N the history of baptism a great many questions have come up for discussion concerning it, three of which have assumed considerable importance and attracted considerable attention.

      1. What is baptism as to action? In other words, What is the act performed in baptising a person?

      2. Who may be scripturally baptised? This we call the question as to the proper subject of baptism, and involves what is called infant baptism.

      3. What is the scriptural design of baptism? In other words, What are proper persons baptised for?

      I propose in this discourse to confine myself to the first of these three questions. What is the proper action of baptism? It is a matter of general knowledge that there are three different actions performed and called baptising; immersion, pouring and sprinkling. In the discussion of this question, there are three sources of proof resorted to by Protestants--Catholics generally have no use for proof--the philological, the scriptural and the historical. The first relates to the meaning of the word baptise, the second to the scripture use of it, and the third to the history of the ordinance. I propose in this discourse to confine myself mainly to the scripture argument, and text shall be: "I indeed baptise you with water" (Matt, 3: 11).

      I have selected this passage to begin with because I believe it is more generally relied on by the masses of those who believe in pouring and sprinkling for baptism than any other passage in the Bible. They believe that "baptise you with water" implies the application of the water to the subject, and that pouring and sprinkling being such an application, it answers the demands of this passage better than immersion does. Of course the better educated among the advocates of aspersion do not so much rely on the argument drawn from this passage for the satisfaction of their own minds [169] as on some others. The masses rely on it, and the better educated use it among the masses. This is no reflection upon the educated. At least, I do not mean it as such. It is legitimate and proper in advocating what one believes to be true to use such arguments in its support as are deemed best suited to those sought to be convinced, though one may not himself rely upon them with most confidence for the satisfaction of his own mind. And the reason that the argument derived from this passage is not and cannot be so forceful with the scholarly as with the uneducated is that every scholar knows that the passage might just as well if not better be translated "baptise you in water"; and, of course, that takes all the force out of it. In this discourse, however, I propose to address myself mainly to English speaking people who believe in pouring and sprinkling; and I propose to admit everything that any one can possibly claim as to the translation of our passage. But before proceeding with the argument on that line, justice demands, it seems to me,--justice both to the truth and those I am about to address--that I should make two or three statements.

      1. The preposition translated with in the passage occurs nine times in this same chapter, and is in the common version of the scriptures six times translated in, once within, and twice with. It is translated with only in the text: "with water and with the Holy Ghost." Let us run through the chapter and note its occurrences. It occurs twice in the first verse in the phrases, "in those days," and "in the wilderness"; once in the third verse in the phrase, "in the wilderness"; once in the sixth verse in the phrase, "baptised of him in Jordan"; once in the ninth verse in the phrase, "say within yourselves"; twice in the eleventh verse in the phrases, "with water and with the Holy Ghost"; once in the twelfth verse in the phrase, "whose fan is in his hand"; and once in the last verse in the phrase, "in whom I am well pleased." Such is the use of this preposition in this one chapter. Comment is not needed or intended, but simply a statement of facts. [170]

      2. A second fact is that the revised New Testament, while it has "with" in the text, following the common version here as elsewhere as nearly as possible, has "in" in the margin: thereby recognising that as a good translation, if not the best. Thus we have all the weight of scholarship represented by the revised New Testament for saying that the text might very well be translated, "baptise you in water."

      3. A third fact is, that the American Committee of Revisers, of the revised New Testament, preferred and had their preference recorded, that in our passage in should go into the text and "with" in the margin. And thus we have the weight of scholarship represented by the American committee of revisers for saying that our text might better be translated, "baptise you in water."

      Now, these facts comprise in part my reason for saying that the argument derived from this passage for aspersion cannot be so forceful in the estimation of the educated as in that of the mere English reader. Do not the facts justify the statement? Can the argument stand for as much with those who know the facts I have stated as with those who are ignorant of them? Certainly not.

