applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that the rite was usually performed by immersion.' And though it is impossible, by any evidence whatever, to render this point more indubitably certain than it now is, yet it may not be amiss to observe that the figurative allusions to baptism, occurring in the New Testament, furnish corroborative proof that the rite consisted in immersion. In Matt. 20: 22, 23; Mark 10: 38, 39; Luke 12: 50, Christ calls his intense and overwhelming sufferings a baptism. Whether these passages contain an allusion to the rite of baptism or not, they must at least be admitted to afford an illustration of the usual meaning of the word. To be baptized in calamity, was a common figure to denote the greatness of the misfortune. And when Christ said, in allusion to his sufferings, that he had a baptism to be baptized with, he unquestionably designed to convey the idea that he expected to be immersed or overwhelmed in sufferings. It would be irrational and absurd in the extreme to suppose that Christ intended to say that he was merely going to be sprinkled with sufferings. Dr. Campbell observes that phrases like these, 'to be overwhelmed with grief,'' to be immersed in affliction,' will be found common in most languages; and he accordingly renders these passages, I have an immersion to undergo; and how am I pained till it be accomplished! Can ye drink such a cup as I must drink; or undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo ?'

Again, to express how completely the apostles were imbued with the influences of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost, they were said to be baptized or immersed in the Spirit, Acts 1: 5. 11: 16. Would it convey an adequate idea of the effects of the Spirit, to represent the apostles as sprinkled with it? The figure here employed is most obviously immersion; nor is there the least weight in the objection, that the Spirit is said to be poured out. Though

the gift of the Spirit is called sometimes a pouring and sometimes a baptism; yet the pouring is not called baptism, nor is baptism ever called à pouring. The element may be poured into the bath, and yet the subjects be immersed. The pouring and the baptism are distinct transactions.

The passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea is also, in 1 Cor. 10: 2, compared to baptism. While they passed through the sea and under the cloud, they were, to the view of the Egyptians in their rear, completely immersed in the cloud and in the sea. It is impossible to extract either pouring or sprinkling here. The figure is so obviously founded in the fact of the Israelites descending into the sea and being concealed for a time in the cloud and in the sea, and then emerging on the opposite shore, that the intellect must be dull indeed that does not perceive it. Now there can be no doubt that baptism in the Spirit,' and 'baptism in the cloud and sea,' are here compared to the Christian rite of baptism in water. If therefore these figu. rative baptisms consist in the idea of immersion, then the rite of baptism must of necessity be immersion. If it were not so, there could be no propriety in the comparison; the image would not correspond to the original.

6

It is the baptism of the New Testament, the rite as instituted by Christ, and as practised by the apostolic churches, that we wish to ascertain. Of course the New Testament is the only source on which we can safely depend for aid in the prosecution of our inquiries. Facts in the subsequent history of the rite would lead us to presume that the apostolic churches must have practised immersion, yet we do not rely upon this as certain proof in the case. Such testimony is entirely superseded by the clear and irrefragible evidence that is furnished by the inspired records themselves.

But though we have no need to advert to the evidence of

ecclesiastical history, the reader may nevertheless be glad to know the fact, that immersion was the invariable practice throughout the whole Christian church, in times immediately subsequent to the apostolic age, and according to the authority of all ecclesiastical history, continued to be the practice in all ordinary cases, for several successive centuries. This Prof. Stuart fully concedes; and he substantiates the fact by copious extracts from the early Christian writers, observing at the same time, that the passages which refer to immersion in the fathers, are so numerous that it would take a little volume merely to recite them. Barnabas and Hermas were contemporaries and companions of the Apostles; and if the productions ascribed to them are genuine, then their authority will be decisive for the practice of the church of the first century.

Hermas, Pastor, Similitude ix. § 16, says: That seal [of the Son of God] is the water of baptism, into which men go down bound unto death, but come up appointed unto life.' Barnabas, Epist. § 11, says: We go down into the water (καταβαίνομεν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ) full of sins and pollutions but come up again, (avaßaívouɛv) bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus by the Spirit.' This passage, though not noticed by Prof. Stuart, is however an unquestionable allusion to baptism. Hermas describes the ordinance as a figure of death and resurrection; Barnabas represents it as a figure of washing away sins; and both describe the baptized as going down into the water, and again coming up out of it.

Justin Martyr, a distinguished father of the Christian church, who suffered death at Rome about the middle of the second century, in his second apology, describing to the Emperor the religious customs of the Christians, says that the candidates for fellowship, after professing faith, and engaging to live a holy life, are led out to a place where

there is water, and then washed or bathed in the name of the Father of the Universe, and of the Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.' In another place he speaks of their leading the candidate into the bath—not to the bath, as Prof. Stuart renders it; but into it, eis rò λourpov. It is undeniable that the verb here employed (Xovoua), is used to denote a complete washing of the whole body by immersion. Prof. Stuart acknowledges that this passage as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion; for why,' says he, on any other ground, should the convert who is to be initiated go out to the place where there is water? There could be no need of this, if mere sprinkling or partial affusion was customary in the time of Justin.' It should be remarked that Justin is here professedly describ ing, not a mode of initiation into the church, but the mode of initiation. And since he says nothing of pouring or sprinkling, the inevitable conclusion is, that these practices had at that time no place in the Christian church.

Tertullian, one of the Latin fathers, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, repeatedly and clearly describes the rite. In his book De Cor. Militis, § 3, he says in allusion to baptism, We are immersed three times (ter mergitamur,) fulfilling somewhat more than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.' In his treatise on baptism, Sect. 2, he speaks of the baptized person, as in aquam demissus, let down into the water, and tinctus, dipped, during the utterance of a few words, i. e. of the baptismal formula. In Sect. 6, he speaks of the baptized as 'afterwards going out of the bath, and being anointed,' etc. In Sect. 4, he says: It is a matter of indifference whether one is washed in a pool, river, fountain, lake or bath; nor is there any difference between those whom John immersed (tinxit) in the Jordan, or Peter in the Tiber.' 'Here we have,' says Prof. Stuart, in a very clear passage, the usual elements

named in which baptism was performed. It was done at or in some stream, pool, or lake. What other good reason for this can be given, excepting that immersion was practiced?'

This admission is ingenuous and candid. Surely, what good reason can be given for their resorting to streams and pools, excepting that the candidates were to be immersed? But here we are tempted to ask, If these circumstances prove that they practiced immersion in the time of Justin, why shall not the same circumstances be regarded as evidence of the same practice, in the time of John and the apostles? Had the Professor manifested the same candor in weighing the evidence of circumstances in connection with the New Testament history of the rite, we should not have been told that streams, and places abounding with water, were sought for the accommodation of the multitude, rather than for the convenience of baptizing.

6

Ambrose, Lib. 2. c. 7, De Sacr. You were asked, dost thou believe in God Almighty; Thou saidst, I be. lieve; and thus (mersisti) thou wast immerged, that is, thou wast buried.' Augustine, Hom. iv. as cited by Gratian, 'After you professed your belief, three times did we submerge (demersimus) your heads in the sacred fountain.' Prof. Stuart asks,' Was it the head only? Or did he mean to include with it the whole body?' Every now and then,' says he, 'passages of this nature occur, which lead one to suspect that total immersion was not uniform in the early church.' But what is there in such an expression unfavorable to the idea of total immersion? The candidate is supposed to be standing in the water, and in this situation needs of course only to be plunged as to his head or upper extremities, in order to effect a total immersion. The idea is clearly illustrated by an extract which Prof. Stuart has on the same page, from Chrysostom on the third chapter