The only reason, then, which I can find, why ovverάgnuev is preferred in Rom. 6: 4, and in Col. 2: 12, is, as has been suggested above, that the language may be a fuller antithesis of the word resurrection, which is employed in the corresponding part of the comparison." You who were [dead] buried with Christ," gives energy to the expression.

(c) But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis of ovverάqnuev is, that the image or figure of immersion, baptism, is, so far as I know, nowhere else in Scripture employed as a symbol of burial in the grave. Nor can I think that it is a very natural symbol of burial. The obvious import of washing with water, or immersing in water, is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. But how will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of corruption, loathsomeness, and destruction?

For these reasons, I feel inclined to doubt the usual exegesis of the passage before us, and to believe that the apostle had in view only a burying which is moral and spiritual; for the same reasons that he had a moral and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in the corresponding part of the antithesis.

Indeed what else but a moral burying can be meant, when the apostle goes on to say: We are buried with him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism INTO HIS DEATH? Of course it will not be contended, that a literal physical burying is here meant, but only a moral one. And although the words, into his death, are not inserted in Col. 2: 12; yet, as the following verse there shews, they are plainly implied. In fact it is plain, that reference is here made to baptism, because, when the rite was performed, the Christian promised to renounce sin and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus to die unto sin that he might live unto God. I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more necessary reference here to the modus of baptism, than there is to the modus of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained as the other.

I am aware, however, that one may say: 'I admit that the burial with Christ has a moral sense, and only such an one; but then the language in which this idea is conveyed (ovverάqnuev), is evidently borrowed from the custom of immersion.' In reply to this, I would refer to the considerations under (c) above. The possibility of this usage I admit; but to shew that the image is natural, and obvious, and that it is a part of Scripture usage elsewhere, is what seems important, in order to produce entire satisfaction to the mind of a philological inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present think the case to be clear enough to entitle any one to employ this passage with confidence, in a contest respecting the mode of baptism.

In now reviewing the whole of these remarks, I am not able to perceive that they are for substance incorrect. The more I

reflect on the subject, the more I am persuaded, that the essential part of the idea which is conveyed by ovverάqnuev, consists in this, viz. that when the Christian is baptized into the death of Christ, Rom. 6: 4, he is considered as "putting off the old man with his lusts," as "crucifying him," as renouncing the world and his former sinful course, and engaging to live a new life. Accordingly in Rom. vi. the apostle presents at large the idea, that as Christ died for sin when he suffered on the cross, so his followers must die to it, i. e. renounce it, when they become his disciples. But they openly and solemnly profess to be so, when they are admitted by baptism to make a public profession of the Christian religion. Now as he died and was buried in a physical sense, for or on account of sin; so we die and are buried in a moral or spiritual sense, when we solemnly profess and engage to hate sin and renounce it, as we do in baptism. And it seems to me, that the specific reason why the apostle makes use of ovverάqnuev is, that it is a stronger antithesis to the word ovvnyioonte (ye have been raised up), which he employs in the context. I must repeat again, that I find nothing in all the ritual use of water, as an emblem of purification and consecration to God, which seems to prepare the way for the use of baptism by immersion as a symbol of Christ's literal death and burial; or rather as bearing a resemblance to this. And this is so strongly impressed on my mind, that I must see more evidence than I now do, that Paul meant to make a comparison between literal burial and literal baptism, before I can attach any weight to the argument attempted from Rom. 6: 3, 4, and Col. 2: 12, in the controversy about the mode of baptism. The impression is strong upon my mind, that the gist of the true comparison lies in the being baptized INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST; not in being baptized only.

When the apostle says, then, in Col. 2: 12, ovvraqévtes avtæ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι, I understand him as employing ἐν τῷ βαπτι quare in the Dative in order to signify the occasion, means, etc. in like manner as the Dative is elsewhere used in a similar way. Thus when it is said: He shall baptize you έv пvεúμarı årig nai лvoi, or iv avεvμari ayiq simply, e. g. Matt. 3: 11. Mark 1: 8. Luke 3: 16. John 1: 33. Acts 1: 5. 11: 16; or when it is said: We have all been baptized into one body, BY ONE SPIRIT, ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι; the meaning cannot be that we have been plunged or immersed into one Spirit or into one fire, but that by means of these we have been spiritually baptized, or that the

Spirit has been copiously poured out upon Christians. So being buried with Christ by baptism, i. e. by baptism into his death, cannot be shewn to mean, of necessity, any thing more, than that by the rite of baptism Christians profess to die and be buried, in a moral or spiritual sense, and as to the old man who with his lusts is to be crucified or put to death.

I have now examined all the passages, on which reliance has been principally had, in order to shew from circumstances and allusions, in what mode the rite of baptism was originally performed in the Christian church. If there may be some doubt remaining in the mind of the reader, whether I have allowed them to speak fairly and fully, I can only say, that I have not purposely either kept back any evidence in regard to the subject, of which I am in possession, or willingly magnified any view or statement for the sake of favouring any particular sentiment; for I am not at all concerned in what way the result of this inquiry may come out, in respect to the original mode of baptism. The external mode of an external rite, never can, with my present views of Christianity, become to me a matter of any peculiar interest, in any other point of view than merely that of a historical fact. My full belief is, that since " God is a Spirit," he seeks worshippers "in spirit and in truth ;" and that where the heart is given to him, the manner of external rites can never be essential. These may concern the costume of the church; but never her glorious person.