      I have thought it just that I should make these statements before making the argument I propose to make in this discourse, as I propose to admit, for the sake of the argument, so to speak, the correctness of the translation in the common version. I propose to admit, though not compelled to do so, and though I do not believe it, that "with water" is a better translation than "in water" would be. Yea! I will go further, and admit more than any scholar will claim; that is, not only that "with water" is the better translation, but that it is a necessary one; that it is the only correct one. Of course I do not believe this is so, as no even moderately well informed person can; but I make the admission that my argument, which is intended for the English reader particularly, may be seen to be entirely fair, and have its full force. [171]

      Then let it be understood that I make the unnecessary admission that there is no question about the correctness of the translation of the text.

      "I indeed baptise you with water." Now, may not the passage be as fairly interpreted of immersion as of aspersion? That's the question to which we will give attention in the first place; that is to say, we shall examine the passage by itself--without reference to other scriptures upon the subject--and see if there really is anything in it that favours pouring or sprinkling. Does baptise with water imply an application of the water to the subject, as the argument for aspersion always assumes? In fact, this assumption is all there is of the argument; and if it is shown to be false there will be absolutely nothing of the argument left; not even fragments. Any one can see that the assumption and the argument are exactly the same.

      I deny that there is anything whatever in the phrase "baptise with water" that implies the application of the water to the subject. That, of course, puts me in the negative. And being in the negative, I have a right to demand the proof that with water implies an application of the water. I have a right to require of him who holds that it does to show how it does. On the other hand, I contend that "baptise with water" can be just as fairly interpreted of putting the subject. If I can hold this ground the argument will disappear.

      Now, the only attempt I have ever seen or heard made by the advocates of pouring and sprinkling to prove that with water implies an application of the water, was by illustrations. I do not disparage illustrations. I like them when they are apt and fair. For the only legitimate purpose they can serve they are good. To the field of illustration, then, let us go for a while. And first we will notice the illustrations that have been used to press our passage into the service of pouring and sprinkling. Here they are: "The woodman felled the tree with an axe." "The master whipped the boy with a switch." In the first place, all possible emphasis must be put upon with in these illustrations. [172] That's important. Very well; let the emphasis go on. What next? Why, next, the advocate of aspersion has only to ask, with an air of triumph all over his face, "Was the tree applied to the axe, or the axe to the tree? Was the boy applied to the switch, or the switch to the boy?" Well, of course, the axe was applied to the tree, and the switch to the boy. Every body will admit this. And with willing souls the case is made out. But what about the illustrations that have performed so important a part in the argument? Why, they are simply fraudful. That's what. Every time any one uses these illustrations, as in this case, he perpetrates a gross fraud. Let us see if this can be made out. If so, a fallacy will be exposed which has deceived many souls; many now in the world, and many who have passed over the river; a popular fallacy of long standing. Illustrations that do not fairly illustrate generally misrepresent. But wherein are these illustrations unfair and fraudful? Let us see. What is the phrase they are and have been used to illustrate? Let us examine that a little more analytically. "I indeed baptise you with water." That's the phrase. Now, water is the object of with, and the element of baptise. This cannot be disputed. However it may be used, whether by applying it to the subject or by enveloping the subject in it, water is the element of the baptism. And water is a liquid element, too, it is important to note. It is possible to apply a liquid element to an object, and it is also possible to put an object into a liquid element. This will hardly be denied. In the phrase, "baptise you with water," the element being liquid may be poured, sprinkled, or dipped into. As for anything there is in the nature of the element either one of these actions is possible. But in the illustrations, "felled the tree with an axe," and "whipped the boy with a switch," there is no such element and no such possibility. In the very nature of the case, in the nature of a tree and an axe, the tree could not be put into the axe; in the nature of a boy and a switch, the boy cannot be put into the switch; [173] and therefore the illustrations are unfair and fraudful. They put an axe and a switch, both solid substances, in the place of water, a liquid element. While it is possible to dip "you" into water, it is impossible to put a "tree" into an axe, or a "boy" into a switch! Hence the fraud. We have but to lay these illustrations along side of the phrase they are brought to illustrate and the fraud will glare in our faces. Let us see:

      It is possible to put you into water, but impossible to put a tree into an axe. The same is true of whipped the boy with a switch. But it will help us to see the gross unfairness of these illustrations by contrasting them with a few that are manifestly fair. Let us try that method a little, anyhow.

