verse. To have done so, would have made the passage say something worse than nonsense. The whole verse reads thus: "I indeed baptize you with (en) water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with (en) the Holy Ghost, and with fire." I need not tell you what a gross impropriety it would have been to have translated the latter clause of this verse thus: he shall baptize, (or according to Mr. C. immerse) you in the Holy Ghost, and in fire. But not only does this preposition signify in and with, but according to Schleusner, and Parkhurst, one of Mr. C.'s high authorities, it signifies also at, nigh, by; and Mr. J. P. Campbell has detailed several passages from the Septuagint, and nine or ten from the New Testament, wherein it must necessarily be so understood. Mr. C., however, says, p. 154, that J. P. Campbell "has found one or two passages" only, where en may be translated "at;" and his reducing twenty instances to one or two, tells us with what caution his quotations from the writings of other men are to be received.

The observations I have made respecting the preposition en, are also applicable to the preposition eis. It signifies in, into, at, near, towards. And although in Mark i. 9, it is translated in, in connexion with baptism; and in Acts viii. 39, into; yet every reader may see, that in the first of these places, it may with propriety be translated at, and in the second to: and Mr. Campbell, of Kentucky, has detailed in his book, p. 53, no less than nineteen or twenty passages from the New Testament where it must necessarily signify at, near to, or towards.

The same observations are also applicable to the preposition ek. It gs equally indefinite in its meaning. Mr. C., indeed, tells us, that Mr. Moor, professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, defines it "as VOL. I.

denoting that-a person departs out of a place, or that any thing is taken out of another thing." But Parkhurst, another of his authorities, defines it thus: "ek 1, governing a genitive case, 1. It denotes motion from a place, out of, from ;" and according to this definition, the words "ek tou hudatos," in Acts viii. 39, which are translated "they came up out of the water," should have been rendered, "they came up from the water."

As for the other preposition apo, which is used in connexion with baptism, Mr. C.'s authority, professor Moor, defines it "the departure, or the distance of one person or thing from the place of another." This is the word that is used in Mark i. 10, where it is said of Jesus, that "coming out of (apo) the water, he saw the heavens opened;" and according to Mr. C.'s own authority, should have been translated coming from the water he saw the heavens opened." And although it may be used in other senses, yet, from is its primary meaning, and as Mr. Campbell, of Kentucky, justly observes, "if apo, when used in connexion with baptism, be rendered from, then ek, in parallel passages must mean the same thing; and eis, and en, conjoined with them in the same description, cannot express more than at, or to." p. 53.

66

But with the doctrine contained in the above quotation, Mr. C. is highly displeased, and in the fulness of his soul, and the exuberance of his zeal for soundness in the faith, he charges him and Peter Edwards, who made the same observation, "with shutting the gates of heaven and of hell by their criticisms," and virtually saying "that when a person is in the house he is only at the door; and when in bed is only at the side of it:" after which he demolishes this monstrous doctrine, and refutes these dangerous criticisms, by the following irresistible argument. "Excellent critics O bigotry! O prejudice ! 3 Q

490

66

Now the whole of this powerful argument is dissipated in a moment, when the reader reflects that it was not the meaning of the prepositions en and eis, as connected with heaven and hell, but as connected with baptism, that the late Mr. Campbell alludes to in the above quotation. He does not say that "eis OURANON" does not signify into heaven; nor that "eis GEENNAN" does not signify into hell: but he says that as Bethabara was not a river, but a place in the vicinity of Jordan; then as en Bethabara," in John i. 26, necessarily means at Bethabara; so en Jordanee, and eis ton Jordanon, in Mark i. 5-9, should have been translated not in, but at, Jordan, because those passages have reference to the same thing the place were John was baptizing: that as "apo tou hudatos," in Matt. iii. 6, necessarily means "from the water," according to Mr. C.'s own authority, so "ek tou hudatos," in Acts viii. 39, should have been translated "from the water," also, because both passages have reference to the situation of the persons baptized. And it now rests upon Mr. C. to prove, if he can, that en, and eis, and apo, and ek, when relating to the same thing in those passages, must necessarily have a different meaning. This would be far more satisfactory to the public, and honourable to himself, than such tremendous apostrophising. Such things in the present day will not be accepted in the place of argument, much less for "a positive precept or precedent" for immersion, in administering the ordinance of baptism.

