go, mergo, mergito, &c. expressed the mode of administering it by immersion. The Latin fathers, I presume, understood the Greek better than I or my friend. Why, then, did they select other words instead of baptizo, to denote immersion? The only possible reason was, that baptizo did not definitely express immersion.

The gentleman tells you, that according to my logic, it would be impossible for men to ascertain their duty. For example, we could not know whether in partaking of the Lord's supper the apostles did really eat bread; for acids are said to eat divers things! Why, I presume, there would be no great difficulty about it, if we could only ascertain whether the apostles were acids!!! Men, I believe, are not in the habit of consuming things by means of acidity. The gentleman, however, contends for the original meaning of words; and he tells us, eat means to chew. Of course, he should contend that acids chew! It is amusing to see him running to objections so perfectly flimsy, in order to sustain immersion.

We have now come to my friend's eleventh argument, designed for his unlearned hearers. His method of reading his arguments, I think, is not adapted to please either the learned or unlearned-certainly not the latter. But he proposes to substitute the definition for the word defined; and he tries sprinkle and pour instead of baptism-thus: they were sprinkled in Jordan, or poured in Jordan, &c. If it be true, that baptizo definitely expresses immersing, it is easy to show the absurdity of substituting for it words expressing different modes; but this is precisely the point to be established. I can travel by walking or riding; but it would not do to substitute walking or riding for the word travel. For this word expresses the thing done; but walking or riding denotes the mode of doing it. If I were to say, I saw a man laboring to-day; would you deem it correct to substitute ploughing for the word laboring? Certainly not; for the word labor expresses more than ploughing. There are many ways in which a man may labor. I can wash my hands either by pouring water on them, or by dipping them into water; but you would not consider it correct to say to your child, go, pour your hands, or, go, dip your hands; though if he should either have water poured on them, or dip them, he might obey your command to wash them. So baptizo expresses the thing done, the application of water to a person or thing; but it does not express the mode of doing it.

The gentleman, however, tries the word wash, and the word purify; and he thinks baptizo cannot mean either the one or the other. The Lord's supper is taken by eating and drinking; but if you would substitute eat or drink for deipnon, the word sometimes used to denote that ordinance, it would make nonsense; and Mr. Campbell might thus prove, according to his logic, that the supper is not to be taken by eating and drinking! I think it probable, if he had lived in Paul's day, he would have ridiculed the apostle; for he calls baptism a washing. He says, God saves us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5. Again, speaking of the wicked, he says "And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified," &c. 1 Cor. vi. 11. In these and similar passages the gentleman admits, that Paul spoke of baptism. He, therefore, is forced to admit, that baptism is a washing. And if it is not, Paul was evidently in an error; but if baptism is a washing, then it means washing.

"

I should be happy to hear from my friend, a dissertation on the word

deipnon, showing, from the primary or original meaning of the word, the manner in which the Lord's supper should be administered and received. Could he determine from the word alone what elements should be used, and in what quantity? Could he learn from it any thing more than that something was to be eaten? He could not. We must go to the institution of the ordinance, and learn its nature and design, before we can determine the manner of receiving it. And so we must go to the institution of baptism, and learn its nature and design, in order to understand how it should be administered.

But the gentleman would put immerse in place of baptize; and this, he supposes, would make excellent sense. But in strictness of language immerse does not express all for which he is contending. A man may be immersed, without being submersed. He is contending for the entire submersion of the body in water. Some have thought the word plunge a fair definition of baptizo. Let us try it. "John the plunger did plunge in the wilderness, and preached the plunging of repentance!" Some prefer the word dip. Let us try it. "John the dipper did dip in the wilderness, and preached the dipping of repentance," &c. Such language sounds very curiously. [A laugh.]

Mr. Campbell told you, that circumcision signifies cutting round. Now put the definition in place of the word, as applied to a religious rite. Let us now read in Gen. xvii. "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: every man child among you shall be circumcised (cut around.) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised (cut around.) And the uncircumcised (uncut around) man child." My friends, you see it wont do. My friend does not like the expression; but I must say, it wont do! [A laugh.]