      The smith cools his iron with water. The smith hardens his iron with water. The laundress washes her kerchief with water. In these illustrations we have the liquid element, as in the phrase illustrated; and we also have it possible to use the water by application or by being plunged into. It is possible for the smith to cool or harden his iron with water, either by applying the water to the iron or by putting the iron into water. So it is possible for the laundress to wash a kerchief either by putting the water on the kerchief or by putting the kerchief into the water. Hence the fairness of these illustrations is as obvious as the fradulency of the others.

      Now; in these obviously fair illustrations--cools the iron with water, hardens the iron with water, washes the kerchief with water--does "with water" necessarily imply an application of the water? Because it is said that the smith cools or hardens his iron with water, does it follow as a necessity that he does it by applying the water to the iron? Hardly. Because it is said that the laundress washes her kerchief with water, does it follow necessarily that she does it by applying the water to it? If a man wets his finger with water, [174] does it follow that he does it by application of water? Hardly. In fact, is not immersion or dipping more usual in all these cases? It certainly is. But I am not trying to prove immersion by these illustrations. What then? Why, simply this:

      That "with water" does not imply an application of water in baptism as the advocates of pouring and sprinkling argue and attempt to prove by fraudful illustrations. I do not claim any thing in favour of immersion from the expression, "with water." Let that be understood. I only claim that there is nothing in it that implies aspersion. An article may be washed with water, or cooled with water, or hardened with water, or wet with water just as well, and it occurs just as frequently, by being put into water As by an application of it, as I have shown by fair illustrations. Just so with the phrase, "baptise you with water"; it may be interpreted of immersion just as well as of aspersion. There is certainly nothing in the word "baptise," or the pronoun "you," to weigh against my argument. Indeed, if we go into a discussion of the meaning of baptise it will result in favour of the argument against pouring and sprinkling. But that is not within my purpose in this discourse.

      Inasmuch, then, as "with water" does not of itself determine how John baptised with water, whether by immersing the people in it or by pouring or sprinkling it upon them, have we any other means by which we may determine the question? Are there any facts or circumstances given in the scriptures that will help us to a safe conclusion in the case? I am aware that the meaning of the word baptise of itself settles this question to, the satisfaction of all immersionists; but I am not trying to convince such. I am reasoning with, and mainly for, honest people who believe in pouring and sprinkling for baptism. And still more particularly such as understand only the English language. I repeat the question, then, have we any other means than the expression "with water," within the reach of common people, by which to determine how John used [175] water in baptising? I think we have. But before proceeding to notice such other means, I want to call attention to what I consider a very important rule of interpretation. For interpreting scriptures, sacred or profane, we must be governed by sound rules if we would reach safe conclusions.

      In our interpretations of the scriptures, then, I submit, that every passage speaking on any subject should, if possible, be so interpreted as to harmonise with every other passage speaking on the same subject. This means fairness and friendliness in dealing with the word of God. It is a method by which certainly all the friends of the scriptures ought willingly to be governed in their interpretation. I have said this means friendliness. Let us suppose, for illustration, that one is interpreting a letter from a friend. There is in it a doubtful expression; that is, an expression susceptible, in itself considered, of different constructions; one construction of this doubtful expression makes it harmonise with everything else in the letter; another possible construction makes it contradict, or at the least renders it inconsistent with other statements in the letter; which construction would fairness and friendship require? Which method would fairness and friendliness suggest? The harmonious or the inharmonious one? Most of us--all of us I shall presume to say--in the case supposed would adopt the friendly method. We would not feel at liberty, or even disposed, to put a possible construction upon a doubtful expression in the letter of our friend, that would make him contradict himself, or even make his statements inconsistent, if we could find a possible construction for such doubtful phrase that would allow the letter to speak the truth only, and be consistent throughout. An enemy might adopt a different method. If he wished to convict the writer of unfaithfulness to facts, or of inconsistency, he would be likely to prefer any possible meaning of a doubtful clause, that would throw it out of harmony with other statements in the letter--that is, if the enemy was not very conscientious. [176]

