This list of quotations need not be enlarged. What the authority of men can do, has been done already, in proving that the word denoting baptism does not uniformly signify immersion.

But it will be said that Mr. J. pleads authority on his side. He has adduced a number of witnesses, and those from among the Pedobaptists themselves, to prove that immersion is essential to baptism. (Pp. 5, 6.)

In respect to these quotations, and indeed to his quotations generally from Pedobaptist authors, we beg leave to submit the following remarks.

Mr. J. does not seem herein to have treated either the publick or his witnesses fairly. In selecting small quotations from large works, where saving clauses, qualifying sentences, &c. are omitted, authors may easily be made to speak a language which they never intended, and unfair impressions may be left on the publick mind. Mr. J. has left the impression, and we fear he designed to leave it, that those learned men, whose testimony he has adduced, really supposed immersion the only valid baptism. He ought to have known and to have acknowledged the contrary. We certainly know that a number of his witnesses, and we seriously believe that all of them, considered baptism perfectly valid, when performed by pouring, washing, or sprinkling. Mr. BOOTH, from whom nearly all the quotations of Mr. J. in this place as well as others, are servilely copied, particularly "desired his reader to observe, that no inconsiderable part of these learned authors have asserted, that the word baptism signifies pouring or sprinkling, as well as immersion." Mr. BooTH's treat. ment of his witnesses has been generally reprobated as unfair; but in comparison with that of Mr. J. it was candour itself. This latter gentleman has taken up the writings of the dead, separated from them sentences which they perhaps incautiously dropped, and then spread these before the world as their prevailing sentiments. He has thus tortured those who can no longer speak for themselves, to utter a language which they never intended. If he has allowed them to declare what they considered the truth, he has not allowed them to declare what they considered the Compare the authors we have quoted and referred to, with those Mr, J. has quoted, p. 5. + In REED's Apology, p. 110.

whole truth. With these things in view, the quotations of Mr. J. on which he seems to have so much relied, have lost all their force. The question between him and us, is not whether immersion be baptism, or whether this mode be preferable to any other; but, Is it essential? With united voice, his witnesses will answer, no; and thus answering, they instantly desert him, and stand arrayed on the other side. Mr. J. supposes his quotations the more convincing and forcible, because they have been chiefly taken from "Pedobaptist authors." "Their concessions," says he, "could not have been influenced by attachment to their religious system, but must have resulted from a conviction of truth alone." (P. 5.) With equal justice, he might have reasoned farther. He might have said within himself-"These learned men, notwithstanding their concessions, persist in the practice of infant baptism, and in baptizing otherwise than by immersion. They must be supposed to have reasons which satisfy their minds. They must be supposed to have strong reasons, which their concessions do not af fect. They must be supposed to consider Pedobaptist principles so solidly founded, that they can safely give up to us more ground than we had reason to anticipate. And are not these learned characters capable of determining whether their principles are solidly founded or not?"-In short, had Mr. J. reasoned as far as he might have done, from the fact that his witnesses are chiefly Pedobaptists, he would have seen in this fact, not the weakness of their fortress, but presumptive evidence of its impregnable strength.*

We now pass to consider the import of the term Bari(w, as exhibited in its general use. It is certainly used, by writers sacred and profane, to signify something less than a total immersion in water.

PORPHYRY mentions "a river in India, into which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is immediately baptized up to his head." In this instance Bali evidently cannot signify immersion.

*The author is certain that this remark will correctly apply to one at least of those whom Mr. J. has quoted (p. 28)-he means his learned and revered instructer, Dr. EMMONS. If this distinguished divine has conceded some things which he perhaps need not, in regard to the substitution of baptism for circumcision, his discerning mind still sees ample reasons, to justify him in the belief and practice of Pedobaptism.

+ Banlielas μéxos nepaλns. See REED's Apology, p. 117.

Mr. SYDENHAM quotes the following sentence, as de livered by the oracle" Baptize (Bar) the bottle; but it is not right to plunge it wholly under water."* Here, again, Ban cannot signify immersion.

ORIGEN, speaking to the Pharisees of the wood on the altar, over which water was profusely poured at the command of Elijah, (see 2 Kings xviii. 33,) expressly says, that this wood was baptized. This term, then, was used by ORIGEN, one of the earliest Christian fathers, to signi fy pouring.

"It was a common expression of the ancient fathers, concerning the martyrs who had shed their blood in bearing witness to the Christian faith, that they were baptized with their own blood." Were they actually immersed in their own blood? Or were their bodies merely tinged or wetted with it?

