a few days after, (2: 2—4,) "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty rushing wind, and it (the sound) filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it [the tongue, or Spirit signified thereby] sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." And Peter, one of the Apostles, standing up, assured the multitude that this was the very thing foretold by the prophet Joel; to wit, "Saith God I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now look at these facts; Luke says, John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. He says, a few days after, the Holy Ghost sat upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost: and Peter affirms that this was the very pouring out of the Holy Ghost spoken of by Joel. Now if Luke and Peter were Pædobaptists, as no doubt they were, and it was their design to show that baptizo means pouring, could they have chosen stronger language? The advocates of immersion attempt to set aside the argument from this passage, by asserting that the Holy Ghost filled the house so full that the disciples were immersed in the Spirit. But Luke says no such thing. He says the sound filled all the house-and that the Spirit sat on each of them; and they (not the house) were filled with the Holy Ghost. And this was done, as Joel had foretold it would be, by pouring. Here then, Luke, Peter and Joel agree together in showing that one meaning of baptizo is to pour. In this case, there can be no mistake. That Luke uses baptizo to signify pouring is proved as unanswerably, as any proposition can be proved. Some of the advocates of immersion assert, indeed, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a figurative expression. To this assertion, I reply: it is perfectly immaterial, so far as our present inquiry is concerned, whether this baptism be literal or spiritual. The sacred penmen in speaking of this affusion of the Spirit, call it baptism. Hence, in their opinion, baptizo signifies affusion. The advocates of immersion may talk about figurative language; but here the truth stands out "clear as the light, and firm as the pillars of heaven."

2. Again; see Acts 11: 15, 16, where Peter gives an account of his preaching to Cornelius and his friends, and of what then took place. Says he, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost

fell on them, as on us, at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized (baptisthesesthe) with the Holy Ghost. That the Holy Ghost falling on these converts, is equivalent to his being poured upon them, is plain from the narrative of this same matter by Luke, who says, (10: 44, 45,) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Any plain man can understand these words of Peter. The Holy Ghost was poured upon the people there, and Peter says he called to mind that promise then fulfilled; to wit, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." If Peter had said, baptizo means to pour; it would not be stronger to this point, than the language he actually used. According to the Apostle Peter, then, baptizo means affusion or pouring. Till better authority be produced, dear friends, we must bow to this. The argument here is perfectly simple, and may be examined by any plain man, who can read our English Bible. When Peter

here tells us that he considers pouring to be baptism, all the assertions and confidence of the whole world, cannot persuade us against his word.

3. Again: see Mark, 7: 4. "And when they come from the market except they wash (baptisontai) they eat not." See also Luke 11: 38. "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that Christ had not first washed (ebaptisthe) before dinner." Was this washing before eating, (which Mark and Luke here call baptizing,) an immersion of the whole body in water; or was it the washing of parts of the body, (as the hands and face,) by pouring or putting the water upon them? Plainly, the latter. Pouring, or applying the water by affusion in some form, is the common and uniform mode of washing. Moreover; it seems to have been a custom among the Jews to have water poured upon their hands, when they washed, or as Mark and Luke say, baptized themselves. This word baptizo, rendered wash, is used here by Luke in the passive voice; which indicates that the water was applied, (as was probably customary,) by another person. Hence, (in 2 Kings 3: 11,) we find this expression, "Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the

hands of Elijah." Wherefore, in these two passages, it is very clear that Mark and Luke use the word baptizo to signify affusion; that is pouring.

4. Again see Mark 7: 4. "And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables," or couches. Was this washing, (which Mark calls baptizing,) these articles, performed by immersing them, or by pouring the water upon them? What is the common method? Is it by immersion, or by affusion? Cups and pots may be immersed, though even this is rarely done in washing them; but in most families, it would be inconvenient, and in some impossible, to immerse brazen vessels and tables or couches. Did you ever know a table to be washed by immersion? And is this the common mode? Can we find a particle of proof that immersion was the Jewish mode? Is it not plain to every unbiased mind that Mark uses this word (baptismous) to denote affusion? 5. Again see Heb. 9: 10. "Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings; (diaphorois baptismois.") The mode of these divers baptisms is explained in the context. The Apostle shows, in the following verses, that he means the various modes of ceremonial cleansing that were enjoined under the law the principal and most frequent of which was sprinkling. Saith he, "The blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh-for when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. "Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged (cleansed) by blood," that is, the sprinkling of blood. Here Paul speaks of divers baptisms, and then illustrates them by reference to divers sprinklings; the conclusion is irresistible and certain that Paul uses baptizo to signify sprinkling. If it had been his object to teach the church in all coming time that one meaning of baptizo is to sprinkle, could he have used stronger language?

