Again, if Dr. Summers is right in his assertion, the demons referred to in Matt. viii. 31-33 did not enter "into the swine," and the swine did not run "into the sea," and the keepers of the swine did not go "into the city." In all these places eis is used but once. It seems, also, that the Saviour, in Matt. ix. 17, did not speak of putting wine into bottles, but only to bottles; for eis is used but once. Query: How could the "new wine" break the "old bottles" without being put into them? Once more: It is said in Matt. xxv. 46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Here, also, eis is used but once; and, according to Dr. Summers and many others, the wicked do not go "into everlasting punishment" nor the righteous "into life eternal." But in these passages Pedobaptists very readily admit that eis means "into." They have no objection to this meaning unless baptismal waters are referred to.

This little word eis is a strange word indeed if all said of it is true. It will take a man into a country, into a city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into hell-into any place in the universe except the water. Poor word! Afflicted, it seems, with hydrophobia, it will allow a person to go to the water, but not into it. However, where baptism is not referred to, it may denote entrance into water, as in Mark ix. 22: “And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the

waters to destroy him." Unfortunate boy! that eis, though used but once, thrust him "into the fire and into the waters."

Pedobaptists are very unreasonable in their management of the baptismal controversy. They insist that it is utterly improbable that water could be found in Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost-that there is no mention of a stream of water in connection with the baptism of Saul of Tarsus and the jailer. One would imagine that if there was anything said about "a river," "much water," something would be at once conceded in favor of immersion. But not so. For when Baptists refer to the Jordan or Enon, where there was "much water," or to the water into which Philip and the eunuch went down, Pedobaptists argue that an abundance of water by no means indicates that the act of immersion was performed. We cannot please them at all. They are like the Jewish children in the market-places. If we pipe to them, they will not dance; if we mourn to them, they will not lament. If there is no mention of a "river" in a baptismal narrative of the New Testament, the cry is, "No immersion" and "Scarcity of water." If the river Jordan is named, the same cry of "No immersion" is heard; so that, according to Pedobaptist logic, scarcity of water and abundance of water prove the same thing! How are we to meet in

argument men who draw the same conclusion from premises as far apart as "from the centre thrice to the utmost pole"?

John Calvin felt the force of the argument in favor of immersion derived from the places selected for the administration of baptism. Hence, in his commentary (translated by Rev. William Pringle, Edinburgh, and printed for the Calvin Translation Society), he remarks on John iii. 22, 23: "From these words we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water." On Acts viii. 38 he says: "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now, the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about a small difference of a ceremony that we should therefore divide the church or trouble the same with brawls. . . Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance." So much for the testimony of the great Calvin.

"to

Before proceeding to the historical argument for immersion, I will say that if baptizo means immerse," it does not mean "sprinkle" or "pour." If it means "sprinkle," it does not mean "immerse " pour." If it means "pour," it does not mean "sprinkle" or "immerse." It is at war with the

or

philosophy of language to say that the word can denote three acts so dissimilar. Did not Jesus Christ, in enjoining baptism, give a specific command? If he did not, it is impossible to know what he requires, and the impossibility releases from all obligation to obey the requirement. I say boldly that it is not the duty of any man to be baptized if he cannot know what baptism is. All candid persons must admit that the Saviour gave a specific command when he enjoined baptism on believers. If so, he did not require them to be immersed in water, or that water be sprinkled or poured on them. He did not require any one of three things; for on this supposition the command loses its specific character. The matter, then, comes to this point: Did Christ require believers to be immersed in water, or to have water applied to them by sprinkling or pouring?

Now, if the word "baptize" in the New Testament means "sprinkle" or "pour," as Pedobaptists insist, and if baptism is an "application of water," is it not very remarkable that water is never said to be baptized upon the subjects of the ordinance, and never said to be applied? If "baptize" means " to sprinkle" or "pour," the water is baptized, not the person.

We cannot speak of sprinkling a man without an ellipsis or figure of speech; and no one would expect an ellipsis or figure of speech in the Apostolic Com

mission. Sprinkling implies the separation and scattering of the particles of the substance sprinkled. A man cannot be poured, because pouring implies a continuous stream of the substance poured. I say, again, that if "baptize" in the New Testament means "sprinkle" or "pour," the water is baptized. But nowhere is water found in the objective case after the verb "baptize" in the active voice, and nowhere is it the subject of the verb in the passive voice. We never read, I baptize water upon you," but, "I baptize you." It is never said that water was baptized upon them, but it is said that "they were baptized, both men and women.' The subjects of the ordinance are baptized, the water is not; and therefore "baptize" in the New Testament signifies neither "sprinkle" nor "pour." But substitute "immerse" for it, and how plain and beautiful is every baptismal narrative! I immerse you, not the water. They were immersed-that is, the men and women." The plainness of this view renders a further elucidation of the point needless.

SECTION VI.

History bears testimony to the practice of immersion, except in cases of sickness and urgent necessity, for more than thirteen hundred years.

I avail myself, as I have already done, of PedobapMy first witness is Richard Baxter,

tist witnesses.