Instead of these passages supplying evidence in favour of sprinkling, they would seem to point plainly at an opposite conclusion. For as the terms rendered sprinkling and sprinkle, are in the original, both in Heb. xii. 24, and in the Septuagint version of Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, rantizó and rainó, it is manifest, that when the sacred writers wished to express the sense of sprinkling, they were at no loss in finding an appropriate term. Every one agrees that these words signify to sprinkle. If sprinkling, then, be the action enjoined as Christian baptism, what reason can be assigned for the absence of rantizó, in every case where baptism is mentioned in Scripture, and the constant use of another term, the proper meaning of which, both in classical and sacred writers, is on all sides acknowledged to be, to immerse.

The evidence hitherto adduced in support of the statement, that to sprinkle or pour is the most common meaning of baptizó in Scripture,' is alike scanty and inconclusive; and we now arrive at the last passage produced. This passage, however, is in Mr. -'s view, conclusive on the point. But what is conclusive on the point,' he says, 'is that passage in 1 Cor. x. 2. The Israelites are said to have been baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.' The words 'in the cloud,' are in the original under the cloud (the Greek word UTO being used) that is, that while the cloud passed over their heads to come between them and the Egyptians, it dropped or sprinkled water on them.' No one, I feel assured, would think of adducing this passage as 'conclusive' evidence of baptism being sprinkling, who did not find, that evidence of any kind in support of this view, was very scarce. The Israelites, in passing through the Red Sea, are said to have been baptized unto Moses; but it is, on all hands admitted, that the word baptized occurs here in a figurative sense.

'They were baptized into Moses,' says Parkhurst, i. e. into obedience to those laws which Moses delivered to them from God.' Though the primary and current meaning of the word baptizó, is to immerse, no one denies that it admits, like all similar words, of different figurative applications. The metaphorical use, however, is to be learned from the primary, and not the primary from the figure. It is not maintained there was any thing, in the present case, like a literal immersion in water though there was, unquestionably, a resemblance both to the mode and design of baptism. In the Israelites going down into the sea; in their being covered by the cloud; and in their afterwards coming out on the other side; there is a sufficient resemblance to Christian immersion, to justify the figure; and the passage served a like purpose with baptism, inasmuch as it initiated them fully into the service of Moses, and attested their faith in him, as their temporal saviour. The supposition, that while the cloud passed over the heads of the Israelites, it dropped or sprinkled water on them,' is altogether arbitrary and fanciful; for of water, or rain, falling from the cloud at all, no evidence can be adduced. this supposition seems to derive its support from Mr. proposed substitution of the words 'baptized unto Moses under the cloud,' for the rendering, we find, in the English version, in the cloud,' and this change being evidently proposed inadvertently, (the Greek word is not væо but ε) it is needless to dwell on the point further.

But as

It may be proper, however, to mention, that the words 'under the cloud,' occur in the preceding verse; but we, assuredly, have no evidence that the Israelites, when under it, were sprinkled with rain. On the other hand, we learn from the sacred narrative, Exod. xiii. 21, xiv. 22.; Numb. ix. 15, that they were under the cloud for protection and guidance; and that under this

protection and guidance, passing safely through the sea, they showed, or professed, their full confidence in Moses; and were, in this way, baptized or enlisted into his service, as their divinely appointed leader, out of Egypt, into the promised land.

I am, &c.

LETTER III.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

It has been shown, I trust, to

your satisfaction, that the passage 1 Cor. x. 2, when interpreted in accordance with the facts of sacred history, instead of being conclusive' on the point, furnishes no evidence whatever in support of Mr. -'s statement. That sprinkling or pouring, is the most common meaning of baptizô in Scripture.' Mr. has not merely failed to prove he has not even shown, it has this meaning in a single instance. Most pædobaptists admit that immersion was frequently practised in new Testament times, but Mr. makes no concession of the kind. While he holds that to dip is sometimes the meaning of baptizó, he controverts this rendering in the clearest cases, and finds sprinkling every where.

I know of no writer of any repute, who has maintained, that to sprinkle is the most common meaning' of the word; or who gives this as its primary and current signification at all. On the other hand, the admissions of eminent pædobaptist writers respecting its received use, and also respecting the prevailing practice of the early church, are alike numerous, and unequivocally expressed. In illustration of this, the following quotations may suffice; though it would be easy to add a multitude of others, not less pertinent and decisive.

'It is universally admitted,' says a recent intelligent writer,

As

'that in primitive times, immersion was the rule, and an affusion an exception allowed only in cases of sickness. for aspersion or sprinkling, it may well be doubted, whether such a thing was known in the early church.'* The baptism of the ancient church,' says Bishop Jer. Taylor, was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment, and the example of the blessed Saviour.' Immersion' says Dr. Cave, was the almost and 'It being

constant universal practice of the primitive times.'

so expressly declared, Rom. vi. 4, and Col. xi. 12,' says Dr. Whitby, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, and the arguments to oblige us to a conformity to his death by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church; and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any licence from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that the custom of immersion might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in cases of the clinici, or in present danger of death.'

Since aspersion or sprinkling, and affusion or pouring, are thus, so generally admitted to be innovations, you will naturally wish to be informed how these practices originated. Satisfactory information on this point, you will easily obtain, by consulting the pages of early ecclesiastical history. It may suffice at present if I mention that the former seems to have been introduced at a date, by no means so early as the latter. The practice of affusion, as a substitute for immersion, like that of

*British Mag., 1836, p. 700.