upon which

ministered.

bably the case of Simon Magus, which had so recently SECT. occurred in the ministrations of Philip, had suggested to III. him the penetrating form of this expression. The accept- Condition ance of a formal faith, on the part of the catechumens baptism in the second century, tended powerfully first to the may be adintroduction of very young children to the baptismal font when they could say the creed and Lord's prayer, and speedily to receiving a profession of faith in their behalf; and the baptism of infants has led some pœdobaptists of the present day to maintain that a nominal faith in Christianity, unattended by change of heart, entitles the heathen to baptism. This, however, the generality of our brethren would deny equally with the advocates of believers' baptism: surely they might discern, that if a formal belief does not justify baptism in the case of the adult, neither the fictitious faith by declaration of the Greek sponsor, nor the pledge of future faith by the episcopal sponsor, nor the hope of future faith by the presbyterian parent can form a justifiable ground for the administration of the ordinance in the very teeth of the scripture requirement that the individual himself should previously believe with all his heart.

3. The mode of the administration of the ordinance Mode of administrais here clearly detailed; "and they went down both into tion. the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." It might well be deemed impossible that any statement could be more specific than this. Does any baptist minister require any other words to describe correctly the administration of the ordinance as practised by him? Suppose I were writing to a friend respecting the baptism of a young man ;- -"We both walked into the

a For a particular historical statement of these essentially different kinds of infant baptism, the reader is referred to Chap. X.

III.

CHAP. waters of our magnificent lake, and there I baptized (immersed) him, in the name of the triune Jehovah; and when he came up out of the water, the smile of heaven was depicted on his countenance." I ask is it possible any human being, capable of understanding the English language, can misapprehend, in any point, the physical act performed? If perfectly intelligible in one case, how can the same language be obscure or doubtful in the other?

Much water requisite.

Desert.

13.

It is urged this was " in the desert;" but, as already observed, the Hebrews mean by desert an uncultivated Calmet, art. place. "Some deserts were beautiful, and had good Ps. lxv. 12, pastures." I cannot see any propriety in reducing all the beautiful deserts to barren wastes, nor their streams to a bowl of water, for the convenience of my podobaptist friends. Besides, if a few drops of water only were wanted, travellers through the deserts always had a good supply for men and beasts; and, surely, a few drops might have been spared, without waiting till the eunuch should exclaim, " here is water-what hindereth!" The want of water had hindered his baptism, which could not possibly have been the case if "the quantity of water was of no consequence."

Philip and the eunuch

ter.

But of all the absurdities in the defence of error, the went down assertion that there is the same evidence that both were into the wa- immersed, as that the eunuch was, is the most childish, not to say disgraceful. Who ever affirmed that persons were baptized (immersed) by simply "going down into the water," without any further action. "They both went down into the water, and he baptized him." Clearly, therefore, but one person was baptized or immersed, and that person the eunuch. It is ordinarily necessary, (in rivers or pools at least,) whether essential to the validity of the ordinance or not, for the adminis

HL

trator as well as the subject to go into the water, in SECT. order that the latter may be immersed; but who can possibly imagine that it is necessary for two persons to "go down into the water" in order that the one may sprinkle the other?

positions.

The last refuge is, that the Greek prepositions do not Greek prenecessarily mean "into" and "out of," but "to" and "from." It is a hard case if podobaptists translate the Bible, (thirty of them, with a royal pedant, a strenuous wrangler for sprinkling, as their overseer,) and then deny the correctness of their own translation in a point where their translators would gladly have pleased them, if their consciences already burdened with royal restrictions, could have endured it. All that need be said is, that these said prepositions are generally used to mean "into" and "out of;" and that if that meaning has not been expressed, the Greek language has no prepositions which will express it. I ask the Greek scholar who is an advocate for sprinkling, whether if he were about to write a sentence in Greek, describing his going "into" and coming "out of" the water, he would not use these very terms? But let not the quibbles of small minds throw a stigma on the character of a whole denomination, and on the character of men of noble mould; Dr. Doddridge and many others wholly despise such subterfuges; and hesitate not to avow views of the baptism of the eunuch, perfectly concurring with those here. advanced. “It would be very unnatural to suppose, that they went down to the water, merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had no doubt many vessels in his baggage, on such a journey, through a desert country; a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them;"-from which the

CHAP. candid doctor leaves his readers to infer, that if sprinkling III. "would have done as well," the eunuch need not have waited till he could find a place where he could “ "go down into the water."

SECTION IV.

BAPTISM OF PAUL.

"AND now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

“And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received light forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."

The rivers of Damascus have been celebrated both before and since the days of Naaman, who exhibited his national vanity by instituting his invidious comparison between them and the Jordan. Uniting immediately above the city, and running through it, they afforded a full supply of water for its public and private baths. Here was the scene of Paul's baptism, and soon may those beauteous streams be again sanctified to the same holy purpose! If on some occasions the stones of the street are ready to cry out, surely Abana and Pharpar will exclaim aloud, should their limpid streams be repudiated for the modern basin! Paul was to be immersed, and to wash away his sins;-will baptizo here bear to be rendered "wash?"—" be washed, and wash?" Will it bear Mr. Beecher's new meaning, purify?" Be purified and wash away thy sins," is as tautological as the former. This passage, with many others, renders it perfectly manifest that baptizo when used alone does not,

b Doddridge's Family Expositor. Acts xviii.

IV.

in the style of the New Testament writers, convey the SECT. idea of purification, but refers to the physical act, which is the emblem of that purification. The meaning of the passage before us evidently is" arise, and be immersed, in token of your purification from sin." If the "one invariable meaning" of baptizo had been purify, Annanias would not have been ignorant of it; and to maintain it in this case, is charging on him a most absurd reduplication of expression.

away

no "sins to

From this passage it appears, that it is one great object Babes have of baptism to denote the cleansing of the candidate from wash his sins. The Fathers deemed it necessary to wash away." the guilt of Adam, which in their opinion doomed the innocent babe to perdition; and thus by doing what is not required, took away from the individual, by their traditions, the opportunity of fulfilling what is required. In a strictly podobaptist church, not one has followed the example of Paul; not one has "washed away his sins in baptism;" because the practice of St. Augustine is followed, while most are ashamed of his doctrine -the damnation of unbaptized infants. As well might men pride themselves on deriving their light from the spots on the sun, as to follow Augustine instead of Paul. Actual sin cannot exist without the developement of the Idiot bapintellectual powers to an extent adequate to moral responsibility. Would it be honourable to Christianity and its all-wise Founder, to baptize an adult idiot? If not, why is it necessary or admissible to baptize thousands who never have committed a sin, and who never do during their whole lives-for they never arrive at a responsible age. Where no remission of sins is needed, surely the sign of remission is not required.

tism.