The truth is, baptism is the word appropriated to denote a religious ordinance; and it will not do to substitute in its place any word which expresses merely the mode of its administration. The ordinance is one thing; the mode of administering it is another. The principle, therefore, on which the gentleman reasons, is wholly unsound, and will prove quite fatal to plunging or submersion, as to pouring or sprinkling.

Mr. Campbell has, at length, reached his argument founded on the burial spoken of in Rom. vi. 1. I discover, however, that instead of making an argument from the passage, he contents himself with reading the opinions of others. Almost any one could do as much. These opinions have been published and republished for the thousandth time, and are found in almost every little book that has been published in favor of immersion.

Calvin is brought forward as one of his authorities; but I am disposed to think, the gentleman has done Calvin injustice. For in looking over his commentary on Rom. vi., I saw no allusion to immersion.

Rev. A. Barnes is another whose opinion is adduced. Mr. Barnes is a man, doubtless, of considerable learning; but I will bring against him the authority of Prof. Stuart, an older and abler critic, who has proved with great clearness, that there is in the passage no allusion to immersion. I will also present the authority of Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, who is one of the ablest critical writers.

Dr. Wall was quoted; he was notoriously an immersionist of the old school. He was for allowing pouring only in cases of necessity. Dr. Clarke was also quoted; but I apprehend, that he was not treated quite fairly. In his comment on the 6th of Romans, be distinctly says, it can

not be certainly proved, that the apostle alluded to immersion, and in his remarks on Matth. iii. 6, he says, it is certain that baptizo means both to dip and to sprinkle. John Wesley was a man of learning; but he was not on the side of my friend. As already quoted, he says:

“The matter of this sacrament is water, which, as it has a natural power of cleansing, is the more fit for this symbolical use. Baptism is performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever blessed Trinity. I say, by washing, sprinkling, or dipping; because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force or meaning of the word baptism."-Wesley, p. 144.

Whitefield is another of the gentleman's authorities. He was a great preacher; but I never heard that he was considered a learned critic. He spent a considerable part of his life in going from place to place, and from country to country, preaching the Gospel to thousands and tens of thousands. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that his critical knowledge was very extensive.

Dr. Whitby was one of the clergy of the church of England who lived not long after immersion had generally ceased to be practiced in that church, and who were very solicitous to have it restored, except in cases of necessity. Like Wall, he was a decided immersionist. McKnight belonged to the same general class.

The gentleman quoted the Assembly of Divines. I presume, he is aware that the Notes which bear their name, were not really the work of that body, but only of a few individuals. He has, however, repeatedly published the statement, that in that Assembly the resolution in favor of sprinkling was carried by only one of a majority-that there were twentyfour for immersion, and twenty-four for sprinkling, and Dr. Lightfoot gave the casting vote. I happen to have the account of that matter, as given by Lightfoot himself, from which I will read an extract or two: Dr. Lightfoot savs:

"Then fell we upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing of the child, whether to dip him or sprinkle. And this proposition: "It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spake against it as being very unfit to vote-that it was lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it. Whereupon, it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it," &c. "After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus: The minister shall take water and sprinkle, or pour it with his hand, upon the face or forehead of the child; and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice, for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the votes came to an equality within one-for the one side was twenty-four, and the other twenty-five; the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against it; and there grew a great heat upon it; and when we had done all, we concluded nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.' **** But it was first thought fit to go through the business by degrees, and so it was first put to the vote, and voted thus affirmatively: That pouring on of water, or sprinkling of it in the administration of baptism, is lawful and sufficient.' But I excepted at the word lawful,' as too poor, for that it was as if we should put this query-whether it be lawful to administer the Lord's supper in bread and wine? And I moved that it might be expressed thus: 'It is not only lawful, but also sufficient;' and it was done so accordingly. But as for the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought fit and most safe to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory

He is to baptize the child with water, which for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony.' But this cost a great deal of time about the wording it."-Putman & Lightfoot's Works, vol. xiii. pp. 300-1.

This is the account given by Pittman and Lightfoot, and the gentleman is welcome to their testimony. It shows how impartially he has recorded historical facts!

