completeness of the purification demand an act affecting the whole body. If there is something in baptism that anticipates and resembles the resurrection of the dead, still it must be immersion. Sprinkling and

pouring are as unlike a resurrection as they are unlike a burial.

Let baptism be considered a representation of the facts illustrated in the design of the ordinance, and it will appear not only an impressive symbol, but a combination of symbols as beautiful as they are solemn. If another form of expression is preferred, it may be said that kindred elements come together and constitute the symbol. In immersion alone is there a recognition of these elements, and therefore immersion alone is the symbol. No act but immersion in water, followed by emersion out of water, meets the demands of the symbol. Any other act vitiates the symbolic import of baptism.

SECTION V.

The places selected for the administration of baptism and the circumstances attending its administration, as referred to in the New Testament, supply an additional argument in proof of the position of Baptists.

John baptized in Jordan. That the Jordan is a suitable stream for purposes of immersion is manifest from the testimony of one of the most distinguished of modern travellers and scholars, Dr. Edward Robinson.

Speaking of the Jordan, he says, "We estimated the breadth of the stream to be from eighty to one hundred feet. The guides supposed it to be now ten or twelve feet deep. I bathed in the river without going out into the deep channel."*

Even Dr. Lightfoot, who was quite conspicuous in his opposition to immersion in the Westminster Assembly, uses the following language: "That the baptism of John was by plunging the body seems to appear from those things which are related of him—namely, that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there; and that Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water; to which that seems to be parallel (Acts viii. 38), 'Philip and the eunuch went down into the water.""†

I am aware that Pedobaptists—many of them, at least argue that John's was not Christian baptism, that he did not live under the Christian Dispensation,

etc.

Dissenting most earnestly from these views, I waive a consideration of them as foreign to my present purpose. It is sufficient for me to say that even if it could be shown that John's was not Christian baptism it would avail Pedobaptists nothing. John performed an act called baptism, and various circumstances, as well as the meaning of the word, indicate that that act

Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii., p. 256.

+ Quoted in Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary, vol. v., p. 325.

was immersion.

Pedobaptists attempt to invalidate the force of those circumstances by denying that John administered Christian baptism. But they admit that the apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, administered Christian baptism. Very well. The same term used to designate the act performed by John is used to denote the act performed by them. It must therefore be the same act. Surely, no one will say that the word "baptize" means one thing in its connection with John's ministry and a different thing in connection with the ministry of the apostles. Hence I repeat that if it could be shown that John's was not Christian baptism it would amount to nothing.

There is another Pedobaptist view which requires notice. It is that Christ was baptized to initiate him into the priestly office. A few questions will place this matter in its proper light: Was not Christ "made a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron"? How could he be a priest according to the law of Moses, when he was of the "tribe of Judah"? Was not the priestly office confined to the tribe of Levi, and to the family of Aaron in that tribe? Did not the law say, "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death"? All that Pedobaptists say about the baptismal initiation of Christ into the priestly office is at war with the Scriptures. Why this attempt to show that the Sa

viour was made a priest by his baptism? The object seems to be to evade the moral power of his example;

་

for no man who will lay aside his prejudices can deny that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan. But if the people can be made to believe that the baptism of Christ had reference to his priestly consecration, they will feel comparatively exempt from obligation to follow his example, as they are not baptized that they may become priests. Jesus, in his baptism as well as in other respects, has "left us an example that we should follow his steps."

answer.

Returning from this apparent digression, I may say again that the Jordan was unquestionably a suitable stream for purposes of immersion; that John baptized in it; and that Jesus, when baptized, "went up straightway out of the water." John also baptized "in Enon near to Salim” (John iii. 23). Why? Let Dr. Miller He says: "Independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped from day to day to witness the preaching and the baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large encampment of men, women, and children, etc.... As a poor man who lived in the wilderness, whose raiment was of the meanest kind,

and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded, it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He therefore seems to have made use of the neighboring stream of water for this purpose, descending its banks and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful to answer the symbolic purpose intended by the application of water in baptism." *

What to call this extract I do not know. It seems to be a mixture of assertion, supposition, and fiction. Where did Dr. Miller learn that "plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary" for the purposes which he specifies? What he says about "a large encampment" must have been a day-dream, as also his reference to "beasts" and "transportation." The evangelists say nothing of the "encampment" and make no allusion to the "beasts." Poverty is an inconvenience, but not a crime; and I therefore take no offence at the reference to the indigence of the first Baptist preacher. It may, however, be questioned whether John was not able to own "appropriate vessels" for purposes of "pouring or sprinkling." But, admitting his extreme poverty when he went to the Jordan to baptize, he then became so popular that an intimation from him that he needed "appropriate *Miller On Baptism: Four Discourses, pp. 92, 93.