      Now this friendliness is what I ask in construing the language of scripture, of its friends, of Christian people. This is the meaning of the rule I have submitted. Let us give to the unscrupulous enemies of the scriptures the exclusive use of the unfriendly method of interpretation.

      Now let us take our phrase--"baptise you with water"--through the New Testament. We have seen that it may be interpreted of either immersion or aspersion, for aught there is in the expression, "with water." Let us now see which interpretation better harmonises with all that is said upon the subject in other places in the New Testament.

      We will not give much emphasis to the fact that when the time came for John to begin his work of baptising people with water he came from the "hill country of Judea" to the Jordan for the purpose: "In those days came John the Baptist." Why "came" he to the river Jordan to baptise with water? Well; we may not know. We only mention the fact to begin with, without spending much time on it. Nor need we attach any great importance to the circumstance that John wore camel's hair raiment, and was supported about the loins with a leather girdle, while he was baptising with water. This may have been a mere circumstance of taste, convenience, or something else--it matters not. We will not spend time on it.

      When John came into the wilderness through which the Jordan ran, dressed as we have briefly noticed, to preach and to baptise people with water, we learn that "then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were all baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt 4: 5, 6). In Jordan! Now, Jordan is a river. John came out of the hill country of Judea to Jordan to preach, and to baptise with water; and the people went out and were "baptised of him in the river of Jordan." And we learn further, that "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptised of John in Jordan; and straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened," [177] &c. (Mark 11: 9, 10) Among others John baptised our Lord with water. It was done in the river of Jordan, and after the baptism our Saviour came up out of the water. These facts ought to weigh something in our enquiry. If John baptised with water by sprinkling only a few drops of it upon the people, why come out of the hill country to Jordan to do it? Why baptise in the river? Where was the necessity or the sense of our Lord after being baptised with water by having a few drops sprinkled upon him, having to come up out of the water? Do not these facts and circumstances look rather like John baptised with water by putting the people into the water? But let us not haste to a conclusion. The truth sometimes travels slowly, but it always gets there.

      But John did not do all his baptising with water in Jordan. For, later, we are told that "John also was baptising in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptised" (John 3: 23). Dean Alford says that "Enon is an intensive form of Ain, a fountain, which answers to the description here given." If he is right, "John was baptising in a fountain near to Salim, because there was much water there." Baptising in a fountain, and because there was much water there, is a fact with a reason for it, that, it seems to me, ought to have an important bearing upon the question as to how John baptised with water. Nor is much water a necessity for pouring or sprinkling. But such a place, a fountain of much water, would be eminently suitable for immersing. Let it be observed, then, that John was baptising in a fountain, if Dean Alford is right as to the meaning of Enon. And whether he is right or wrong about that, John was baptising there because there was much water there. The fact that there was much water there is given as the reason why John was baptising there: and not, as has been said by way of evasion of the significance of the fact, holding meetings there because there was plenty of water. When John baptised with water it was in the river Jordan, or elsewhere because there was [178] much water there. A river, or much water, is a necessity for immersing, but not for pouring or sprinkling.

      It is generally conceded, I believe, that as to the action performed, there was no difference between John's baptism and what we call Christian baptism--that is, the baptism performed by the disciples after the great commission was given by our Lord. So that it will be legitimate for us in pursuing our enquiry to notice some of the facts and circumstances attending the performance of this rite recorded in Acts of Apostles, as well as allusions to it in the epistles. In many instances where baptising was done by apostles only the fact is recorded, and nothing is said that throws any light whatever upon the matter of our enquiry, more than is in the word baptise itself, and that is not within the scope of this argument. In other instances, however, facts and circumstances are recorded that I think pertinent and potent. Let us notice the case of the baptism of the Ethiopian officer, by Philip the evangelist, recorded in Acts 8: 36-39. "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptised? . . . And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. And when they were come up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more."

