us, that these disciples, after they heard Paul explain the nature and design of John's baptism, were then baptized again, and that in the name of the Lord Jesus; after which Paul laid his hand upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Hence we finally conclude that John's baptism was not christian baptism. And not to know any thing more than John's baptism, at this period of the church, is by no means honorable to our understanding. At the commencement of the Christian dispensation, it was no surprising thing to find some eminent persons, knowing only the baptism of John. Thus it was with the eloquent Apollos, until the way of God was expounded to him more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla. And now if the Baptists will content themselves with John's baptism,' we will leave them to enjoy all the comforts resulting from it, whilst we choose to accept of nothing short of christian baptism."

OF THE MODE OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.

We affirm that it was not by immersion, for the following reasons.

First, It was designed to prepare the people to meet the Lord, and we do not find that immersion was ever practiced for that purpose. When the Lord was about to destroy the first born in Egypt,

a Acts xviii, 25, 26. b Luke vii, 29. e Matth. xxviii, 19.

his people were prepared to escape the fury of the destroying angel by sprinkling blood, or "striking it upon the two side-posts, and on the upper doorposts of their houses." And when the Lord came down in the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai, they were no doubt "sanctified," that is, set apart for that great event in the same manner, namely, by sprinkling, as manifestly appears from what Paul says concerning the mode of sanctifying the people. "For, when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book and all the people."

Second, In all their ceremonial purifications, or washings, no instance can be found, where any person was immersed. Sprinkling was the uniform mode. In certain cases, some did bathe themselves, yet there is no evidence, that even these plunged themselves entirely under water; for, bathing may be, and is frequently, performed without an immersion. But the ceremonial cleansings performed by the Priests were uniformly by sprinkling. And these ceremonies were called baptisms, under the New-Testament dispensation. There arose a question between some of John's disciples and the

a Exod. xii, 7, 22. b Exod. xix, 10, 11.

e Heb. ix, 19. d Exod. xxiv, 6-Lev. xiv, 7, J)—xvi, t4, 15, 19-Num. xix, 13, 18, 21-Heb. ix, 19, 22.

Jews about purifying. And not being able to settle the question among themselves, they went to John, that he might settle it for them, or remove their doubts, if they had any. And when they came to him, they questioned him concerning baptism, from which it evidently appears that they took baptism and purification for the same thing. And hence it is also plainly manifest that the purifications, or ceremonial cleansings under the Old Testament dispensation, were called baptism under the New. For, what information or satisfaction could they have obtained from John concerning purifying, when they questioned him concerning baptism; if baptism and purifying were not the same thing? Their object, in going to John, was to obtain more particular information concerning purifying; and a strange method they adopted, to obtain this information, when they asked him concerning baptism; if purifying and baptism were not precisely the same thing. Wherefore we necessarily conclude that they were the same.

Now, we have seen, that these purifications, or baptisms, were performed by sprinkling. And no good reason can be assigned why John should introduce a new mode of purifying, to which the Jews were unaccustomed. Nor is it probable that they would have submitted to such an innovation upon their customs. Besides, the vessels in which water

a John iii, 25, 26.

was kept for these baptisms, render the idea of immersion altogether improbable. They were not large enough for immersion." And hence we conclude that it was not practiced.

Third, It was impossible for John to immerse all who came unto him for baptism. Josephus* states that there were three millions at the feast in Jerusalem, shortly after our Saviour's ascension, namely, at the time when that city was destroyed by the Roman army, about thirty-seven or thirty-eight years after the ascension. Now, at the most extravagant allowance, the increase of the Jews from the days of John until this feast, could not have amounted to one million, considering the number that were slain at several times by the Romans. Yet if we make this deduction, contrary to probability, and make no allowance for the many who, in all probability, were not at that feast, there will remain two millions of Jews for the days of John's ministry. Now, from the expressions of Matthew and Mark," it appears that all these were baptised. Luke expressly asserts that "ALL the people were baptised," previous to our Saviour's induction into the priestly office. And as there was none to administer that ordinance at that time but John, so "all the people" must have been baptized by him.

Jewish Wars, Book 2, chap. 14, sec. 3. Also Book 6, chap. 9, sec. 3. W. Wiston's translation.

a John ii. 6. Matt. iii. 5, 6—Mark i. 5. c Luke iii. 21.

It is true, we are informed that the disciples of our Saviour made and baptized more disciples than John." We must not understand from this, however, that they had baptized more than John had, during his whole ministry; but during the same space of time in which they were both engaged in this work, it is very evident, that John had baptized so many as to warrant the expression "all the people," which a minority could by no means warrant. Therefore, a very great majority of the people must have been baptized by him. And this is also evident from the express design of his mission, which was, to prepare the people for the coming of the Lord.

I shall, however, make a deduction contrary to the above express declaration-contrary to probability, and contrary to the express design of John's mission, and allow that he baptized less than onethird of these two millions, say six hundred thousand. And then if we allow that he was, during his whole ministry, baptizing six days in every week, and ten hours in each day, and thirty persons in each hour, we would allow, not only what was not a fact, but what was impossible. For, it is not a fact, that he was engaged so much of his time in baptizing the people, nor was it possible for him to baptize so many at that rate; human strength would be unequal to the task. It would be a miracle, and John

a John iv. 1, 2