6. Again: see 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers

were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized (ebaptisanto) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Paul here refers to the period when the children of Israel passed through the Red Sea, an account of which reads thus: (Ex. 14: 21—22,) "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." All candid minds will agree that Paul, in the ahove passage, speaks of water baptism, and that the whole multitude of the Israelites, were really and truly baptized. The only inquiry now before us is, what was the mode of this baptism? It is certain they were not immersed in the Red Sea. Moses says expressly, they went between two walls of water upon the dry ground. The Bible says, several times, the ground on which they walked was dry. It is certain they were not immersed in the cloud. They were under the cloud, and walked on dry ground. How then were the children of Israel baptized, when they passed the Red Sea? We have reason for thankfulness that the Psalmist informs us: See Psalm 77. When, verse 20, "thou leddest thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron," (verse 16, 18) "the waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound; thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven; the lightnings lightened the world; the earth trembled and shook." Here we learn that there was thunder, and lightning and rainthe clouds poured out water in rain upon the Israelites while they were journeying through the Red Sea; which the Apostle affirms was really and truly baptism. Look, my hearers, at these facts. Moses affirms that they passed through on dry ground. The Psalmist affirms that the clouds poured out water; and Paul affirms that the Israelites were then baptized. Hence this baptism was certainly administered by pouring, Paul being Judge. Paul decides the question, therefore, that baptizo signifies affusion. To his decision we cheerfully bow. If Paul was a Pædobaptist, as no doubt he was, and if he had made his best effort to teach us that baptizo signifies to sprinkle or to pour,

could he have used plainer and stronger language? The advocates of immersion, aware that Paul here uses baptizo to signify affusion, frequently fancy that the cloud somehow or other embosomed the Israelites as water envelopes a person immersed in it. Really; would they "consider a man duly baptized by his being placed between two cisterns of water, with another cistern suspended over his head."*

Other cases might be cited; but it is unnecessary. The cases now examined, settle the position that baptizo is used in the Bible, sometimes at least, to signify affusion. Look at these cases, my friends, dispassionately and in the fear of God. Is it not certain, that when Luke says the people were baptized with the Holy Ghost, he used the word baptizo to signify affusion? — that when Peter affirms, that Cornelius and his friends, upon whom the Holy Ghost had fallen and been poured out, were baptized; he uses the word baptizo to signify affusion? - that when Mark and Luke tell us the Jews washed before dinner, and call this washing baptism; they use the word baptizo to signify affusion?

that when Mark, informing us it was the custom of the Jews to wash their tables and other furniture, and calls this washing, baptism; he uses the word baptizo to signify affusion?- that when Paul explains divers washings, to mean divers sprinklings, and calls these washings, baptisms; he uses the word baptismos to signify affusion?—and that, when Paul says the children of Israel were baptized under the cloud, (and the Psalmist explains this baptism by affirming that this cloud poured out rain upon them,) that Paul uses baptizo to signify affusion? I repeat; is not all this certain, and plain? Here then, we have the word baptizo used by Mark, and Luke, and Peter, and Paul, to signify, beyond all doubt, affusion- that is, pouring and sprinkling. What possible evidence can we have, to support any position, stronger and clearer than this? These witnesses un

66

* Adam Clarke, (see his comment on this passage at the end of Mark 16,) says, "Paul clearly spoke of being baptized in the cloud with a direct eye to the moisture which it contained. In this view the thought is strictly just; in any other view it would be unintelligible. It follows then, Paul being judge, that to be sprinkled is to be baptized." Why should we doubt that this was said by Paul for the express purpose of providing means for terminating in its proper time a vexatious dispute? I am persuaded that when the Apostle was taken to the third heavens, he saw, from that elevation, the whole series of the church's future progress."