I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man, who examines this subject, to deny this."

It may be added that the inhabitants of Greece, who certainly ought to understand their own language, from the first introduction of the gospel into that country to the present time, have uniformly baptized by immersion. Indeed, all the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one third part of Europe, still retain the rite as observed by the apostles and early Christians. Nay, more; the whole Christian world, for the space of thirteen hundred years, practised immersion, as the only real baptism. Never, by any Christians, in any age, was sprinkling or pouring allowed, in ordinary cases, until the meeting of the council of Ravenna, assembled by the pope in 1311. These substitutions for the gospel ordinance were not admitted into England till the middle of the seventeenth century.

If we would know how sprinkling was introduced, we are informed by the celebrated Dr. Wall, (a Pedo-baptist,) in his History of Infant Baptism. He says: "France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. In the church of England, it being allowed to weak children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by affusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and afterwards, by degrees, the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. They (the Westminster Assembly of

This

divines) reformed the font into a basin. learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery; and that, accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the pope is, or has been formerly, owned, have left off dipping children in the font; but that all other countries in the world which had never regarded his authority, do still use it."

Thus we see that sprinkling was originally introduced in France in 1311, by the Catholics, under the direction of a Popish council; yet immersion was retained in England for more than 300 years longer; till, in the progress of the reformation there, the Protestants, supposing the fonts in the churches, and the practice of immersion, to be usages of Popery, decided that "dipping of the in water is not necessary."

person

I have now finished the view proposed to be taken, for the purpose of establishing the position, that IMMERSION IS ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It has been shown that the word employed by the Saviour in the commission, signifies, in its usual and proper sense, only to immerse, dip, or plunge; it appears from the places selected for the administration of the ordinance, and from attending circumstances, that immersion was always practised by those who baptized under the direction of Christ; it is also apparent, from the figurative uses of the word baptism, and from various allusions by the writers of the New Testament, that they considered immersion as belonging to the nature of

baptism; and finally, the correctness of this view is most strikingly confirmed by the fact, that the entire church of Christ, during a period of 1300 years, did practise immersion. Are we, then, at liberty to substitute any thing else for the rite enjoined on us by the Lord Jesus?

But it is said this view of the subject is incomplete; there are certain places in the Scriptures in which some form of the word baptize is mentioned, and others where the ordinance is named, which make it very improbable that an immersion was either positively enjoined or invariably practised. A notice of these may be introduced by a single remark. Remembering the evidence which has been adduced to show that the word in question must mean immersion, we are not permitted to assign to it any other meaning, unless, in a given case, immersion be impossible. "When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility." Those, then, who would render the term in debate washing, or pouring, or sprinkling, must prove not only that the idea of immersion is improbable, but that it is manifestly IMPOSSible. But this cannot be shown respecting a single instance in which the word occurs. The passages generally brought forward as unfavorable to the idea of immersion, are the following:

Heb. 9: 10. "Only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings."

That the word here translated "washings should have been rendered immersions, is evident from the conclusions established under the first head of the former part of this discourse. Immersions were frequent among the Jews, in accord

ance with the Mosaic ritual. If the word in the original refer to various purifications of things only, then, by a well-known rhetorical figure, taking a part for the whole, immersions may be used for the several kinds of ablutions required by the law. Thus the primary meaning is clearly NOT IMPOSSIBLE, in this case. Prof. Robinson translates the word "washings," but refers to Lev. 11: 32, where various things were to be cleansed by being PUT INTO WATER." This shows that the learned professor supposed immersions to be meant by the apostle. Others explain the term divers baptisms, as being "of men and of things." If this be the sense, no one will object to the idea of immersion.

Mark 7: 4. "The washings of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables," (couches.)

It is supposed to be altogether unlikely that the couches, (for so the word rendered "tables should be translated,) on which they reclined at meals, should be immersed. But Prof. Robinson gives his views of the mode of washing, by quoting, as before, Lev. 11: 32, showing that he understands all these articles were "put into water." Things which had been defiled by the touch of a dead body were required by the Levitical law to be cleansed, " by being put into water; " and how easily might the superstitious Jews extend the practice to things not included in the requisition ! The rules in force among the Jews are precise in requiring such articles as the above to be cleansed, by being covered in water; and the regulations are exceedingly strict with respect to this washing, so that, should there be any thing adhering to these articles, such as pitch, which might prevent the

water from touching the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not be duly performed. The same Jewish authority requires even beds to be cleansed by immersion, when they had become defiled. It is not, then, even improbable that

66

"the couches" were immersed.

Mark 7: 3, 4. "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." The latter of the two words, rendered "wash," is in the original from ẞanτízw, (baptizo;) the former is not.

It is asked, Does not the word here mean wash? I answer, Is it not possible that it may mean immerse? If so, this is all I am bound to prove. Let us examine the passage. "Here are two instances of washing, (so called ;) the first, a matter of constant occurrence; the second, an observance performed after returning from the market. Did these two washings differ from one another in any respect? It is evident that they did. For, first, one was a washing which commonly occurred before a meal, without regard to the employment which had preceded it; so that, even if a person had remained at home, still, before taking his meal, he would wash his hands. The other was a ceremony performed after having been exposed to the various occasions of defilement, which would be connected with his attendance at market. Such was the variety of persons and things with which he might come in contact, that a more formal and thorough ablution would naturally be performed. In examining the whole passage, the attentive reader will perceive an advance in the thought. If, ordinarily, the hands were washed before eating,