in a manner worthy of an occasion so grave, so responsible, and so solemn as the present.

In opening the discussion of this evening, I have a remark or two to make on the topics before us during the latter part of the afternoon. My friend, Mr. R., in his last speech, attempted to reply to my remarks on that passage in the Acts of the Apostles, in which Paul is commanded by Ananias, to" arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins." He did not apprehend the point of my criticisms, or if he did, he forgot it. Consequently, his response was wholly wide of the mark. I specified all the passages in which this idiom of Luke was preserved. His specifications were of a different character, not falling under the idiom adduced, and consequently were wholly irrelevant. We have time only to state the fact, and proceed to weightier matters.

The water of separation was ordained for a specific purpose. It was to consummate the symbols of the law, and to give a full view of some of the virtues of the christian atonement. Mr. R. professed to be pleased with it, because, he said it afforded him a new argument for his favorite sprinkling of common water!! He observed, that we have water mixed with blood, as the ashes of a red heifer were mixed with water, and that the water of sprinkling was a sort of antitype of that symbol. The gentleman has forgotten the fact, that we can no more have a type of a type in theology, than a shadow of a shade in nature. Nothing but substances make shadows. This fact reduces his argument, as it presents itself to my vision, to a shadow. If he make the sprinkling of clean water not the type of sprinkling Christ's blood, in sanctification, but the type of sprinkling baptismal water, then he must make the pouring of oil, not the type of the unction of the Holy Spirit, but of pouring out water; and then I ask, of what was the immersion of the whole flesh of the leper a type of? Immersion in the water of baptism, of course!! Then it was all water!! Three things occurred under the law in cleansing a leper: 1st. The water of purification was sprinkled; 2d. The oil of olive was poured upon the head; and 3d. The whole person of the leper or polluted person, was bathed in common water.

If, then, Mr. R. can find for the first and for the second, an antitype in the New Testament, he must also find one for the third; and that, of course, would be immersion! He has repeatedly stated the utter impossibility of finding any language in that book, to authorize the putting of a person under water. These identical words, indeed, cannot be found, because the book is written in Greek; but whenever baptizo en hudati is translated by a competent linguist of an unprejudiced mind, we shall find the precept in English as well as in Greek.

The innate force of eis, he admits, may bring us to, and sometimes into the water; but, alas, when there, we must come out for the want of a word informing us what to do. It has then, at last, been discovered, in this enlightened age, that one capital precept in the commission cannot be understood, consequently, that it cannot be obeyed; that it means nothing definite or intelligible, because of the incompetency of the Greek language, or the unskillfulness of our clergy to interpret it. But what other word more perspicuous and specific might have been selected, neither he nor any other person has, as yet, informed us.

According to his philology, no one could prove that the disciples ever eat the Lord's supper in Jerusalem. Yet the terms used in the institution, and in the report of it, seem to be quite definite and precise. It is

said they sat down, and did eat, &c. According to the philology of Mr Rice, no ordinary man could satisfactorily prove either that the Messiah commanded the mystic loaf to be eaten, or that his apostles eat it after the last passover. To common minds, the language appears perspicuous and satisfactory; but to learned men, like my respondent, it is peculiarly mysterious and unintelligible. He would admit that they went into an upper room-that they sat down-that there was a table, having upon it a loaf of bread and a flagon of wine. All that, says he, is incontrovertible. But then comes the precept, after the benediction of the loaf-Take, eat, this is my body. Here, says he, is the difficulty. The term eat is a generic term, and has many meanings. I own, says he, it sometimes means to take a substance into the mouth and masticate it; but is it not applied to acids also? They are said to eat up various substances. Again; is not a cancer said to eat up a person's flesh? Sometimes, also, we read of words eating as a cancer; zeal, too, is said to have eaten up the Savior-" The zeal of thy house has eaten me up." A person, moreover, who treasures up revelation in his mind, is said to eat it. David says, I found thy word, and I did eat it. And who has not heard of interest eating up money as a moth? To go no farther, here are seven meanings of the word eat. Which shall we take? The Quaker takes the sixth; the plain, unsophisticated man of common sense, takes the first; but Mr. R., by the mere force of the word, could not decide which of the seven. Tradition and the primitive fathers, or the customs of the Church, or something else, but the word itself would never satisfy his mind. Now, that baptizo, to dip, is as plain as phago, to eat, every unprejudiced Jew and gentile on earth, knows. What a glorious uncertainty a person of a little ingenuity and learning may throw around the christian law!

Other matters, in the afternoon discourse, and in some other previous speeches, on which we cannot now find time to descant, will come up as pertinently under the design of baptism; and as we must at least give an outline of the whole argument, I shall hasten to another point.

