| of baptism does not seem to be determined by scripture;
but the subjects are if it is in place of circumcision. And this
seems to be strongly corroborated if not proved by the instances of baptism
of households, as in the case of the jailer, of Lydia, & of Stephanos.
And the proceedings of the council of bishops A.D. 253, soon after the age
of the apostles, assembled to decide the question, whether infants might
be baptized before they were 8 days old? being unanimously determined in
the affirmative, goes to prove both the practice of infant baptism, &
that it was considered, at that early stage of the christian era, in place
of circumcision. If then John's baptism was not christian baptism, &
that ordinance was not instituted until after our Saviour's resurrection,
we have but one instance on scripture record that favors the mode of immersion,
viz. the case of Philip & the Eunuch (Acts 38.) But this is not stated
to have been done at a river, but only at accessible water in the way as
they traveled. [Permit me here to illustrate the improbability of immersion
in the above case by the following incident. My neighbor, Esq. H. &
myself were once riding horseback from Augusta to Hallowell, when our horses
stopped at the Glennady brook to drink. Whereupon I asked my fellow traveler,
what evidence we had from scripture, that the water where Philip baptized
the Eunuch was any deeper than this sahllow brook? He replied, it was so
deep that they went down into it & came up out of it. So, said I, have
our horses gone down into this water, & with come out of it, when they
have done drinking. But, rejoined he, it was so deep that he baptized him,
& that was immersion. But viz., s.d
I, in conclusion, this is the very point to be proved,- are you not begging
the question?] |
|
|