      In this case we have remarkable minute circumstantiality.

      1. "They came unto a certain water." Not simply unto water; but unto a certain water. That would indicate, at least to the willing mind, that it was a somewhat known water. The word "certain" in the scriptures, and especially in the writings of Luke, is not infrequently used of distinguished persons or well-known things--as, for instance, a "certain man in Cæsarea, called Cornelius" (Acts 10: 1), "a certain rich man," and "a certain beggar" (Luke 16), "certain days,"--certain questions," &c. Thus indicating distinguished [179] persons, well-known days and questions. They came to a certain water; that is, most likely, a well-known water on that road.

      2. They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." It is not said simply that they went into the water; but they went down into the water--down into the water; both Philip and the eunuch. Then following the statement that "he baptised him."

      3. We have, "when they were come up out of the water." Not simply were come out of the water; but up out of the water.

      It has been said that the going down and the coming up, in this case, refer to the chariot in which they were riding. But who cannot see that the going down and the coming up both have reference to the water? Are not both connected with the water, by "into" in the one case and "out of" in the other? Besides, there is no evidence that Philip ever went back into the chariot. The probability is that he did not. The fact is, it is almost impossible to put any other construction upon the words of this passage than the literal and natural one. And it would seem from the narrative that in order to baptise with water, in this case at least, both the preacher and the subject went down into the water, and, consequently, when the baptising had been done, had both to come up out of the water. Now, how does it seem most likely that Philip baptised with water? Had he done so by applying a few drops to the subject, then there would have been no necessity, no reason, for the circumstances of the case, so minutely given. On the other hand immersion requires exactly the circumstances here given. It is hardly worth while to ask which interpretation of "baptise with water" answers the demands of this scripture. One makes it out altogether sensible; the other knocks all the sense out of it.

      Let us notice another case given in Acts 16: 32-34, the baptism of the jailor at Philippi: "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the [180] night, and washed their stripes, and was baptised, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Let us note here these facts:

      1. When Paul and Silas preached to this jailor they "were in his house," he having before "brought them out" of the inner prison where they were when the earthquake occurred (ver. 30).

      2. After they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house, "he took them the same hour of the night, and . . was baptised." He "took" them somewhere, just where the record does not say. Then after he was baptised we learn that

      3. "He brought them into his house." This, of course, he could not have done had he not taken them out of his house when he "took them" and was baptised.

      4. Remember, this occurred some time after midnight.

      Now this man was the prison keeper in a large city. It is only reasonable to suppose he had within the prison a good many prisoners; just how many we may not know. But we learn that when Paul and Silas prayed and sang "the prisoners heard them" (ver. 25). Then there were "all his," or "all that were in his house"; say his family, if you wish: and say at least one infant if you choose: and was there not enough water in the house to baptise the jailor and all his "with water," by pouring or sprinkling a few drops upon each one? A most unreasonable supposition!

      5. The Revised Version, Dean Alford, Wesley and others, read the thirty-fourth verse, "brought them up into his house." This being correct, as no doubt it is, the jailor not only took them out of his house, but took them down somewhere. Down where? just where we may not know. But we do know that there was a river by the city (ver. 13). And we know also that cities having both rivers and prisons have their prisons higher than the rivers at ordinary stages of water; [181] and usually, for obvious reasons, have them pretty close together. Then it is by no means a violent assumption that he took them down to the river, and when he was baptised, he brought them up into his house. How, then, was the jailor most likely baptised with water? Do the circumstances of the case point to pouring or sprinkling? Surely not.