IX. We shall now state our ninth argument. For the special benefit of the more uneducated, I shall deduce an argument for immersion from the first precept of the decalogue of philology. That precept, according to my copy, reads thus: The definition of a word and the word itself, are always convertible terms. For example-a law is a rule of action-is equivalent to saying, a rule of action is a law. Philanthropy is the love of man-is equivalent to saying, the love of man is philanthropy. Now, if a definition, or translation, (which is the same thing,) be correct, the definition, if substituted for the term defined, will always make good sense, and be congruous with all the words in construction.

In order, then, to test the correctness of any definition or translation, we have only to substitute it in the place of the original word defined or translated. If in all places the definition makes good sense, that is, if it be convertible with the word defined, it is correct; if not, it is incorrect. Let any one unacquainted with Greek take a New Testament, beginning with the first occurrence of baptizo, or any of its family, and always substitute for it the definition or translation given, and if it be the correct one, it will make sense; good, intelligible sense, in every instance.

We, then, read :- In those days, the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea went out to John, and were sprinkled by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins." To perceive the impossibility of such an occurrence, it is

only necessary to know that the word sprinkle is always followed by the substance sprinkled, and next by the object. We can sprinkle ashes, dust, water, or blood, &c. because the particles can be severed with ease; but can we sprinkle a man! We may sprinkle something upon him; but it is impossible for any man to sprinkle another in a river; and it is equally so to sprinkle the river upon him. The same reasoning will apply to pour. This verb is also to be followed by the substance poured. Now, was it not impossible to pour the Jews in the Jordan, or any where else? And to pour the Jordan upon them would be as inacceptable to them as it would have been impossible for the Baptist. It remains, then, that we try the word immerse. That, too, is followed by the substance to be immersed. Now a man

can be immersed in water, in oil, in sand, in grief, in debt, or in the Spirit, though it is impossible to pour him into any one of these. Having, then, subjected these three to the same law of trial; two are condemned and reprobate: one only is possible, desirable, and reasonable.

This test will hold to the end of the volume; even where the association may appear strange and uncouth in style, it will always be not only practicable in fact, but good in meaning. For example: Jesus was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. The influence of the Spirit poured out fills some place; into that persons may be immersed; as we are said to be immersed in debt, in affliction, in any special trouble; but a person cannot be sprinkled into these. Such an operation is always impossible, under any view, literal or figurative.

Let it be carefully noted, in this most useful test, that the three words are all to be subjected to the same laws. 1st. The material is always to follow the verb. 2nd. The place, or thing, or relation into which the action is to be performed, is to follow the material. In baptism, the material is a man; the element, water. Now, as John cannot pour the material James, neither can he sprinkle him; but he can immerse him in a river, in debt, in grief, &c. It is highly improper and ungrammatical to use such a phrase, unless by special agreement of the parties present.

Some persons, accustomed to a very loose style, see no impropriety in the phrase, "sprinkle him-pour him," because of the supplement in their own minds. They think of the material which is sprinkled or poured upon him, and, for brevity's sake, say, sprinkle him; that is, sprinkle dust or water upon him. But in testing the propriety of such phrases, the ellipsis must be supplied. There is no ellipsis in "immerse him;" but there is always in sprinkle or pour him. The material is suppressed, because it is supposed to be understood, as in the casesprinkle clean water upon him. Now, while the abbreviation may be tolerated, so far as time is concerned, it is intolerable in physical and grammatical propriety; because it is physically impossible to scatter a man into particles like dust, or to pour him out like water; and it is grammatically improper to suppress the proper object of the verb, and to place after it a word not governed by it.

Others, again, with Mr. Williams and Dr. Beecher, become so captivated with a peculiar theory, that they neither see nor feel any thing repulsive in such sayings as-"Jesus made and purified more disciples than John; though Jesus purified not himself, but his disciples." "I have a purification to be purified with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." "He that believeth and is purified shall be saved.” "We are buried with him by purification into death." "Christ sent me

not to purify, says Paul, but to preach!!" What further witness need we, that when a man is captivated with nis own inventions, he may be reconciled to any thing, however incongruous and absurd in the eye of reason, and contrary to the dictates of that learned doctor, Common Sense. To cap the climax, Dr. Beecher ends his quotations with "The like figure whereunto purification doth also now save us."

