alist and an English Broad Churchman. It would be out of place now for me to enter into a descriptive detail of the opinions of either.

If I have not proved that immersion was practised for more than thirteen hundred years, except in cases of sickness and urgent necessity, I may well despair of proving anything. He who is not convinced by the testimony adduced in support of this fact would not be "persuaded though one should rise from the dead." What, then, is to be said of those Pedobaptists who assert that "it cannot be proved that immersion was practised before the sixteenth century"? They should study church history, and from it they would learn that until the last few hundred years immersion was the general rule, and aspersion the exception. They would learn that at one period the validity of a copious pouring of water on the entire persons of the sick on their beds, instead of baptism, was seriously called in question, and by some positively denied. They would ascertain that many more infants had been immersed in water than ever had water sprinkled or poured on them. The man who denies this fact knows very little about ecclesiastical history. Immersion, however, so far as infants are concerned, is no better than sprinkling. Neither is commanded in the word of God, and both belong to the large family of human traditions.

SECTION VII.

Pedobaptist objections answered.

These are numerous, and all of them cannot be referred to in a book like this. I will, however, refer to the most prominent objections that have come to my notice. They are the following:

1. It is said that John baptized, not in, but at, Jordan.

Episcopalians and Methodists are precluded from a resort to this objection, for the "Book of Common Prayer" and the "Discipline" both teach that Jesus was baptized "in the Jordan." In all the range of Greek literature the preposition en, used in Matt. iii. 6, and translated "in" means "in." Harrison, who is high authority on "Greek prepositions," refers to it as "the same with the Latin and English 'in'" (p. 243). It is a suggestive fact that our "in" comes to us through the Latin tongue from the Greek en. A child at a very early age learns what "in" means. To make the point before us plain it needs only to be said that John "baptized in the wilderness." Here we have the same "in" representing the Greek en. How would it do to say that John baptized at the wilderness? The Greek is surely a strange language if it has no preposition meaning "in ;" and if en has not this meaning, there is no word in the lan

guage that has. Let any Greek scholar try to express in Greek the idea of being in a place, in a house, or in a river without the use of en. The meaning of en is "in,” as that of eis is "into;" and therefore it follows that John baptized in the Jordan, not at it.

2. John, it is said, baptized "with water."

It is insisted that "with water" implies that the water was applied in baptism. It is enough to say, in answer to this objection, that Baptists never immerse without water. John speaks of baptism in water, in the Holy Spirit, and in fire. King James's translators probably rendered en "with" to make what they thought an emphatic distinction between the baptismal elements. They were wrong. Every scholar knows that the proper rendering is "in water.” The little preposition en here also acts a conspicuous part. It is as proper to say that John baptized with the wilderness and with the Jordan as that he baptized with water. In the first two instances en is translated "in," and why should it be rendered "with" in the last? But, as I have said, Baptists do not immerse without water. If it is affirmed that the clothes were washed with water, does it follow that they were not dipped into it? Surely not.

3. It is urged with great confidence that three thousand persons could not have been immersed on the day of

Pentecost.

It is supposed that there was not sufficient water for the purpose. Indeed! Where now is the "much water" that Dr. Rice found necessary for the "daily ablutions" of the Jews? They certainly performed their "ablutions" at home if they could not be dispensed with when they went to John's baptism. Jerusalem, according to Dr. Edward Robinson, "would appear always to have had a full supply of water for its inhabitants, both in ancient and modern times. In the numerous sieges to which, in all ages, it has been exposed, we nowhere read of any want of water within the city."*

Where people can live, there is sufficient water for purposes of immersion. But why dwell on this point? If Jerusalem had been situated on the Mediterranean Sea, many Pedobaptists would not permit eis to take the three thousand converts into its waters. They are no more willing to admit immersion where there is an abundance of water than where there is a supposed scarcity.

But it is insisted that it was impossible, even if there was water enough, for three thousand to be immersed in one day, and that therefore water must have been sprinkled or poured on them. I answer that it takes about as much time to sprinkle or pour as to immerse. Much the greater portion of time, in modern baptisms,

* Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. i., p. 479.

is occupied in repeating the words of the baptismal ceremony. If it is said that sprinkling or pouring was more expeditiously performed in ancient than in modern times, I have an equal right to say the same thing of immersion. If the apostles alone baptized on the day of Pentecost (which, however, cannot be proved), they could have immersed the three thousand. If Pedobaptists deny this, let them account for the historical fact that Austin, the monk sent by Pope Gregory the Great into England in the year 597,

consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he caused ten thousand of his converts to be baptized in one day." They were immersed.

4. It is thought to militate against immersion that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out.

If so, it militates equally against sprinkling. If pouring is baptism, why is not the Spirit sometimes said to be baptized? He is said to be poured out. There is as much difference between the pouring out of the Spirit and baptism in the Spirit as there is between the pouring of water into a baptistery and the immersion of a person in that water. Those baptized "with the Holy Spirit"—or, rather, "in the Holy Spirit"-are placed under the influence of the Spirit, just as a person baptized in water is put under the influence of the water. It is the prerogative of Christ to baptize in the Holy Spirit. If, as Pedobap