had anointed with clay, Go wash in the pool of Siloam.* Here the phrase of washing in the pool, intends no more than washing his eyes with the water of the pool. And with equal propriety John's hearers may be said to be baptized in Jordan, if only some of the water of the river was poured on their faces.

We read John iii. 23, that John baptized in Enon because there was much water there. It is asked, Why should he chuse a place abounding with water to baptize in, if he did not baptize by immersion?' I answer, these words (polla udata) rendered much water, properly signify many waters, and may be understood of various rivulets or springs, which, travellers say, are the only waters there to be found, and not any large collections convenient for immersion. If John baptized only by affusion, a considerable quantity of water would be necessary to baptize such multitudes, as went out to him from Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.-Yea, though ever so few of them had been baptized, there was good reason why he should chuse a

* John ix. 7.

place to preach in, that was well supplied with water; for the multitudes that attended on his preaching, in the wilderness, at a distance from their homes, would need much water for their refreshment. It is by no means supposeable, that such numbers could, here in the desart, be provided with change of apparel proper for immersion; and surely, in such a numerous and mixed assembly, they were not baptized naked. The circumstances of the case therefore lead us to suppose, they were baptized by affusion.*

We read, Acts ii. Of three thousand baptized, in only part of a day, at the feast of pentecost. It cannot rationally be thought, that these were plunged. There does not seem to have been time for it; nor is it likely they had change of raiment, as they came to the feast without any expectation of such an occasion; nor is it probable, they could be accommodated there with any convenient place for immersion. If there were baths sufficient for the purpose in the tem

*John did not always baptize at Enon or Jordan. He began to baptize in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where we read of na river.'

ple, yet it is very incredible, that the priests and officers of the temple should be willing to accommodate the apostles with them, in order to initiate these converts into a religion, which they were endeavouring by all means to suppress.

When we read of whole families baptized in their houses, particularly of the Jailor and his family baptized at home, and at midnight too, in the same hour in which he be lieved, we cannot think, that a sufficiency of water, and other conveniences for a decent immersion, could be procured on so sudden au occasion.

When Cornelius and his friends received the gospel, Peter asks, not whether any man could hinder them from going to a fountain or river; but whether any man could forbid water, i. e. hinder water from being provid ed, that they should not be baptized ?*

Paul seems to have been baptized in the house of Judas. There Ananias found him, delivered his message to him, and laid his hands on him: And he received sight forth with and arose and was baptized.†

It is worthy to be remarked, that though we read of baptism's in various places, yet we have no account of any person's going from the place where he was, in order to be baptized in a fountain or river. They who were baptized in streams and natural collections of water, are such as were found abroad, either in the wilderness, or on the road, when they first discovered their desire to be baptized.

In the accounts of baptisms recorded in scripture, several important circumstances. are passed in silence which must be necessarily connected with immersion; such as removing from one place to another for a sufficiency of water, plunging the body wholly into the water, changing the apparel after coming out of the water. Such circumstances would doubtless, on some occasion or other, have been mentioned, as they must necessarily have taken place, if total immersion had been the invariable and indispensable mode of baptism. The total silence of scripture concerning these and similar circumstances, to say the least, renders it very improbable, that such a mode was practised at all.

IV. It now remains, that we consider,. what was the usage of the primitive church, upon which our brethren lay great weight in this controversy.

The author of the letters says, 'The whole christian church, for 1300 years successively from the time of the Apostles, understood by baptism, immersion, and so practised; Sprinkling being only permitted on extraordinary occasions.' This argument he often repeats, and depends much upon, as do most of the advocates for immersion; for they reckon, that the early practice of the church in this matter may shew, what was the practice of the Apostles, because it is not likely the apostolic practice would be early and generally disused.

The truth is, the manner of baptizing among the ancients was looked upon circumstantial, and no way essential to the validity of the ordinance. In the times near the Apostles, immersion was much practised, but never asserted to be necessary: Far from this; sprinkling was expressly allowed, and frequently used, especially in cases of infirmity, haste, or want of water or other