TEACHER. And yet, on this shadowy basis, Immersers claim the exclusive right to that table! One of their ministers in this city, concluded a series of discourses, which he has recently been preaching on immersion, in the following strain:

"I have a right to go to any evangelical church [meaning other than immersing churches] where the Lord's table is spread, and partake of the symbols, and no man may lawfully forbid me ;-nay more; I have a right to say to the communicants, you are intruders here;-nay, more than this, I have a right to say to that minister who officiates at the table, Stand aside, thou hast no right to administer this ordinance!" Such a peroration excites only our pity.

5

BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH-OF THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER OF SAUL-OF CORNELIUS.

INQUIRER. Previous to this examination, I have attached much importance to the case of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.

TEACHER. Please turn to that case, (Acts viii. 36,) and point out what you have considered as determining with certainty that he was immersed.

INQUIRER. I find that this case wears a new aspect; for 1 really can find nothing in it, except that it is said that both Philip and the eunuch went into the water.

TEACHER. It may be well still to examine this point a little. Mark this, that the phrase "went down," &c., does not denote the baptismal act. They went down, both Philip and the eunuch, but both were not baptized. So that the going down was only a preparatory act, and the coming up out of the water was something done after the baptism, and not the baptism itself. This is what they would have done, whether they baptized by affusion or immersion.

You must take into view the circumstances and customs of the country. It is well known that Orientals were accustomed to step into the water on all occasions, whether of washing, or taking up water in their hands to drink, or the like. Their dress about their feet was such as not to hinder the custom, and their warm climate made it pleasant. As they were moving on in a journey, they came to SOME WATER" [for that is the literal rendering.] For baptism they must go to the water; as that could be done more conveniently than water

66

could be brought to them. It was also natural and agreeable to the habits of the people. Now the question is, whether their doing what they naturally would do to baptize by pouring, proves that they baptized another way, and by immersion? If there were no occasion for stepping into the water, except the convenience of immersion, there would be some force in the Immersers' inference. But when there was an actual necessity for going into the water, in order to baptize in qny way, their going into it can be no proof that they baptized by immersion.

We have an actual occurrence, which capitally illustrates this point. A Methodist minister and an Immerser, a few weeks since, in Charlestown, were baptizing at the same time and place, by the water's side. The Immerser took his candidate, and while going down, said, "And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch"--and after immersing him, he came out, saying by the way, "And they came up out of the water." Some of the spectators doubtless listened thus far, as to oracular proof of the necessity of immersion. Next the Methodist minister took his candidate, and went down into the water, repeating the same words-"And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch," and then took water and poured it upon his candidate, (according to the frequent practice of that sect,) and came up repeating-"And they came up out of the water, both Philip and the eunuch." So it was seen that the words of Scripture were as pertinent to one case as the other, and that one may do all that Philip is said to have done, without immersing.

As the Immersers' argument rests so much on the fancied import of the words "into" and "out of," it may be proper here to introduce the testimony of Prof. Ripley, of the Newton. Theological Seminary. In his note on Matt. iii. 16, he says:-"Out of the water-The preposition here translated "out of," has the more general signification of the word from; and would be suitable, whether the sacred writer meant to

say that Jesus came out from the water, i. e. from within the river to the shore; or, that he came from the water, i. e. retired from the bank of the river to another place. This preposition, then, in itself furnishes no decision in respect to the manner of the ordinance." Here is an Immerser's concession, that the preposition fixes nothing. But the verb [aven, "went up"] does of itself settle the question. If immersion had been the way, that verb should have had the force of emerge. But it is incapable of such a meaning; and we challenge any one, out of the numerous instances of its use, to find one where it has this meaning.

INQUIRER. It is one of the plainest cases, that it is impossible to make it certain that the eunuch was immersed.

TEACHER. That is enough for our purpose. If the Bible has left the mode of applying water in uncertainty, no man has a right to require me to act as though it were certain that immersion is the mode. No one is justified in shutting me from the Lord's table, because my guesses as to the mode will not run in the same line with his. But the probabilities are, in fact, against immersion in this case. They took the first water which they found. It was no river; for if it was, the narrative would have said so. But it only says, they came to "some water," [Te idag,] just as it would have said if it were the smallest quantity, and just as it would not have said if it were a river. Both geography and history show that it was not a river. Hierome, who lived several years at Jerusa*lem, and was well acquainted with the country, reports that about twenty miles from Jerusalem, in the road towards Hebron, there is a village called Bethsoron, near to which is a mountain, at the bottom or foot whereof is a spring, where the Acts of the Apostles relate that the Ethiopian was baptized by Philip. Eusebius reported the same. Beda, some hundred years afterwards, reported the said village then remaining, consenting with Eusebius and Hierome as to the baptism of the eunuch in the spring. A modern traveller, Sandys, men

tions this passage by Bethsoron, where he says" We saw the fountain whose pleasant waters are forthwith drunk up by the earth that produced them. There they say Philip baptized the eunuch; whereupon it retains the name of the Ethiopian fountain."

Now on which side are the probabilities? Geography, history, tradition and the inspired narrative are silent as to any river existing where they were. But that there was this spring, or fountain, standing alone in a dry and desert land, we have this positive evidence. In view of all the facts of the case, see how much the Immerser has to rely on guesses for the substance of his argument from this case, so much quoted by him. He guesses that Philip immersed the eunuch; and to support this guess, he must guess again that there was a river where we know there was none. Then he must guess that the eunuch exposed his nakedness to Philip, and Philip exposed his nakedness to the eunuch-or he must guess that Philip, travelling on foot, had come provided with a change of garments, contrary to Christ's advice to his first missionaries, not to take two coats apiece-or he must guess that Philip went in for immersing with his only dress on.

INQUIRER. It seems clear, that either of these assumptions is a guess against probability. Besides, Philip was caught away "immediately" after the baptism; and it is not likely that he was caught away either naked or dripping wet, and set down in the streets of the city of Azotus; whence, we read, he went forth preaching the gospel. It is manifestly unjust to exclude one from the Lord's table because he cannot join in such a guess. But as this is an important case, can we not gather light from some other Scripture, which may indicate that Philip did or did not practise immersion?

TEACHER. Yes. The very passage which the eunuch was reading, Isa. lii. 15, says "He shall sprinkle many nations."*

*The Hebrew word, yazza, translated shall sprinkle, occurs in several other passages, in which it can mean nothing else than sprinkle.