Lord's table sectarian, and to countenance schisms, so long as there exists a reasonable doubt whether the Lord requires him to do it?

INQUIRER. True-very true. But I would inquire whether the cases of Christian baptism in the New Testament are not clearly in favor of immersion?

CHAPTER V.

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM-BAPTISM ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST.

TEACHER. I see that you very properly make a distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism. But not to detain the subject, what example of apostolic baptism shall we first examine?

INQUIRER. If you please, the baptisms of the day of Pen

tecost.

TEACHER. Please read the account, (Acts ii.) and point out to me the proof that the converts were immersed. It is not found in any tendency of the apostles that way, for they had been educated to regard sprinkling as sufficient for ceremonial purification, and from early childhood had seen the leper, and the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple cleansed by sprinkling. Why should men so educated have deemed sprinkling or pouring an improper symbol of purification by the Spirit, under the gospel, especially when they could not have failed to notice that their scriptures uniformly described his influence as poured out upon men?

INQUIRER. If the influence of their Jewish education was not counteracted by some command of Christ, they baptized unquestionably by pouring or sprinkling. And that any such command was given to them, by the great Head of the Church, we are not obliged to believe without proof.

TEACHER. Do you find the proof that is needed in the Pentecostal baptisms?

INQUIRER. I admit that I see nothing which decides in

favor of immersion. The inspired record merely states that the converts were baptized: but it gives no intimation that they left the place where they were assembled; nor that those preparations were made, which the immersion of a promiscuous multitude, consisting of males and females, always renders necessary.

TEACHER. This is a most decisive case, my friend. against immersion. On that memorable occasion, in the same day, (Acts ii. 41,) about 3000 persons were baptized and added to the church. Among the converts were Parthians and Medes, and Egyptians, &c. (vs. 9-11.) The assumption that they were immersed is not only a pure guess, but it hangs by a string of most absurd guesses!

Consider the facts. The 3000 must have been baptized in Jerusalem, or in some other place.

If we suppose that they were baptized in Jerusalem, (the only supposition which the record warrants,) mountainous difficulties lie in the way of the Immersers' guess These events took place during the Pentecost, or about the latter part of the month of May, in Palestine a time of drought. In that country, from the middle of April to the middle of September, it neither rains nor thunders. In the beginning of harvest, a cloud is occasionally seen in the morning but it vanishes away; and hence the beautiful allusion of Hosea, where he compares the goodness of Ephraim to the morning cloud. (Hosea vi. 4.) Now the brook Cedron was dry, except in the rainy part of the year; and, therefore, at this time the footman might have walked across its channel with unwet sandal. The city afforded no other brooks or stream suited to the purposes of immersion. If there were baths, the Jews would sooner have opened them to swine, than to the followers of the hated Nazarene. Where then did the apostles find a convenient place in Jerusalem, to immerse in one day 3000 converts? This question presents a serious difficulty. But this is not the only difficulty. Suppose the

apostles succeeded in obtaining a suitable place, how could they have immersed 3000 in so short a time? When the wonders of that memorable day began to attract notice, it was already nine o'clock. If we make some little allowance for prayers, preaching, conversation with the candidates, confessions of faith, and for making the preparations which immersion, even on a much smaller scale, always demands, it must have been at least four o'clock, P. M., before they could have commenced baptizing. To be satisfied that this is not an extravagant calculation, we need only to ask ourselves, how many hours would be found necessary by Immersers in this city (where every convenience is near at hand,) for making decent preparations for the immersion of 3000 people, strangers foreigners, suddenly converted? It would require miraculous despatch, to get through with all the essential preliminaries in less than half a day! Now the apostles had 250 persons each. If we suppose them to have continued immersing, without any cessation, and at the rate of one a minute, the day must have ended before their task was done! But there is still another difficulty. As the converts were strangers, embracing both sexes, where did they get changes of apparel? Who provided them with immersing gowns? Did they borrow them on the spot? Or if obliged to search Jerusalem, running hither and thither, for these conveniences, how much of the day did this consume? Or were they plunged all over in water without any change of raiment? Or did they expose their naked persons to one another, and to gazing spectators, and thus violate the natural sense of shame?

In view of these difficulties, what monstrous guesses are necessary on the part of Immersers! They must, in the first place, guess that the apostles immersed the 3000; and in order to maintain this guess, they must guess that they found a convenient stream or brook in Jerusalem for immersing this immense multitude, when, from the known geography and

climate of the country, it is evident that no such stream could have been found-or they must guess that they had access to baths, (when the very swine would sooner have gained admittance,) and guess that there were baths enough to accommodate 3000. And when they have guessed out a suitable place for immersion, they must guess that the apostles immersed 250 persons each, in a few hours, giving them at the same time all needful instruction-and guess that they changed their apparel in the open air, men and women; or guess that they were accommodated with dressing chambers; or guess that they stripped themselves, and exposed their naked persons while going down to the water and coming from it;- -or guess that they were plunged just as they were, and went about after the ceremony with their garments cleaving to their skin, and dripping upon the pavement of the city!

But suppose they were baptized in some other place. Observe, this is itself a guess. The inspired narrative gives no hint of their leaving the city, or even the place where they were assembled. Such an army of converts leaving the city, is a circumstance which the historian could not have failed to notice. But what is gained by this guess? The nearest river (the Jordan) was distant more than 20 miles. As it was not a day of omnibuses and railroads, how could that promiscuous host have reached the river in time for the ceremony? In whatever place we suppose the immersing to have been performed, we have the same guessing as to a change of apparel, &c. &c. And the farther we remove it from the city, and from the scene of the apostles' preaching, the greater the difficulty in regard to time.

INQUIRER. I must confess that I am not prepared to embrace a supposition which hangs by such a string of guesses; and much less to consider others, who find it impossible to guess quite so much where the Scriptures give no favorable data, as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and as worthy of banishment from the Lord's table.