      In the next place let us notice some allusions to baptism in Paul's epistles that have a bearing upon our inquiry. He says (Rom. 6: 3-4): "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death. We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." Again he says (Col. 2: 11, 12): "In whom ye were circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

      I am aware that controversialists have, after ages of heated controversy, contrived ingenious interpretations of these plain allusions to baptism, that leave the baptism out altogether; and that may possibly satisfy their own consciences, though their practice is directly in the teeth of these plain passages as long as they remain untinkered. But we should bear in mind that the Roman and Colossian disciples to whom these epistles were addressed, knew nothing of these cunning explanations of the last century, and would understand the apostle to allude to their baptism; and if their baptism was a mere pouring or sprinkling, the allusions would have neither force nor sense in them. And the apostle would know this, too, as well as we ought to know it.

      Now, we have seen than John "baptised in Jordan"; "in a fountain near to Salim, because there was much water there;" that our Saviour "came from Nazareth [182] of Galilee and was baptised of John in Jordan, and straightway coming up out of the water," &c., and that later, under the gospel commission, the preacher and person to be baptised, "went down both into the water" for the purpose; and that after the baptism, they came "up out of the water;" and that the Apostle Paul said to the disciples at Rome: "All we who were baptised into Christ Jesus--were buried therefore with him through baptism;" and to the Colossians, "Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein, ye were also raised with him;" what, I ask, shall be our conclusion as to how persons were baptised with water? Which of the two interpretations of "with water"--both equally possible so far as the mere words of the phrase are concerned, as we saw in the beginning--better harmonises with all the facts, circumstances and allusions, to which we have given attention? Is it not a fact that one interpretation requires us to explain away all the facts, circumstances and allusions, while the other perfectly accords with them all?

      Some cases of baptism recorded in Acts of Apostles have been supposed to favour pouring and sprinkling, and to these let us give attention in conclusion.

      It has been generally assumed that three thousand persons were baptised on the day of Pentecost; and it has been urged that so many could not have been immersed by the few disciples who were there, in only the part of a day. This has, by many, been supposed to be conclusive against immersion, at least on that occasion. The case deserves attention.

      1. In the first place, there is no proof that so many persons were baptised on that occasion. The record does not say how many were baptised on that day. it says, "they that gladly received his [Peter's] word were baptised;" and it adds, "and the same day there were added about three thousand souls." "Unto them" is not in the text, but was supplied by the translators. The text simply says, "there were added about three thousand souls." Three thousand souls added means simply three thousand souls joined together; that is, a [183] congregation of three thousand souls was constituted that day. How many of the three thousand were baptised that day, and how many had been baptised before, nobody knows. This, however, is important only as correctness is always important. The argument against immersion on that day can be answered without it.

      2. Allowing, then, that three thousand persons were baptised that day, which, as I have said, cannot be shown; and allowing that only "ordained" preachers officiated; the work could have been done in a very short time. Jesus during His personal ministry ordained eighty-two preachers, twelve at one time and seventy at another, and they were likely all at Jerusalem on that occasion but Judas, and his place had been filled by Matthias. Three thousand would only be a fraction over thirty-six souls apiece to the ordained preachers present. And the baptising could have been done in thirty-six minutes. That's no extraordinary work.

      And even allowing that only the twelve officiated in baptising, they could have done the work easily in less than five hours. So that there was force enough to do the work in the time. And that there was an abundance of accessible water for the purpose has been shown to all who are willing to see, over and over again. The assumption we sometimes meet, that the Jews would have objected to the disciples using the public pools of Jerusalem is exploded by the fact that up to this time and later the disciples had "favor with all the people" (Acts 2: 47).

      It has been said that Paul was baptised in a house, and therefore more likely poured or sprinkled than immersed. The proof offered that he was baptised in a house is that he was told to "arise and be baptised" (Acts 22: 16), and that it is said he "arose and was baptised" (ibid. 9: 18), nothing being said about his going out of the room where he was when the preacher came to him.

