tists insist, pouring is baptism because the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, what follows? Why, that as the Spirit is said to be "given," to "testify," to "fill,” and to speak," therefore giving, testifying, filling, speaking, are all baptism! This, surely, will not be claimed,

5. Saul of Tarsus, it is affirmed, was baptized standing up.

The argument assumes that when it is said (Acts ix. 18) that Saul "arose and was baptized," the meaning is he "stood up and was baptized." In the Greek the participle anastas is used, and it comes from a verb found in the New Testament more than a hundred times, rendered in a few places "stood up," and in a hundred places "rise," "arise," or "raise." Wherever "stood up" is found, "arose" would be just as good a translation. Let it be admitted, however, that the word is properly rendered "stand up" in certain passages; still, it is undeniable that it is used in other passages to denote the beginning of a process by which a thing is done. Two examples will be sufficient. It is said (Luke i. 39), "And Mary arose [anastasa, szme word with a feminine termination] in those days, and went into the hill-country," etc. Did Mary stand up and go? Does not anastasa here indicate the beginning of the movement by which she reached "the hillcountry"? In Luke xv. 18 the prodigal son says,

"I will arise [anastas] and go to my father;" and in verse 20 it is said "And he arose [anastas] and came to his father." Did he stand up and go to his father? Was not the anastas the commencement of the returning movement? He arose and returned to his father. Now, Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Is it not reasonable, then, to believe that when he says (Acts ix. 18) that Saul "arose [anastas] and was baptized," he means by anastas the beginning of a process necessary to his baptism? He evidently arose that he might be immersed; but no rising up, no anastas, was necessary if water was to be poured or sprinkled on him. His immersion implied the movement indicated by anastas, while pouring or sprinkling could imply no such movement. In verse 39 of the same chapter it is said, "And Peter arose [anastas] and went with them "—that is, to Joppa. He did not stand still and go, but he arose as the first thing to be done in getting to Joppa-just as Saul arose as the first thing to be done in getting to a suitable place for immersion. But I shall let Saul, who afterward became Paul, settle this matter himself. In Rom. vi. 4, including himself with those to whom he wrote, he says: "We are [were] buried with him by baptism." If Saul was buried by baptism, he was immersed. There is no

burial in pouring or sprinkling.

6. It is argued that the question (Acts x. 47), "Can

any man forbid water that these should not be baptized ?” intimates that water was to be brought.

This objection to immersion is specially destitute of force. The question only means, Can any one forbid the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as the Jews? Baptist ministers, in receiving candidates for baptism, often say to the church, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" Does this imply that the water is to be brought in a "bowl" or a "pitcher"? Evidently not.

7. It is supposed that the jailer (Acts xvi. 30-34) could not have been immersed in prison.

Baptists do not say that he was immersed in prison. The jailer brought out Paul and Silas from the prison before he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Then they "spoke to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." It seems, then, that they were in his house (verse 32). In verse 34 it is said, "And when he had brought them into his house," etc. Verse 33 contains an account of the baptism. They left the house when the baptism took place, and they went back into the house when the baptism was over. Did they leave the house that the jailer and his family might have water poured or sprinkled on them? Was it necessary? Certainly not, but it was necessary to the administration of apostolic baptism.

8. Pedobaptists urge that the baptism of the Israelites unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea is irreconcilable with the idea of immersion.

In being baptized into or unto Christ we publicly assume him as our leader. The Israelites in being baptized unto Moses publicly assumed him as their leader. The resemblance of their passage through the sea, with the cloud above them, to Christian immersion no doubt suggested to Paul the language he employed. There was no literal baptism, and there was no pouring or sprinkling. How often is Ps. lxxvii. 17 referred to to prove that the Israelites had water poured on them! Unfortunately for this view of the matter, it is said, "The clouds poured out water." It was a cloud that Paul refers to the miraculous cloud, the symbol of the Divine Presence. This cloud had no more water in it than that on which the Saviour rode triumphantly to heaven. It will be observed that the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. In literal baptism the water constitutes the envelopment. The person is baptized in water only. In the case of the Israelites it required the sea (which was as a wall on each side) and the cloud (which was above) to complete the envelopment. Who does not see that the word "baptize" is used in connection with the passage of the Israelites through the sea because it means to immerse"? If it could be con

ceived that the miraculous cloud poured forth water, and that the pouring constituted the baptism, what had the sea to do in the baptismal operation? Absolutely nothing; but Paul says that "our fathers were .. baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. x. 2).

9. It is contended that the phrase "divers washings" in Heb. ix. 10 (in the original, “baptisms") indicates more baptisms than one.

It is a significant fact that Dr. Macknight, a Presbyterian translator, renders the phrase " divers immersions." The Mosaic law required unclean persons to "bathe themselves in water;" it required unclean vessels to be "put into water;" and it said, "All that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water" (Num. xxxi. 23). It surely will be conceded that these regulations involved "divers immersions." There were "divers" occasions for immersing, and "divers" objects were immersed. Moreover, in the same chapter of Hebrews the verb rantizo (“to sprinkle") is used three times. If by "divers washings" the inspired writer included sprinklings, why did he use a different word when, as everybody knows, he intended to convey the idea of sprinkling? Is there a man under the sun who can tell?

10. Immersion, it is affirmed, is indecent and dangerous.