appear to understand, one mode of administering wa ter baptism, which mode is theirs, viz. immersion.

Now admitting that the Apostle here speaks of baptism by water, how will our brethren prove, that he here asserts that there is but one valid mode of applying water in this baptism, and if we admit this, how will they show that theirs is this mode? Can they do it by resorting to the examples of baptism recorded in scripture? Certainly not. When they determine immersion from either of these, they decide without evidence, they guess, they presume!! Can they do it by resorting to the word baptizo? No. This word in itself determines no mode, and, in its scriptural use and import, favors the one which they disown and despise. Can they do this, by resorting to any allusions to water baptism contained in scripture? No. These allusions determine for certainty no mode. Very remote are they from even favoring immersion. Can they do this by recurring to the testimony of Ecclesiastical Historians? Certainly not. More than one mode of u sing water in Baptism has been practised in every period since the days of the Apostles. Those who most generally practised immersion in some of the first cen→ turies of christianity, did occasionally baptize by affu→ sion or sprinkling. Nor have those who have practised immersion, maintained an exact uniformity in respect to that mode.

"The ancient christians, says Dr. Wall, when they were baptized by immersion, were baptized naked, whether they were men, women or children." It is also a well authenticated fact, that among the first, immermersions of which we have an account, in ecclesiastical history, the subject was immersed three times, once

G.

in the name of each person in the Trinity, and that he was signed with the cross and on coming up out of the water was clad in white robes, and fed with a mixture of honey and milk.

When the Baptists declare that "the whole christian church, for 1300 years successively from the time of the Apostles, understood by baptism, immersion, and so practised," they declare quite too much, and imply vastly more than is true. Were they to say that for 1300 years successively from the time of the Apostles, the mode of applying water in baptism was viewed as circumstantial, and not essential to the validity of the ordinance, they would be vastly nearer the truth. Ecclesiastical history informs us of no church, of no sect, of no minister until the twelfth century, that considered a total immersion or dipping of the body in water as essential to baptism. Antecedently to this period, Baptists with respect to the mode of baptism, i e. persons who maintain that immersion is essential to baptism, and who refuse to commune with those not baptized in this mode, are certainly unknown in history. Baptists know and many of them have been frank enough to concede, that sprinkling, near the days of the Apostles, was frequently practised and allowed to be valid. Cyprian, speaking of sprinkling, says, "Int the sacrament of salvation (i. e. baptism) when necessity compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, do, by God's grace, confer the whole benefit." "Tertullian,

speaking to an impenitent person, asks, who will afford thee one sprinkling of water (asperginem unam cujuslibet aqua) for baptism." We are informed that Laurence the Martyr, a contemporary with Cyprian, baptized a Roman Soldier with a pitcher of water, and also one Lucillus by pouring water on his head. Athanasius, speaking of those who were baptized by Here

tics, says; they who are sprinkled by them are further defiled by a corrupt religion, than redeemed." Besides, the ancients, who generally practised immersion, after dipping the body did usually apply water to the face. These facts, as well as many others that might be adduced, concur in proving that no one mode of using water in baptism, has been exclusively followed, in any one age since the days of the Apostles, and that the primitive christians, intirely unlike our brethren, considered no mode of baptism as essential to the ordi

nance..

If the mode of using water in baptism, be essential to the validity of the ordinance, then no mortal can tell whether he has ever been baptized or not. Our brethren can no more do it than others. To say, as they confidently do, that immersion is the divinely appointed mode of baptism, is saying vastly too much, altogether more than has ever heen proved, and more than ever can be proved, while the bible speaks its present language. Certain it is that no precise mode for the application of water is prescribed in the ori ginal institution of Baptism. This we certainly have reason to believe would have been done, had the mode of applying water constituted the validity of the ordinance, or been essential to it in the view of Christ.On the ground of this omission, we cannot believe what our brethren assert on this article. Says Dr. Reed, "If it had been the intention of Christ and his Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and definitive signification. If it had been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they might have used the word Rantizo; if the mode of pouring, they might have used

the word Ekcheo; if that mode of bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word Louo; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of dipping, they might have used the word Ďupto or Duno."

Some of the Baptists, more expert than others, in discovering allusions to their mode of baptism on the sacred page have suspected that there is something favoring their sentiments in those words of the Apostle. 1 Cor. 15. 29, Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptrzed for the dead.

As the grand design of baptism, as administered by the Baptists, is to represent the burial of Christ, it is absolutely necessary, that this passage may favor their scheme, that the word dead should have exclusive reference to Christ in his state of death. But unhappi

the word is plural; it means dead persons, rather than a dead person. This single circumstance must forever totally unfit this passage, to be incorporated into the Baptist scheme.

We have now adverted to the several points and topics that are concerned in this unpleasant controversy. Let all be warned from what has been said, not to embracc erroneous views on the ordinance of baptism. Views of it may be entertained, and indeed are entertained, subversive of its original design, and highly detrimenal to the cause of religion.

Place not its chief importance in the mode but in the ADORABLE NAMES, in which water is applied. Were the high import of these names properly considered, and the sacredness of that act in which they are pronounced over a person, noticed, less dispute would there be respecting the mode of applying water, in this christian rite.

Particularly let me warn you against those views on this subject, which, put in practice, would exclude from your christian fellowship, all who have received baptism in a different mode from yourselves.

I allude to the sentiment, that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism, and that those not thus baptized, are unbaptized persons, and as a consequence, have not a right to a seat at the TABLE OF OUR LORD.

Such sentiments exist, and, with no small share of zeal, are inculcated in the place and country where we reside. I know not as there is a single person present disposed to embrace these sentiments, but as they exist, I feel it to be my duty on this occasion to warn you against them.

To adopt and to live agreeably to these sentiments, you must adopt and practise what you can never be certain is taught in the word of God. From this word as has already been shown, it never can be proved, that immersion is essential to baptism, or that the Apostles ever practised it, or that they baptized in no other mode. Neither can it be proved from this word; that the reception of baptism in this mode was a term of communion in the Apostolic churches. No, adopting and practising these sentiments, you will have nothing in the Bible, nor in the example of the Apostles to support you.

To adopt these sentiments, and to live agreeably to them, you must all your days act in hostility to the known and confessed example of Christ himself. You must withhold communion trom those with whom you cannot but acknowledge he communes, so that while you may pray for grace ever so fervently to imitate his example, you will be under covenant promises and vows to act contrary to it. And if, to justify yonr