he has that faith, which he professes, he hopes for remission of sins through the death of Jesus, who rose again; and he trusts in Jesus, and in him, who by his mighty power raised Jesus from the dead, for spiritual and eternal life. By faith he receives the remission of his sins; and by faith he is spiritually quickened with Christ, and spiritually rises with him. Further, his baptism is to him a sign of the remission of his sins, which are never to rise to his condemnation, and a sign, that he shall be quickened, that he shall receive grace to "walk in newness of life," and shall obtain a resurrection to a glorious immortality. Moreover, as burial is a solemn manifestation of death; when the believer, who reckons himself to be "dead," "to sin," "to the law," and "to the world," "but alive,” "to God through Jesus Christ," makes a solemn manifestation of these sentiments, by receiving baptism, he may be said figuratively to be buried with Christ, and to rise with him.

That baptism, even when it is represented, as having respect to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is to be considered as a washing, appears from I. Peter iii. 21. In this verse the apostle teaches, that baptism saves

us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." In the same verse he teaches, that we are not saved by the mere "putting away of the filth of the flesh," that is, by mere baptism; which evidently implies, that baptism, considered in itself, is a washing. Burial, in a literal sense, is not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the body itself. It is true, (according to what was said in a former discourse,) that baptism is emblematical of "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh"; but of this it may be emblematical, considered simply, as a washing, in whatever mode it is administered.

If, as I have been endeavouring to show, the Baptists have neither command, nor example, for baptizing by total immersion, nor fair inference in favour of it; it follows, that those of them, who deliver pathetic discourses upon the self-denial of going into the water-of following Christ into the watery grave, “speak a vision of their own hearts and not out of the mouth of the Lord."*

4. Several instances of baptism are mentioned in the New Testament, in which it is improbable that immersion was the mode.

On the day of Pentecost, at the third hour of the day, or about nine o'clock in the morn

* Jer. xxii. 16.

ing, the apostles were speaking with different tongues; about three thousand persons were added to the number of the disciples, and, as is generally understood, were baptized the same day.* Now when we consider, that the place where the assembly was held, in the city of Jerusalem, was not convenient for immersion; that some of the converts had come from a great distance, and all had come without any design of being baptized; and that we have no account of their making preparation at the time for immersion; we think it very probable, that they were baptized in a more simple mode.

It is remarkable, that what was said on that day of Pentecost, the day, when the Christian church was first established, favours infant baptism; and that what was done, favours a mode of baptism different from immersion.

Concerning the baptism of the eunuch, we have no evidence, that the water was sufficient for immersion. If the water was sufficient, we have no evidence, that Philip and the eunuch went into it, that they even stepped into the edge of it. Had we evidence, that they went into the water, we could not hence infer, that the eunuch was immersed. It is not probable, that he changed his clothes, nor that he was im

Acts ii. 41.

mersed, and in his wet clothes pursued his journey. It is probable that he was baptized by sprinkling, or affusion.

Paul was baptized, probably, not by immersion; according to the account in Acts ix. 18, 19. and xxii. 16. He was in the house of one Judas, when Ananias came to him. "He"

arose, and was baptized. And, when he had received meat, he was strengthened." He had been three days blind, and without eating or drinking. It does not appear that he left the house, nor room; it was proper that he should " arise."

Concerning the baptism of Cornelius and his friends, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" This manner of expression naturally leads us to think, that they did not leave the house to go to the water, but that water was brought into the house.

It does not look likely, that the jailor and his family, at Philippi, went abroad at dead of night to be immersed. Philippi was under the Roman government. The jailor was charged to keep Paul and Silas safely. "At midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises" to "God," in the

*Acts x. 47.

prison. Suddenly there was a great earthquake," the prison doors were opened, the bands of all the prisoners were loosed, the jailor was alarmed. "He called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and thou shalt be saved, and thine house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he, and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house."*

The words, "Anagagon te autous," rendered, "And, when he had brought them," seem literally to signify, either, And having brought then up, or, And having brought them again. The word anagagon, seems to imply, either, that the place, where the jailor set meat before Paul and Silas, was higher, than that, in which he and his household were baptized; or that, when he "took” Paul and Silas, he took them out of the house. But, if we consider the latter idea, as implied, we are to remember, that he took them, to wash their stripes.

*Acts xvi. 21-34.