The apostle Paul informs us, that the whole congrega tion of Israel "were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea." (1 Cor. x. 2.) If it is difficult to say how these persons were baptized, it is not difficult to say how they were not. The bottom of the sea was made dry ground before them, and they walked through the midst of it with unwetted feet. (Ex. xiv. 21-29.) It is hence absolutely certain, that they were not immersed in water.Mr. J. may tell us of the propriety of "representing their situation, with the sea on each side, and the cloud covering them, as an immersion in the cloud and in the sea ;" (p. 8.) but if he can clearly explain how they could be immersed in the waves, while they were securely walking on dry ground, we shall doubtless consider him a very extraordi nary writer.

The apostle also informs us, that the service of the sanctuary under the former dispensation consisted, among other things, in divers washings" or (Banos) baptisms. (Heb. ix. 10.) The mode of these baptisms is clearly taught in the context. He proceeds directly to state, that the unclean were then sprinkled with the blood of bulls and of goats; that "Moses took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the *In REED's Apology, p. 117. + See Appen. to Dr. WALL's Reflections on GALE ‡ HEMMENWAY, in REED's Apology, p. 165,

people;" and that "he likewise sprinkled with the blood, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry." Is it not then evident, that, by divers baptisms, the apostle intended these divers sprinklings? Or, if we suppose him to refer to the Jewish purifications generally, some of which consisted in bathing, he must have referred to their sprinklings as well as bathings, and must have used the word baptisms to denote other modes of applying water,

than a total immersion.

Mr. J. replies, that "since numerous immersions were prescribed in the Jewish ritual, this application of the word baptisms by the apostle Paul affords no reason for ascribing to it any other beside its usual import." (P. 7.) Is it then sufficient, Mr. J. that immersion is the usual import of the term baptism? This evidently must be its invariable import, or your Anabaptist principles are without foundation. And does the invariable or even usual import of this term require us to limit, if not pervert, the apostle's phrase, to denote merely the immersions which the Jewish ritual prescribed? To say this, is to take for granted what ought to be proved, and what needs an hundred fold stronger proof than has ever yet been given to the Christian publick.

Mr. JUDSON's treatment of this passage gives occasion to a remark, which may be extended to his treatment of all those passages which he has been pleased to notice, which have been thought to favour our ideas of baptism. His professed object in examining them is merely to show, that they do not absolutely "require him to depart from" what he considers "the etymological and established interpretation of the word" Baliw. (P. 6.) In pursuing this object, the question with him is not, What is their most obvious and natural meaning? but, Can they not, in some way, be so tortured and glossed, as to comport with the idea that immersion alone is baptism?

It is said "of the Pharisees and all the Jews," that "when they come from the market, except they wash, or (Banliswila) be baptized, they eat not." (Mark vii. 3, 4.)

And when a certain Pharisee had invited our Lord "to dine with him, he marvelled that he had not first washed, or (Canon) been baptized before dinner." (Luke xi. 38.) Was it a custom with all the Jews to be immersed before

eating? Or did the Pharisee marvel that our Lord was not immersed before dinner?-If the case does not sufficiently speak for itself, it is easy to prove all that we need respecting it. It is easy to prove, and from the highest authority, that immersions were not statedly practised before their meals, but merely a washing of their hands.

MATTH. XV. 2. " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread."

MARK Vii. 3. "The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not; holding the tradition of the elders."

MAIMONIDES. "A man shall not need to wash his hands as oft as he eats, if he do not go abroad, or meddle with business, or go to the market, or avert his mind an other way; but if he do, he is bound to wash his hands as oft as there is need of washing."*

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. "The Hebrews did not so much as eat, nor even sit down to a table, till after they had washed their hands, by pouring water, from their fingers' ends up to their elbows."+

CALMET. "The precise professors among the Hebrews washed their arms up to their elbows, when returned home from market, or out of the street; fearing they had touched some polluted thing or person."

In view of these quotations, is it not undeniably certain, that the baptisms which the Jews practised previous to their meals, and which the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour should neglect, were merely a washing of the hands? And is here not sufficient evidence, that the term denoting baptism is used to signify something different from a total immersion?

Mr. J. indeed supposes, that it was a custom with the Jews to immerse themselves before eating; and in confirmation of this, he quotes MAIMONIDES and SCALICER. (P. 7.) His quotation from MAIMONIDES is not at all to his purpose. The opinion of this learned Rabbi has been given above. Nor is the testimony of SCALIGER much more in point. The Evangelist says of "all the Jews,"

* See SCOTT, in Mark vii. 3.

+ In art. Purification. Dic. of Bible, in art. Baptism. See also GROTIUS, in P ́s Synopsis, in Luke xi. 38; and STACKпOUSR's Hist. Bible, vol. 5, p. 440.