nevertheless concur in supporting an opposite opinion.

*Matthew 3, 13 16. †Mark 1, 9. Luke 3, 21

B.

1. Jolm was not commissioned to baptize in water, but with water. He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, upon whom thou shall see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. In fulfilment of this commission, John says in another place, I baptize with

water.

As John was the harbinger of Christ, the baptism which he administered with water, was doubtless emblematical of the one which Christ was to administer with the Holy Ghost. As Christ, in administering his baptism, poured out his spirit upon men, or made an application of it to them, rather than an application of them to the spirit, or an immersion of them in it, so John, in administering his baptism, must have applied water to its subjects, in a manner analogous to that in which the spirit is applied in spiritual baptism.Accordingly we hear him saying to those who came to him for baptism, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to wear, he shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.*

To immerse a body in water is an entirely different act from baptizing it with water. In immersing a body in water, the administrator applies the body to the water, but in baptizing a body with water, he takes water and applies it to the body.

Had John baptized, as our brethren very confidently believe, by immersion, he would not have said Ibaptize with water, but he must have said I baptize in water; for to talk of dipping and plunging with water, is manifestly absurd. We may plunge, or dive, or sink

*Matthew 3, 11. Mark 1, 3 Luke 3, 16. John 1,26 33.

water, but we cannot plunge, or dive, or sink with it, so that our brithren in maintaining that this ancient baptist, as they are pleased to term him, baptized by immersion, only maintain what is inconsistent with what he said respecting his own baptism, and his commission to administer it.

2. There is no more difficulty in conceiving of John's baptizing Christ with water in Jordan, than there is in conceiving one person's baptizing another with water in this house. It is as easy to apply water to aperson standing on the banks of a river, or in the brim of it, or waist deep in it, as in this house, or in any other place.

Besides, the phrase "in Jordan" does not of necessity imply an entrance into its waters. God commanded Joshua to direct the priests that bore the ark of the covenant, (Joshua 3, 8.) When they had come to the brink of the water of Jordan, to stand still in Jordan.-It is manifest from this passage, that a person agreeably to the language of the scripture, may be said to be in a river when he only stands by the side of its waters.. It is also manifest from this passage, that a river and the waters of a river are, according to the language of scripture, distinct things, and that to be in the former, it is not necessary to be in the latter. The same phra seology obtains in scripture in respect to the sea. sea, and the waters in it, or filling it, are generally spoken of as being distinct.. Consequently the Israelites are said to have passed through the Red Sea, and the river Jordan, though the soals of their feet touched: the waters of neither.

A

3. The Greek particles, translated in the passages. quoted, in and out of, may with equal propriety, and, as

† Exodus 14, 22.. Josh. 3, 16. 17. Isa. 8,.7 & 11, 9.. Hebrews 2, 14.

some pious and very learned men have supposed, with greater propriety, be rendered at and from. The translation being thus altered, the passages would read in this manner. And Jesus was baptized of John at Jor-* dan, and straightway coming up from the water he saw the heavens opened &c. The passages thus rendered, would be very remote from suggesting that our Savior was baptized by immersion.

But though these particles, in our version of the New Testament, are far more frequently translated at and from, than in and out of, yet I am willing that the passages should stand as they now read; it being their sound rather than their true meaning which appears to favor the theory and practice of our brethren.

If the baptists will rigidly insist that the phrase "in Jordan" renders it certain that the body of Christ, in the reception of baptism, was wholly immersed in the waters of that river, I have only to request that they will act consistently with this in relation to some other passages appertaining to the baptism of John, where the same word here translated in, occurs. See Mark 1,4. John did baptize in the wilderness. Fully to carry through their mode of reasoning, our brethren must here say, that John plunged, or immersed his subjects in the wilderness. But no, say they," John preached in the wilderness but he baptized in the river Jordan."‡ Contrary as this'shift' is to the plain declaration in the passage before us, we will admit it. The place then in the wilderness where John baptized, or immersed his subjects, was the river Jordan. Well, be it so I will only insist on another passage being understood in agreement with this conclusion. See John 10, 39 40. But he, i c. Christ escaped out of their hands, and went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized and there he abode; and many resorted unto him. Baldwin on the mode of Baptism, p. 82.

The place where John first baptized,was in the wilderness, as is very evident from the above passage in Mark.

But the place say our brethren, where John baptized, while he preached in the wilderness, was the river Jordan. Into this river therefore, the saviour of sinners, in his flight from their rage, plunged himself, and there, immersed in its waters, he abode, and many resorted unto him!! Such inconsistencies are in no way avoidable, if the mode of reasoning, adop-ted by our brethren, be pursued and be allowed to be correct. Baptizing in the wilderness is baptizing in the river Jordan, and baptizing in this river, is baptizing in a place beyond it!!!

But it will here be inquired, why John baptized at Jordan and Enon, if he did not perform the rite by plunging or immersion?

In reply to this inquiry I would observe, that none can reaonably suppose that the quantities of water in either of these places, were necessary for the adminis tration of baptism in any mode. More than John did or could baptize, might in the same time, be immersed in a stream containing no more than a hundredth part of the water which modern travellers represent as running between the banks of Jordan. The argument, drawn from the quantities of water which were, or are supposed to have been in these places, if it prove any thing, proves by far too much, altogether more than its friends wish. If it were solely, or principally on account of the mode in which John baptized that he fixed upon such baptismal stations, it would be natural to infer that he baptized in some mode, requring vastly more water than is now found necessary for immersion. Very shallow streams answer the purpose of our brethren. They do not seem to need a Jordan,