And now what is the result of this part of the review? Thisthat nothing perfectly decisive respecting the mode of administering baptism, can be legitimately inferred from the word baptizo; nor

Nov.

from the prepositions connected with it. That although that word is used by Greek writers to signify "to wash by immersion," yet they use it also to signify to wash by other means:-that although there have been, and are men distinguished for literature, who understand it in its first and literal sense when used to denote the mode of initiation into the church; yet there have been, and are men of as great critical acumen and literary attainments, who contend, that it is not used in the New Testament in its literal, but in a figurative sense; in consequence of which it has changed its meaning from washing by immersion, to washing by pouring water on the subject, in allusion to the pouring out the Spirit as a spirit of regeneration; and every man of reading knows, that the number of the latter far exceeds that of the former. And certainly if a doctrine is to be established by the meaning of the word that conveys it, it must be by the meaning that the inspired penmen attach to it, and not that of Heathen wri ters. So far, then, as we have conducted our review, there has nothing appeared to authorize Mr. C. to assert so roundly as he has done, that baptism is to be administered by immersion, and by immersion only.

But we are told in the New Testament of different persons being baptized at different times, by different baptizers; perhaps an examination of those passages may shed farther light on the subject. Te this I have no objection, if you are willing to attend me.

66

The first upon record is the baptism of John, mentioned by all the evangelists. Matthew informs us, that in those days (the reign of Tiberius, emperor of Rome) came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea"- -"and there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in (or at) Jordan, confessing their

sins." The question now is, why did John choose the banks of the Jordan for preaching and baptizing? The Baptist answer, or rather hypothesis is, that he might have a sufficient depth of water for immersing. But another may be assigned. It was foretold of John that he should confine his ministry to the wilderness. "In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilder

ness."

What now distinguishes a wilderness from other places? This -that the soil is sterile, and destitute of springs of water. Jordan ran through this wilderness, and the hypothesis that John chose the banks of Jordan for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient supply of water for the vast multitudes that resorted to his ministry, is, for any thing that hath yet appeared, just as good, and as probable as that of the Baptists. This hypothesis is considerably strengthened by what is said of him, John iii. 23, "that he was baptizing at Ænon, near Salim, because there was much water there." This translation does not exactly express the meaning of the original. The Greek words are, "polla hudata," which, although sometimes used to denote rivers, as rivers are a collection of springs, yet every linguist knows, that many springs of water, are their literal and primary meaning. It is not pretended that there was, or is any river at Ænon, and Robinson, the Baptist historian, dextrous as he is at evading every argument that favours baptism by affusion, cannot tell, after all his research, whether Enon was a natural spring, an artificial reservoir, or a cavernous temple of the sun. Schleusner, however, tells us that the word signifies a fountain, and that it was not far from Jordan; and this circumstance added to the description "polla hudata," or many springs of water, is a proof that John chose it for the purpose I have mentioned; for on the Baptist hypothesis," the river

Jordan was far preferable for baptizing by immersion.

But there is another circumstance that militates strongly against the Baptist hypothesis. It is this. Both Matthew and Mark tell us, 66 'that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan went out to John's baptism, and were baptized of him." What the exact population of Judea was at that time, I will not precisely say. But Josephus, their own historian, tells us, that seventy years afterwards, 1,350,000 of them were cut off in their wars with the Romans, as many more led captive, besides those that escaped, which probably amounted to more than one third of the whole population. We may therefore say, that there were four or five millions of inhabitants in Judea, in the days of John the Baptist. We will also suppose that only one million of them were baptized by him, although the words of the evangelists intimate that the greatest number were. It is the opinion of the best chronologists, that John did not exercise his ministry longer than eighteen months, and at farthest not longer than two years. I would now ask any thinking person if it was possible for him to baptize one million, or near one million of persons, in that space of time, by immersion. But it was practicable by affusion, and upon the supposition that a number of them stood before him in ranks, and that he poured the water upon them from his hand, or from some suitable vessel.*

But this is not all. John tells us

* Robinson, the Baptist historian, p. 32, Bendt. ed. tells us that John baptized but very few persons. What reason does he assign for this assertion in opposition to the express declaration of the evangelists to the contrary? His own ipse dixit. What could induce him to such a bold measure? He saw the force of the argument I have mentioned above, and had no other way of evading it.

that his baptism was figurative of the baptism" with the Holy Ghost and with fire;" and which the apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost, when "there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii. 3, 4. But this as foretold by the prophet Joel, is styled "a pouring out the Spirit on all flesh;" and had John's baptism been administered by immersion, it could not have been a proper figure of this extraordinary "baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And to this I would just add, that admitting it could be incontrovertibly proved, that John's baptism was administered by immersion, yet it would not thence follow that Christian baptism was to be administered in the same manner. John's baptism belonged not to the Christian, but the Jewish dispensation of grace; but the certain mode of administering Christian baptism is to be sought for from an examination of the baptisms recorded under that dispensation. This I shall also now attempt.