As Mr. Rice has elaborated wash with persevering assiduity, as his great favorite, it is due to him, as complimentary to his good taste, and as a reward for his labor, that I should fairly, if not fully, test the propriety and pertinency of his definition by a few select examples. He contends that it is a proper meaning of baptizo. It will, therefore, be convertible with baptizo, and always make good sense, substituted for it, in every passage in which it is found, according to the law and argument now before us. To proceed-we shall give a few specimens and try it in a few cases. Jesus says, Matth. xx. 33, I have a washing to undergo, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Again, Rom. vi. We are buried with him by a washing into death. Acts i. and v., John verily washed in water, but you shall be washed in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. 1 Cor. xii. 13, For by one Spirit we have all been washed, poured, or sprinkled into one body, &c. To cap the climax, John said, Matth. iii. and xi., I indeed wash you in water unto repentance-but he shall wash you in the Holy Spirit, and he shall wash you in fire!! Needs any one a clearer refutation of the assumption that washing is the proper representation of baptizo, in our language! When ever men can be washed in fire, then, and not till then, can I believe that baptizo properly, or literally

means to wash.

As before said, in every passage in the Bible, where baptizo is found dip or immerse will make good sense, but not so sprinkle, pour, wash, purify. In this way persons, not acquainted with the original tongues, may always arrive at the most satisfactory certainty of the proper interpretation of a word.

XII. I hasten to my twelfth argument. It is one that I hoped to have had an hour to develop and illustrate. It is drawn from the apostolic allusions to baptism, such as Rom. vi. 4., where it is compared to a burial and resurrection; also to a planting of seeds in the earth. This occurs, also, in the second chapter of Colossians, and again, by Peter, it is compared to Noah's salvation by water in the ark, &c. The first passage quoted, Romans vi. 4, is "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life." Again, Col. ii. 15, Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead."

Baptism, as administered by the primitive church, was a monumental evidence of the three great facts of man's redemption from sin, death, and the grave, by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. On presenting himself, the candidate confessed judgment against himself by admitting his desert of death for sin, and promising to die unto it; while confessing that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification. His immersion in water, and emersion out of it, was a beautiful commemorative institution indicative of the burial and resurrection of the Messiah. All the world comprehends this definition of baptizo. It has done more than a thousand volumes to break down the Pa

pal institution of sprinkling. It is only recently, sorely pressed by its immense weight, that any one presumed to spiritualize it away. As I shall not have time to argue it at length, I shall let a few of the great and learned of the infant sprinklers be heard on the occasion. They will accomplish two point, viz: 1. Establish the fact of the resemblance; and 2. Somewhat illustrate the meaning of these passages. We shall, as usual, begin with Calvin.

Calvin: "Are you ignorant!-The apostle proves that Christ destroys sin in his people from the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into the faith of the Messiah. For we, without controversy, put on Christ in baptism, and are baptized on this condition, that we may be one with him. Paul thus assumes another principle, that we may then truly grow into the body of Christ when his death produces its own fruit in us who believe. Nay, he teaches us that this fellowship of his death is chiefly to be regarded in baptism, for washing alone is not proposed in this initiatory ordinance, but mortification, and the death of the old man; whence the efficacy of Christ's death shows itself from the moment we are received into his grace."

Barnes: "Therefore, we are buried, &c. It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, indeed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection; but I presume that this is the idea that would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers."

Locke: "We did own some kind of death by being buried under the water, which, being buried with him, i. c. in conformity to his burial, as a confession of our being dead, was to signify, that as Christ was raised up from the dead into a glorious life with his Father, even so we, being raised from our typical death and burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life, wholly different from our former, in some approaches towards that heavenly life that Christ is risen to."

Wall: "As to the manner of baptism then generally used, the texts produced by every one that speaks of these matters, John iii. 23, Mark i. 5, Acts viii. 38, are undeniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily into the water, and sometimes the baptist too. We should not know from these accounts, whether the whole body of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, which seem to me to PUT IT OUT OF QUESTION: one, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial; the other, the customs of the christians, in the near succeeding times, which, being more largely and particularly delivered in books, is known to have been generally, or ordinarily, a total immersion."

Archbishop Tillotson: "Anciently, those who were baptized, were immersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the apostle alludes, Rom. vi. 2-5.”

Archbishop Seeker: "Burying, as it were, the person baptized in the water, and raising him out again, without question, was anciently the more usual method; on account of which St. Paul speaks of baptism as representing both the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and what is grounded on them,—our being dead and buried to sin, and our rising again to walk in newness of life."

Sam. Clarke: "We are buried with Christ by baptism, &c. In primitive times, the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into the water. And this manner of doing it was a very significant emblem of the dying and rising again, referred to by St. Paul, in the above mentioned similitude."

Wells: "St. Paul here alludes to immersion, or dipping the whole body ander water in baptism; which, he intimates, did typify the death and burial (of the person baptized) to sin, and his rising up out of the water did typify his resurrection to newness of life."