Turkey, Austria, Russia, &c. and to this very day practises immersion. It may be regarded as an undisputed fact, that the Greek Christians have in every age since the apostles, practised immersion for baptism. Here then is a practical definition of the word, in the use of which this institution is commanded, which, it seems to me, cannot be easily misunderstood or perverted. If any say to you, who have no knowledge of the original languages, that your practice of immersion originates in ignorance of Greek, you have only to reply, "The Greeks have always had the Testament in the very words of Christ and his apostles; the word used in reference to baptism must have been perfectly familiar to them; their uniform practice shews that they have ever understood it to signify immersion; and their definition satisfies me better than that, which the learned of other nations to whom the language is not vernacular, can give me." And here I might safely rest the argument. For with the concurrent testimonies of Lexicons; of pedoBaptists whose character for consistency was affected by their concessions, and who evidently wrote from settled, resistless conviction of the truth; and of the Greeks whose practical comment for centuries is worth more than huge folios of foreign interpreters, that the word signifies to immerse who will say that it means the application of water in any mode? or that sprinkling, or pouring, or immersing is equally valid baptism? If the authority which I have produced in favour of the meaning of Barrigw be admitted; and certainly no better could reasonably be demanded, then, the apostles, when commanded to baptize were required to immerse ; then the happy converts, when they "gladly received the word, were immersed;" and then it also follows, that as the same command is unrepealed and in full force, nothing can answer its claims but the total immersion of believers "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Still I have by no means exhausted the argument. There are other weighty considerations which furnish additional proof that immersion is the only scriptural baptism. II. THE PLACES AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN CONNEXION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE. Why did John baptize "in the river of Jordan”, if a few drops, scattered from the hand, would have answered the purpose? Jordan was not, as it has been represented, a shallow stream; it was a considerable river. It was fordable only at particular places, as appears by Ehud, Gideon and the Gileadites taking those passages. David and his household "went over it in a ferry boat." Why is it said that " John was baptizing at Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there?" For sprinkling, much water could not have been necessary. A small vessel would have contained a sufficiency for the multitudes whom John baptized. I know it has been asserted that the phrase υδατα πολλα, rendered much water, means many waters, and that these many rivulets were necessary for the accommodation of men and beasts. Mr. Robinson has given a satisfactory answer to this learned criticism. He says, "Since sprinkling came into fashion, criticism, unheard of in all former ages, hath endeavoured to derive evidence for scarcity of water, from the Greek text of the Evangelist John, and to render woλλa udara, not much water, but many waters; and then by an ingenious supposition, to infer that many waters signifies, not many waters collected into one, but waters parted into many little rills, which all might serve for sprinkling, but could not any one of them be used for dipping: as if one man could possibly want many brooks for the purpose of sprinkling one person at a time! It is observable that the rivers Euphrates at Babylon, Tiber at Rome, and Jordan in Palestine, are all described by Toλλa udara, the phrase here rendered "much water." Jeremiah speaks of the first, and addressing Babylon, says, O thou that dwellest upon many waters, thine end is come; for Babylon was situated upon what the Jews call the river, the great river Euphrates. John describes Rome which was built upon the Tiber, by saying, The great harlot, the great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth, sitteth upon many waters. Ezekiel describes Judea and Jordan, by saying to the princes of Israel, Your mother is a lioness, her whelps devour men, she was fruitful by reason of many waters; an evident allusion to the lions that lay in the thickets of Jordan. The thunder which agitates clouds, charged with floods, is called the voice of the Lord upon many waters; and the attachment which no mortifications can annihilate, is a love which many waters cannot quench, neither can the floods drown. How it comes to pass that a mode of speaking, which on every other occasion signifies much, should in the case of baptism, signify little, is a question easy to answer." You will observe, that it is not said that John took his stand at Enon for preaching because it was well watered, and would furnish good accommodations for drink or watering camels; but that he was "baptizing at Enon, because there was much water there; and they. came and were baptized." It was convenience for baptizing which decided his choice; and this choice very clearly indicates the mode of administration. Again, we ask, why it should be said of our blessed Redeemer, "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water," if he had not been into Jordan for immersion? And for what purpose did Philip and the Eunuch "go down both into the water," if it were not that the Evangelist might immerse the convert? We know that it has been said, that the preposition used in this case may be rendered to. But Professor Ripley has shown that "the verb rendered go, or go down, when followed by the preposition used in this passage, includes almost uniformly in the New Testament the idea of entrance into the place mentioned even when it is rendered to. Let us look at a few examples: "Jesus went down to Capernaum;" is it not clearly implied that he went into Capernaum? "Jacob went down to Egypt;" did not the writer mean he went into Egypt? "The publican went down to his house;" can we avoid the idea of his entering his house? And this mode of speaking still prevails. If I say, I mean to go down to New-York, you understand me as expressing an intention to go into that city. The phrase is they "went down into the water;" but if it had been translated to, with our knowledge of the meaning of the word Barriga, and the use of the prepositions, we should not hesitate to pronounce the act immersion. The bearing which the circumstances of the Ethiopian's baptism has in settling the method of administration is simply this: "In order that Philip might baptize the new convert, they both went down into the water; and why should they go down into the water, if an immersion was not to be performed? It is in the light of a very strong confirmation, that this passage is employed as sustaining the practice of immersion." We only use the account as furnishing circumstantial evidence. The main proof of the Ethiopian's immersion is derived from the fact related of the evangelist— "He baptized him.” III. THE DESIGNS OF THE INSTITUTION. One design of baptism is figuratively to denote our internal cleansing. Hence the command given by Ananias to Saul," Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." There was no way in which Saul could have washed away his sins by baptism, but in an emblem. There is no efficacy in baptismal waters to remove the deep and dismal stains of moral pollution. Such a cleansing can be effected only by bathing in that "fountain" which God has "opened to wash in from sin and all uncleanness." As Cowper says, "There is a fountain filled with blood, "And sinners plunged beneath that flood, |