      Now, this argument can be convincing only to a very willing soul. Does it really follow that Paul did not go out of the room where he was, when Ananias [184] came to him, to be baptised, simply because it is not recorded that he did? Suppose we read that a man "arose and ate his breakfast;" shall we conclude that he did so in the room where he slept, standing upright in bed because the record of the case says nothing of his going out of the room or even getting off the bed? Well, the cases are alike; and if the latter is not quite a demonstration, neither is the former.

      It has been said that the word translated "arise" in the passage means "standing;" and that therefore Paul was commanded to be baptised standing. And as he could not be immersed standing, he must therefore have been poured or sprinkled. A sufficient reply to this--if it really deserves any--is that the word translated arise in the passage does not mean standing, as the alleged argument assumes. It means simply arise, and there is nothing in it to hinder the person so commanded from immediately walking off.

      The truth is, if there is anything in the fact that Paul was told to "arise and be baptised," bearing upon the question as to the action of baptism, it is against pouring and sprinkling. For if Paul was in a room, lying or sitting down, he could not be immersed without arising; but he could have been poured or sprinkled either lying or sitting just as well as standing.

      Besides, it ought to stand for something in this argument that Paul himself said that when he was baptised he was buried. (Rom. 6: 4) "We were buried with him by baptism."

      The advocates of pouring or sprinkling have tried to infer something favorable to their practice from the language of the Apostle Peter at the house of Cornelius. "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised?" It is claimed that by "forbid water" the apostle meant "forbid water to be brought for baptising." But when we consider the fact that one might just as well and as easily forbid going to water to baptise as bringing water for that purpose, the supposed argument for pouring or sprinkling falls to pieces. There is nothing in the passage about either bringing or going to [185] water. It simply says can any mail forbid water--that's all. Shall an assumption here that the apostle had reference to bringing water, be made to over-ride all the plain facts, circumstances, and allusions to which we have given attention, to say nothing of the meaning of the word baptise? That would be giving to a transparent assumption a good deal of power.

      Some persons may wish to know why I do not in this discourse give attention to the argument for pouring drawn from what is called Holy Ghost baptism.

      Well, it does not belong here. Whatever the baptism with or in the Holy Spirit may mean, it clearly is not a case of baptism with water, and hence has no place in this inquiry. It belongs to the philological argument--to the discussion as to the meaning of the word baptise, and will be noticed in a discourse on that subject.

      Let us conclude this discourse with an illustration, a fair illustration. We will suppose a case for the illustration. We will suppose that Mr. A., of Paris, Ky., leaves his home for a protracted stay in New York. After an absence of a year or two he receives a letter from his friend B., of Paris. Among other matters his friend B. writes him concerning a religious revival in and around Paris. He tells of a preacher that had been preaching in the country through which Stoner--a stream with which they are both well acquainted--runs; that he baptised with water; and that the people came out of the country round and out of Paris, in large numbers, and were baptised by him in Stoner--in the river Stoner. He tells also of a distinguished gentleman who came a considerable distance and was baptised by the preacher in the river Stoner; and that straightway coming up out of the water he returned home. He tells also of this same preacher, later, baptising in a reservoir or fountain near Lexington, because there was much water there. He tells also of another preacher who had fallen into the good work: and that on the way from Paris to Maysville he had fallen in with a somewhat distinguished gentle [186] man in his carriage, and that he rode with him and preached to him Jesus on the way; that they came to a certain water; that the gentleman said, See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptised? The carriage was stopped; and they both went down into the water, both the preacher and the gentleman; and he baptised him; and when they were come up out of the water, they parted and met no more. He tells, also, that all who were baptised into Christ Jesus were buried with Him in baptism; wherein they were also raised with Him.

      Now, the question is, how would Mr. A. interpret the letter of his friend B.? What kind of a preacher--what kind of preachers--would Mr. A. conclude his friend B. had written about? Would he interpret all the facts, and circumstances, and explanations of B.'s letter of pouring or sprinkling? Would any of us so interpret such a letter from a friend? I think not. Well, ought we not be as fair and as honest with the word of God as we would with the letter of a friend? Most assuredly we ought. God help us. [187]

[TGP3 169-187]