wrought no miracles. Yet, to give all the advantage for immersion, that can possibly be asked, I shall allow it. Then, according to this calculation, it would require six years and twenty weeks, for him to baptize his portion, but he was not in his ministry over one fourth part of that time. Hence it is evi dent that immersion was impossible.

Let us now attend to the arguments urged by the Baptists to prove that John immersed his subjects.

First; It is said that John baptized in Jordan.' This expression no more proves that the Jews were immersed into the waters of Jordan, than Paul's expression in I. Cor. x. 2, proves that the Israelites were immersed in the Red Sea, and into the clouds that were above and passed over them. Besides, it is well known to all who have any knowledge of the original, that it might, with equal propriety, be rendered at or by Jordan. And again, when we are by the water, within the banks of any river, we may be said to be in that river. Thus the priests were commanded to stand still in Jordan, when they were come only to the brink of the river. It cannot be proved that John did so much as wet his foot in the water; yet, as he wore sandals, he might easily have just stepped into it without any inconvenience, for the purpose of obtaining it more easily.

Second; It is said that John baptized in Enon,

a John x. 41. 6 Matt. iii. 6. e Joshua iii. 8.

because there was much water. Hence he immersed, say some. To this I reply, that John would no more need to select a place abounding with much water, for immersion, than for sprinkling. Because in a very small stream a place might be made, sufficiently convenient to immerse all that were in his power to immerse. But he had other, and better reasons, than for immersion, for selecting a place abounding with much, that is, many waters, (as it is in the original,) that is, a place abounding with many springs; namely, that the immense multitude which flocked to him for baptism, might be supplied with water, both for themselves and for their beasts, which many who came from a distance rode. And this statement also corresponds with the reports of travellers, who say, that there are no large streams or reservoirs of water in Enon. Thus it was not for baptism that John chose a place of much water, but for the accommodation of the multitude. So that this circumstance does not afford the least shadow of evidence in favor of immersion. The most that can be taken from it, is inference, to which we have an equal right with the Baptists. And the reason assigned why John went to Enon, where were many springs of water, removes the force of the inference.

Third; There is at least one place mentioned, in which John is said to have baptized, where there

a John iii. 23.

does not appear to have been any place for 'immersion; namely, "in the wilderness."

Now, if it be asserted that John immersed in the wilderness, the argument in support of it must stand thus:First, an assertion, "there was a pond or a lake in the wilderness," or a supposition, "I suppose there was a body of water," or, "that he was by the river of Jordan ;" and then an inference or supposition again, that John immersed his subjects for baptism in that water. And thus the system of immersion is established by assertions, suppositions or inferences. If the Baptists have any better arguments to prove that John did actually immerse his subjects in that wilderness, or even in Bethabara, I would be very much pleased to see them.

In support of our position, that John did not immerse, I will add a historical fact concerning the Sabians, who profess to be the disciples and followers of John the Baptist. The celebrated Mr. Wolf, missionary to the Jews, found them in his travels, and gave an account of their creed; which, concerning baptism, is as follows: "They baptize children as well as adults. The children are baptized when they are thirty days old. The bishop or priest takes the child to the banks of the river; a relative or friend holds the child near the surface of the water, while the priest sprinkles the element upon the child, and with prayers they name the child." This

a Mark i. 4. b John i. 28.

account is contained in the New-York Observer, Vol. 3, No. 38, page 150, published September 17, 1825, and was taken from the London Jewish Expositor.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE BAPTISM OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

This must be considered first, negatively-second, positively.

First, negatively, that is, for what he was not baptized.

First, He was NOT baptized unto John's baptism; for,

1. John's baptism was unto repentance." But Christ could not repent; because he had no sin. Consequently he could not be baptized unto repentance, and therefore not unto John's baptism.

2. In John's baptism, the people were required to believe on him who was to come, that is, on Christ. But Christ could not be required to believe on himself; therefore, he could not be baptized unto that baptism.

3. Again, John's baptism was designed to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. But Christ could not be prepared by baptism for his own com

a Matt. iii. 11. b Acts xix. 4. e Isaiah xl. 3.

ing, in the same sense that others were. Hence it is evident that he was not baptized unto John's baptism.

Second Neither was he baptized with christian baptism. For,

1. That was not yet in existence. It was not instituted until just before his ascension into heaven." He could not, therefore, be baptized with christian baptism.

2. Again, christian baptism was for the remission of sin.' But Christ had no sin, consequently he could not be baptized for the remission of sin; and therefore, not with christian baptism.

3. Third. Christian baptism required of adults faith in Christ. But this could not be required of Christ-he could not have faith; for, he knew all things: hence he could not be baptized with christian baptism.

If to this it should be replied, that Christ ought not then to have been circumcised, because circumcision signified regeneration and faith, as well as baptism; and if he could not be baptized with christian baptism, because he had no faith, then neither ought he to have been circumcised, for the same reason. To this I reply, that faith was never required of infants for circumcision, but of the parents whose office it was to have their children circumcised.

a Acts i. 9-Malt. xxviii. 16, 18-Mark xvi. 15, 19. Asts ii. 28. • John xvi. 30.