The first of these that occurs, is the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, recorded in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. The scene is laid in Jerusalem. The followers of Christ, amounting to 120, men and women, were assembled in one place agreeably to his orders. According to his promise, the Holy Ghost in the form of cloven tongues, as of fire, fell, or was poured out upon them, and they spake with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. When this was noised abroad, the multitude came together. Peter preached to them. They were deeply convinced of their guilt in crucifying the Son of God as an impostor; "and said to Peter, and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter exhorted them "to

be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." They complied; and as many as received the word gladly were baptized; "and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

I have said in my second letter, that none but the twelve apostles had authority at that time to administer the ordinance of baptism; and as all this happened in the space of seven or eight hours, that there was not time for the twelve apostles to baptize three thousand persons by immersion, though practicable by affusion. To this it may be objected, that the seventy disciples of whom we read in the gospel by John, were no doubt present, and had a right to baptize as well as the twelve apostles. Be it so-but where, was the water for the immersion of three thousand persons, many of whom must, even according to this hypothesis, be immersed at the same point of time. Some tell us in the brook Kidron; but this brook was very small, and dry a considerable part of the year. Others tell us, that they could have been baptized in the Molten sea of the temple. But is it at all probable that the chief priests, who had the oversight and command of the temple, would suffer them to pollute it, by administering an ordinance of the abhorred Nazarene? Besides; there is not the least intimation in the sacred history, that they removed from the place where they had at first assembled; and all could be done where they were, and without confusion, and with a few quarts of water, if done by affusion. From these few suggestions, and other circumstances that will naturally occur to the reader, he will draw his own inference, whether these three thousand were baptized by immersion, or by affusion, or pouring water on the head of the subject.

The baptism of the Samaritans and of the Eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia, present themselves next

for examination. There is nothing said of the manner of the baptism of the Samaritans; but of the Eunuch it is said, "they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away that he saw him no more."

Mr. C. tells us, p. 131, as a proof I suppose of baptism by immersion, that King James I. of England, "by whose authority the present version of the scriptures was made, prohibited the translators from translating into English baptisma and baptizo,' where these words respected the rite; but ordered them to adopt those words as they had been adopted by the Vulgate." "And that had the translators been at liberty, instead of the command be baptized every one of you, it would have read be dipped every one of you-and instead of he baptized him, it would have read, he immersed him.”

What Mr. C. says is true history. The depraved heart of man is strongly opposed to the simplicity of the gospel, and the simplicity of its ordinances. Hence then, not only new rites have been added to those instituted by Christ, but additions made to those he has appointed. This was the case with the ordinance of baptism. In the days of Tertullian, if not before, an idea began to prevail from some unguarded, and perhaps hyperbolical expressions of that father, and from his mistaking the sign for the thing signified, and the means for the thing to be obtained, and which depends entirely on sovereign grace; that there was a regenerating influence in baptismal water.* Hence then it is easy to see, that pouring a small quantity of water on the

* O felix sacramentum aquæ nostræ, quia ablutis delictis pristinæ excitatis in vitam æternam liberamur-sed nos hisciculi secundum ixdav nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur.

head of the person to be baptized, would not be considered as efficacious as immersing the whole body in the purifying element: nor are evidences wanting in the, present day of the deleterious effect of that opinion. In the dark ages of Popery this opinion "grew with its growth, and strengthened with its strength," and infected almost all the churches of Christendom, and the Anglican church with the rest; nor did it lose ground until the revival of learning at the æra of the reformation. King. James, though somewhat pedantic, was yet a learned man, being educated by the celebrated GEORGE BUCHANNAN. He knew the imposing idea of immersion in baptism was the prevailing idea in England; and therefore gave the orders mentioned by Mr. C., rightly judging, that the light of increasing literature, and 'the cultivation of Biblical criticism would, in due time, settle the meaning of the words baptisma, and baptizo, in the New Testament. Nor was he mistaken. The vote given not forty years afterwards in the Westminster Assembly, alluded to by Mr. C. in the following page, is a proof how much ground the doctrine of immersion had lost in that space of time, by the increase of sound literature. The translators obeyed the king; but who is there acquainted with the Greek language, and who has read the New Testament in that language, but must have seen that not an opportunity offered itself of translating in favour of immersion that they did not embrace. Although they translate "eis" to, and "ek" from, in different places, yet whenever they met with them in connexion with baptism, they invariably render the one into, and the other out of.

But strong as their prejudice and prepossessions were, it is astonishing that the circumstances of the baptism now under consideration, and the language of the inspired historian, did not induce them to