reader, I hope, will deem satisfactory-the express and pointed testimony of an inspired apostle. In giving his account of the effect of his mission to the household of Cornelius, Peter says, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Acts xi. 15, 16. That the Spirit falling upon these converts, is equivalent to his being poured out upon them, appears from comparing this account of Peter with the narrative itself of the event: As Peter began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard the word. And they of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."-Look, then, reader, at Peter's words. The Holy Spirit was poured out, and Peter called to mind the promise, which of course he considered as being then fulfilled" Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." According to Peter, then, baptism was effected by pouring out. Till better authority be produced, I desire to bow to this. The argument, I am aware, is very simple, and may be contemned as being an unlearned one ;-but my very object is to show, that learning is not necessary to determine the question, in what sense a writer uses a particular word, when that writer himself favors us with his own explanation. This is done here, in terms as explicit as it is possible to devise. And when Peter himself tells me that he did consider effusion as baptism, it is not the learning of all the etymologists in Europe that will persuade me, against his own word, that it was impossible he should.

I have said, it is surely not unreasonable to suppose, that baptism with water, which represents baptism with the Spirit, should bear an analogy to it in this particular. The language, accordingly, of the subsequent part of the same narrative, most naturally leads to the conclusion, (so naturally, indeed, that I might almost say it directly expresses it,) that such was the fact,-that the converts, on whom the Spirit had fallen, were not conducted to a river, or elsewhere, where they might be

conveniently immersed, but that water was brought, and that they were baptized immediately, upon the spot. Peter said, "Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" an expression which the ear itself of every candid reader at once interprets to his mind, as intimating the apostle's desire that water should be brought. All assenting, he commanded them to be "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” It was immediately done; and they "prayed him to tarry with them certain days."

I only further remark, that the same authority, tamely, that of scripture itself, warrants me so explicitly, to consider sprinkling, or pouring, as sufficiently expressive of washing or cleansing from pollution, that I have no reference to pay to any affirmations to the contrary. Let the following examples be attended to:-Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water пpon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you." Sprinkling is here represented as having the effect of cleansing.-Psal. li. 7. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. "The hyssop was used for sprinkling either water or blood, or both, upon the person to be ceremonially purified; so that here too sprinkling is held sufficient for cleaning.-So it is also in Heb. ix. 13, 14. "" For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying (xa0αoornra) of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God, purge" (xalaqızı, purify or cleanse)" your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?" The blood of Christ is, with the same allusion to its cleansing virtue called the blood of sprinkling.-Isa. lii. 15. So shall he sprinkle many nations" that is, "with his atoning blood, and by the pouring out of his Spirit as purifying water; of which," (adds Mr. Scott, and it belongs to our baptist brethren to show how unreasonably) "baptism should be the outward and visible sign."-Surely such passages of scripture as these ought at least to rescue sprinkling and pouring from the misplaced and pitiful ridicule, which has so often been directed against them by the abettors of immersion.

"

It is, I repeat, in the application of water as a cleansing element, that the appropriateness of the rite consists. Were this admitted, I should not be disposed, as I have before hinted, to consider the mode of its application as essential to the validity of the ordinance. I must, however, declare my conviction, that, whilst I have produced decisive instances of baptism, in the phraseology of the New Testament, being equivalent to effusion, I have never yet seen an instance established, of its necessarily or certainly signifying immersion.* I have already said, that it is not by etymology, but by usage, that this point can be fairly determined; and the attempts made to determine it by usage, from the New Testament, in favor of immersion, have ever appeared to me entire failures. Two or three brief remarks shall suffice on some of the modes of reasoning.

The argument from etymology has been supported by the observation, that, in most of its occurrences, the verb is connected with the preposition EN-εν υδαι,εν Fivevμari aria,-&c.-in water,-in the Holy Spirit, &c. It is truly surprising, that so much stress should be laid on the frequently vague import of a Greek preposition. This preposition (εv) is necessarily rendered with in many of its occurrences. Of this many instances might be quoted. I shall content myself with one, because it bears an immediate relation to the present subject. In Heb. ix. 22. it is said, "almost all things are by the law purged (or purified gier) with blood (ENT) and without shedding of blood is no remission."-Now these purifications with blood were effected by sprinkling ; and to render the phrase here "IN blood," would be absurb. Our baptist friends are sufficiently aware of this frequent signification of the preposition. And yet, this being the case, the use of it in the present instance determines nothing; because, before it can be made out that the preposition should be rendered in it must be previously proved that the verb signifies exclusively to immerse