I have still an inquiry to make under our present head, and one which seems to be important, so far as it concerns our investigation with respect to facts. It is this: Are there not some circumstances related or implied, in the passages respecting Christian baptism, which seem to render the idea improbable that immersion was generally, or at least universally practised?

Let us examine the narrative in Acts II. On the day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 1, the disciples were assembled in one place, and the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them in a miraculous manner, and they began to speak in foreign languages. This attracted great multitudes to hear them; and these Peter addressed in a powerful manner, setting forth the claims of Jesus, and exhibiting the guilt of their unbelief and their enmity to the Saviour. Under this address, three thousand of the audience "were pricked in the heart," and made anxious for their salvation. On the very same day on which all this happened, these three thousand, it would seem, were all baptized and add

ed to the Christian church; Acts 2: 40, 51. The question apposite to our purpose is: Where and how were they baptized? Was it in the brooks or streams near Jerusalem? I cannot find this to be probable. The feast of Pentecost, being fifty days after the passover, Lev. 25: 15, must fall into the latter part of the month of May, and after the Jewish harvest. In Palestine, this is usually a time of drought, or at least of great scarcity of rain. The brook Kidron, on the east of Jerusalem, was not a perennial stream; and the brooks on the south of the city, from the fountain of Shiloh or Gihon, were not adequate, without some special preparation, for the purposes of baptism by immersion; as one must be prone to think, from the representations respecting them. Nothing can be more natural, moreover, than the supposition, that if the apostles baptized the three thousand in either of the streams around Jerusalem, it would have been mentioned; just as it is said of John, that he baptized in the Jordan. No such mention, however, is made.

We must conclude, then, that if baptism by immersion was practised on this occasion, it must have been in baths or washing places. I do not say that this was impossible, for every one acquainted with the Jewish rites must know, that they made much use of ablutions; and therefore they would provide many conveniences for them. But let it be remembered, in respect to the present occasion, that a great many of the three thousand were foreigners. How many belonged to the city of Jerusalem, we cannot tell. But we may ask: Did the apostles baptize, without individual confession and profession, like that of the eunuch, insisted upon by Philip? We can hardly deem this probable. Supposing then, that these were required, and that the apostles resorted to private baths in order to baptize, would one day, or rather, some three quarters of a day, suffice to perform such a work? On the supposition that only the apostles baptized; and granting, moreover, that Peter ended his sermon at nine o'clock in the morning ("the third hour of the day"), whereas he only began it then; the consequence would be, that for the remainining nine hours of the day, 540 minutes, each apostle must have baptized, on an average, one in about two minutes, inasmuch as each would have had two hundred and fifty baptisms to perform, if they were equally divided. However, I concede that there are some points here, which are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from me, in replying to these remarks. It is true that we do

=

not know, that baptism was performed by the apostles only; nor that all the three thousand were baptized before the going down of the sun. The work may have extended into the evening; and so, many being engaged in it, and more time being given, there was a possibility that the work in question should be performed, although immersion was practised.

But are these circumstances probable ones, which have just been mentioned? There is nothing in the record that would naturally lead us to suppose so; and we are left at liberty to deny them, with as much probability as any one can assert them; I must think, on the whole, with somewhat more. perhaps see further reason for this opinion in the sequel.

We shall

In Acts 10: 47, Peter says, in respect to Cornelius and those with him who believed on Christ: "Can any one forbid water, that these should be baptized ?” μήτι τὸ ὕδωρ κωλῦσαι δύναταί τις; Observe that the idea, in this case, seems almost of necessity to be: 'Can any one forbid, that water should be brought in, and these persons baptized?' He does not say: Can any one forbid the bath, or the river, i. e. the use of these, by which these persons should be baptized; but the intimation seems to be, that they were to be baptized on the spot, and that water was to be brought in for this purpose. I admit that another meaning is not necessarily excluded, which would accord with the practice of immersion; but I am persuaded, that the more easy and natural interpretation is such as I have now given.

I have the same persuasion respecting the baptism of the jailor recorded in Acts 16: 33. Here it is said, that the jailor, after the earthquake and other occurrences, and when brought under deep convictions of sin, took Paul and Silas, at midnight, and washed them from their stripes, i. e. washed off the blood which flowed from the wounds made by their stripes; and straightway, (napazonua forthwith,) he was baptized, and ALL HIS. Where was this done? At the jail or in the jail, where he met Paul and Silas; at any rate within the precincts of the prison; for after the whole transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas to his house and gave them refreshments; Acts 16: 34. If it be said, that there was probably a bath in the jail, and that the jailer and his household were baptized in it; I answer, that such accommodations in the prisons of ancient days, are at least very improbable. Who does not know, that mercy or convenience in a prison is a thing of modern times the work or result of Christian beneficence, not of