this matter, by Mr. Edwards.* Their superior excellence and force is my apology for introducing them. "The apostle says, we are planted, that is, baptized in the likeness of his death. Now taking this for an allusion to the mode of baptism, the argu ment for the sign of the cross will be incomparably stronger, than that of the Baptists for immersion. I say incomparably stronger; for, whereas it is only said in the 4th verse (Rom. vi.) "We are buried with him by baptism; it is said in this verse, (Rom. vi. 5,) "We are planted (baptized) in the likeness of his death.' There is nothing about similitude mentioned in their allusion, but here the word likeness is actually used. The argument, therefore, in favor of the sign of the cross will; in the Baptist way of arguing, far outweigh that in favor of immersion. And how much soever the Baptists may despise that ceremony, it is evidently better founded in the context than their own. So that, if their argument from this place be good in favor of immersion, the other is far better for the sign of the cross. Upon the whole, the examination of this plan convinces me of nothing so much as this, that both the Baptists in general, and myselft in particular, have been carried away with a mere sound of a word, even to the neglect of the sense and scope of the truth of God."

* Mr. Edwards on Baptism, 3d American edition, p. 91. + Mr. Edwards was a Baptist preacher more than ten years.

2. 1 Peter iii. 21. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” This pas

sage has also been pressed into the service of immersion. It is said that Noah was shut up in the ark-the fountains of the great deep were broken up from below, and the waters were poured down from the heavens above; so that here was a "type of a burial." We reply that the apostle makes no mention of a burial, but of baptism, which we have abundantly seen is not a burial, as some would have it. The type had no reference to any mode in baptism, but the thing signified by it, namely, salvation. For, as Noah and his family were saved through the flood, in the ark, in which they floated above the water; so baptism signifies our covenant relation to God, and represents our salvation from sin, and all its consequent evils, by the "washing of regeneration." It is by the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are saved from the deluge of God's wrath, and not immersed into the waters of destruction. The true type for immersion in this great event, can be found only among those unfortunate sinners, who could neither enter the ark, nor float above the wa-ter, nor find a safe retreat upon "dry ground." If Noah's salvation by the ark were typical of a burial in baptism, it was not of a wet, but of a dry one. It was not, however, typical of any mode, but of that salvation which is effected by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is represented in water baptism.

Yet if under water is the way to heaven, I

verily would be pleased to know it. It is true, I would prefer sailing in the church above the water, with good old Noah, having no aversion to occasional washings and refreshings from rain, nor any fears even in the tempest, when the raging waves would seem to threaten her with burial, if Christ were in the vessel. Yet, if on her voyage to heaven, she must go under water, I certainly would be glad to know it. And would esteem the man my friend, who would show it by solid argument, drawn from her chart or guide-book, the BIBLE.

3. Acts ii. 2. "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting." An attempt has been made to prove immersion from this place. The Baptists very gravely tell us that the Holy Spirit came down in such rich profusion, that the whole room in which these disciples were sitting, was filled with it, and thus they were completely buried in the spirit. To this we reply, that they do err most egregiously, when they tell us that the room was filled with the spirit. It was only the sound that filled the room, hence, if they were immersed, it was only in the sound, as Mr. Edwards says. It is said that the Holy Spirit sat upon the disciples, and as to his influences or operations, they were not external, on the out side of the body, but internal; hence this passage gives no support to the

a Mark iv. 39.

system of immersion, unless it be an immersion in sound.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM, RECORDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

This chapter we shall divide into two sections.

SECTION I.

Under this section is considered that account of baptism, in which mention is made of going down into the water: namely, that of the Eunuch.

Acts viii. 38. "And they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him." This passage, when critically examined in the original, and faithfully compared with other scriptures, as we are commanded," so far from proving immersion in baptism, it renders sprinkling the most probable. And even as it stands in our English version, it affords no proof for immersion, unless it can be proved that no one ever went into the water and came out of it again, without going under it. And if it proves the immersion of the Eunuch, it will prove the same of Philip. For, the act of

a 2 Peter i. 20, with 1 Cor. ii. 13. ̧

going into the water is as much affirmed of him, as it is of the Eunuch. I know this is called a quib-ble, but it is easier to cry quibble than to answer. Besides, it affords a convenient method of escaping the force of a conclusion which cannot otherwise be avoided.

But let us try the logic in the Baptist argument. They will have immersion to be baptism, and that exclusively. We ask for proof: they reply, "Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water;" then ask, why did they go down into the water? Then infer, and I defy them to make it any thing else but inference, that the Eunuch was immersed. Thus, by a very convenient inference, they arrogate to themselves exclusively, the appellation of baptized christians! We leave such logic for the benefit of those who need it.

Let us also try their consistency. When they demand of us proof for infant baptism, they will accept of nothing short of an "explicit warrant," either by precept, you shall baptize infants; or by example, they did baptize infants. But when we ask of them proof for immersion, and that as the exclusive and positive mode, which of coure needs a positive proof; they immediately have recourse to inference! We will leave such inconsistency for those who cannot support their system without it.

But, to return to the quibble, as it is called, by

་