*The reader will therefore perceive, that when I say I can admit immersion to be valid haptisni, I do not mean that it has been administered according to the mode practised by the apostles. All that I mean is, that if baptism has already been administered by immersion, I should not reckon it necessary to administer it again by effusion or sprinkling.

the propriety of the one translation obviously depending upon the establishment of the other.-Nor is this all. We have, in the very case before us, the clearest evidence of the fallacy of the criticism: for, as we have seen a little ago, the promise “Ye shall be baptized EN πνευματι αγίω,” was verified by the pouring out of this Spirit upon the disciples. To be immersed, or plunged, in the Holy Ghost and in fire, are expressions not merely harsh and grating to the ear,-I should not rest much upon that, because there are few or no modes of speech, to which both the ear and the mind may not, by custom, become habituated and reconciled;-but they are expressions in direct opposition to the invariable representations of scripture respecting the gift of the spirit.-Mr. Cox asks, "What reason can be assigned, if pouring be the proper method of administering baptism, for the constant use of a term in the New Testament, which, every critic admits, signifies immersion, and which even Mr. Ewing allows to mean immersion as much as pouring; and the entire omission of all those Greek words which contain, in their primary, or general application, the sense of effusion or pouring? Either of the following verbs," says he, "might have answered the purpose; Baxx jacio, xx effundo, επιχω infundo, εκχυνω effundo, καταχεw effundo, προσχέω adfundo: they are moreover all made use of in the writings of the apostles, and yet they are never applied to in the ordinance of baptism. The same may be affirmed of garri I sprinkle."*-But this is either inconsiderate, or uncandid. It is true, that such terms do not happen to be used with immediate application to the ordinance of baptism, because Barrio is the appropriate term, the vox signata, for that ordinance. But to insinuate that they are never used as equivalent to baptism, is to insinuate what is most untrue. Either εκχέω or εκχυνω (to pour out) is uniformly employed, as has been already noticed, to express the baptism of the Spirit. They on whom the Spirit was poured out are most explicitly af firmed to have been baptized with the Spirit. There is no getting over this. The Barrioμa is effected by the It will never be alledged that a signifies to

εκχυσις.

*Cox on Baptism, p. 47.

immerse, yet the apostle Peter declares the εκχυσις to have been the accomplishment of the promise, Tiobnode. — As to the verb gvw, I shall only observe, that amongst the "divers washings" (Tuara, baptisms) of the old dispensation, referred to Heb. ix. 10. must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification, and consequently the gruara, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous. The passages, moreover, formerly cited, show, that, in scripture phraseology, sprinkling is equivalent to washing or cleansing.

Equally uncertain, as to the conclusion deducible from them, are the expressions, that John baptized "in Jordan," "in the river of Jordan"-EV TW logdavn - EV TW Icgdavn ποταμω :- -Matth. iii. 6. Mark i. 5. Such expressions are inconclusive, for this obvious reason, that they are equally suitable, on the supposition of pouring having been the mode of baptism, as on that of immersion. Had John stood in the water, however shallow, or had he stood in the bed of the river at the water's edge, and poured the water on those who came to him for baptism,—the historian not only might have used the same expression with propriety, but could hardly have used another.-An argument, then, is brought from the use of a particular preposition, to fix the verb to one of two alleged meanings: but if the preposition may be used with equal propriety, whichsoever of the meanings be affixed to the verb, it is needless to say that the use of it determines neither.— The truth is, that our baptist friends have their own sense of the verb previously fixed in their minds; and, instead of ascertaining the sense of the verb by the use of the preposition, they determine the sense of the preposition from its connection with the verb.

This will be further evident, from the sense affixed by some of them to another preposition, on one occasion at least used in connection with Barrica,—the preposition E12. It is said, Mark i. 9. "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John," EIX Tv 'logdany. This, is, by some antipædobaptists, translated into Jordan; and is considered as settling the point, because being "baptized to or towards Jordan" is nonsense. And non

sense no doubt it is. But the remark settles no point