Elsewhere in this paper will be found a request from Mrs. Arch Perry, of Winder, Ga., that we write on the mode of Baptism, and that we write fully?

To write fully on the mode of baptism in one short article is more than we can do. We can only mention a few points.

In the first place we will say that if any person who has not heard of baptism should be given a New Testament, and he should read it through without interruption, and without any person offering comment, he would never decide that baptism was pouring or sprinkling.

The first chapter to which baptism is mentioned in the New Testament is Matthew 3 verse 16, says, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water," If baptism is not by immersion, why was He in the water? Who would gather the idea here that baptism was by pouring or sprinkling? No one.

In Mark 1:4, 5 we have this language: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Why "in the river" if baptism is by pouring or sprinkling? If baptism is by pouring or sprinkling, it was not in the river of Jordan; but the writer says it was in the river.

Verses 9 and 10, same chapter: "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him." It is plainly stated here that Jesus was baptized in Jordan and came up out of the water. This is folly, if baptism is sprinkling or pouring.

In John 2, 23 find this language: "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized." Much water is not needed for sprinkling or pouring. But the reason why John baptized in this place was "because there was much water there." He could not baptize with a little water, as many modern divines suppose, because sprinkling or pouring is not baptism. Could any person, who had never heard about baptism, read this text and gather the idea from it what sprinkling or pouring is baptism? No.

Concerning Philip and the eunuch, we read in Acts 8:26 to 39: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing." It has been said that as the eunuch was traveling in a county where there was no water, he was carrying water in a jug in the chariot with him, and that he referred to this water in the jug when he said, "See, here is water" If so, they did not come to the water; but the Book says "they came unto a certain water." Hence, they did not have the water with them. Again: The book says both Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water." It appears to u that this would be a rather great strain on that jug - for both Philip and the eunuch to go down into the water which was in it! Poor old jug!

We do no violence to the language, nor to God's word, if we take a word out and place the true meaning in its stead. We have, in this text, the sentence, "And he (Philip) baptized him (the eunuch)." If pouring is baptism we do no violence to the language if we put the word poured in the text in place of baptized - hence we would read it, "And he poured him." To pour is "to cause to flow in a continuous stream," etc. See Standard Dictionary. So, we would understand that Philip caused the eunuch to flow in a continuous stream, if baptism is pouring! Poor eunuch! To sprinkle is "to scatter in drops of small particles." So, if sprinkling is baptism, Philip scattered the eunuch in drops or small particles! It seems to us that this would have been rather hard on the eunuch. Poor fellow - are you not sorry for him? We do not see how he could possibly have gone on his way rejoicing after such a performance as this. Do you think you could go on your way rejoicing if you were scattered in small particles?

But we can consistently read the text: "they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him." Or, "and he buried him." This is enough, if there were no other, to prove that sprinkling or pouring is not baptism.

We find this language in Romans 6:3, 4: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized unto His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Here we have the plain statement that these people were buried with Christ by baptism. If they were buried by baptism, then anything short of a burial is no baptism. Albert Barnes, who was by no means a Baptist, in his comments on this text says: "It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion." He also says, "I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers." We would just say that this is the idea which would strike all unprejudiced readers.

If one of your relatives were to die, and your neighbors should take the body to the cemetery and pour or sprinkle a little dirt on the head, and then say, "we have buried your relative," would you think these neighbors were your friends? You know you would not. Then are those people acting the part of friends to the Saviour when they pour or sprinkle a little water on the head of one of His children who has died to sin, and call it baptism, when the apostle, by inspiration from God, says baptism is burial? You are the jury.

The original word, baptizo, is never translated sprinkle or pour. It cannot be so translated. No scholar has ever attempted to translate it that way. It means to immerse.

Much more could be said, but this is enough at present. Sister Perry is at liberty to have this article published in any paper she pleases, as she suggests in her letter C. H. C.