Dr. Chalmers is a learned and great man. But in immediate connection with the passage quoted by Mr. Campbell he says, that he regards the mode of baptism as a matter of entire indifference; and, as I have repeatedly remarked, no man is likely to go through a thorough investigation of a subject in regard to which he is perfectly indifferent. If a man express himself as perfectly indifferent concerning any political question which agitates the public mind, you at once conclude that he has not given himself much trouble to investigate it; and so it is on religious subjects. But, as before remarked, I will balance his great names with others equally great; for it appears that the controversy is to be determined by celebrated names, not by argument. I have already given you the concessions of the Greek and Latin christians, who practiced generally trine immersion, and who, with one voice, pronounce pouring and sprinkling valid and scriptural baptism.

But let us examine the passage in question; and this, I believe, is the last strong-hold of immersion. I will read the passage: "What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that lik as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin," Rom. vi. 1-6.

The first question that naturally presents itself in view of this passage, is this: what is the subject on which the apostle is writing? what is he aiming to prove? He had, in the previous part of the epistle, proved the doctrine of justification by faith, without the deeds of the law. He now anticipates and answers an objection urged by some against this doctrine, viz: that its tendency is to induce men to commit sin; and he proves that, so far from having any such tendency, this doctrine necessarily results in a holy life in the case of all who sincerely embrace it. He is not at all speaking of the mode of baptism; his single aim is to expose this Jewish cavil, and to prove that christianity, from its very nature, leads those who embrace it to a holy life. Having now learned the main object of his argument, we are prepared to understand his language.

We find in the passage before us, some five expressions figuratively employed, viz: death, burial, resurrection, planting, crucifixion. These figurative expressions must, of course, be interpreted consistently with each other. If, then, we can ascertain the meaning of the death and the resurrection of which he speaks, we shall easily understand the burial. The death is certainly spiritual-a death to sin. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" verse 2. The resurrection is also

"Therefore we are buried with

spiritual-a resurrection to a new life. him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," verse 4. The death is spiritual, the resurrection is spiritual, and the burial, must it not also be spiritual? Would you so interpret the passage as to have a spiritual death, a spiritual resurrection, and a physical burial of the body under water?! Would these three things be consistent? The simple meaning is, that the old man (our corrupt nature) is dead and buried; and the new man (our renewed nature) is risen to live a new life. Christ died for sin, that is, to deliver us from sin; so they who are baptized into his death, profess their desire and purpose to die unto sin-to enjoy the benefits arising from his death. Christ arose literally for our justification; so they who are baptized into Christ, rise spiritually and live a new, a holy life. Baptism, therefore, is that ordinance by which we become publicly and visibly identified with Christ in his death and resurrection. The same idea is presented in the planting and the crucifixion of the old man, verses 5, 6. If the burial is immersion, what is the planting, (or engrafting, as some render it)? Are we accustomed to plant seed in water? The meaning (if planted is the correct rendering of the word) is this: The seed is put into the earth, and it dies; but a new stalk springs up from it. So the old man is put, as it were, into the earth; and the new man rises up, like a new stalk, to live a new life. But if both burial and planting express the mode of baptism; what mode is indicated by crucifixion, which we find used in the same connection to express the same idea? It will not answer to select one of the figures to express mode, and exclude the others.

What, then, are we to understand by the death, burial, resurrection and crucifixion? The death to sin, and resurrection to a newness of life, certainly signify the change of heart and life from sin to holiness, that is, sanctification. The planting and the crucifixion of the old man," that the body of sin might be destroyed," evidently express precisely the same idea. Whether, therefore, we look at the design of the apostle's argument, or at the language employed, we cannot but see that he spoke of sanctification, holiness of heart and life, as secured by christianity. We then inquire, in what way does God generally represent sanctification or purification from sin? Does he represent it by immersing into water? He never does. Does he not uniformly represent it by pouring or sprinkling? He does, both in the Old and in the New Testament. In what way, then, should christian baptism, the emblem of spiritual cleansing, be administered? Evidently by pouring or sprinkling.. Whilst, therefore, this passage contains not a word about the mode of baptism but speaks only of its design; when correctly understood, it is decidedly favorable to pouring or sprinkling as the proper mode.

That I have given the true exposition of this passage, will be still more manifest by comparing with it Colossians ii. 11, 12: "In whom [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Here we find distinctly presented the spiritual nature of this burial and resurrection.-[Time expired.