Christ, together with their infant offspring. All these points were elucidated and proved, from the doctrines and declarations of the word of God, from the analogy of faith, from the practice of the church of God in all ages, and from the testimony of all the ancient fathers of the christian church who have noticed the subject. Without farther recapitulation of what has been already advanced, I now proceed to the other three heads of my subject.

III. Let us then consider, in the third place, what is the mode of the administration of baptism.

I think it may confidently be affirmed, that the mode in which this rite was administered nowhere appears in the word of God—whether by immersion, by affusion or pouring, or by sprinkling: whether one of these modes was used exclusively, or two of them were practised, or all of them were used indifferently, is not stated. I would therefore neither dispute with, nor condemn any professors of christianity for using either of these modes in preference to the other two. That the scripture fixes on no mode is most evident. The church of England gives the preference to immersion, but admits of pouring or sprinkling, though it does not appear that the former was ever generally practised in the English church, at least, not since the time of the reformation. If any adult, however, before unbaptized, should, from conscientious scruples, wish to have the ordinance administered to him by immersion, or any parents should desire to have their children baptized by this mode, the minister, on the principle of conformity to

the rubric, would be undoubtedly bound to comply with their request. Since, therefore, scripture has not defined the mode, and no facts are recorded which prove that any one was made use of in preference to another, and much less that it was used exclusively, the inference is, that the mode of baptism is free and variable; and that the proper subject of the ordinance would be rightly baptized, whether the sacrament might be administered by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.

But in order to remove that undue importance, which is by some attributed to the mode of immersion, arguments might be brought forward to shew, that immersion was not generally used in the primitive times of christianity, if indeed it were used at all. These arguments may be classed under three particulars first, on the meaning of the word baptize; secondly, on the probabilities arising from those accounts in the word of God, where baptism is spoken of; and, thirdly, from the general language of scripture on the subject.

:

1. Let us consider if there be any evidence that immersion was the mode of baptism, from the meaning of the word baptize.

The advocates for dipping argue, that the word baptize, signifies exclusively to immerse. But, in fact, this is not the case. The word neither signifies to immerse, nor to pour, nor to sprinkle, exclusively, though it may be used to express either of these actions. The word "wash" answers more strictly than any other to the import of the term

ON BAPTISM:

baptize," if the latter be stripped of all the religious ideas and spiritual adjuncts connected with it. Hence we read that when the Pharisees saw some of the disciples of Jesus "eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash they eat not; and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” The Jews considered it a part of their religion to wash their hands before dinner, and for this reason they blamed Christ's disciples for eating with unwashen hands, and inquired of Jesus, "Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" The word here used, is the common expression for washing hands; but in a similar passage in St. Luke, it is said,

they marvelled that he had not first baptized before dinner." Hence it is clear, that the mere washing of the hands was called baptism ;-not a baptism of the hands, for that might imply immersion, but generally baptism. It is therefore evident that a very partial application of water to a small part of the body was denominated baptism; and if this conclusion be correct, it cannot be pretended that baptism necessarily signifies immersion. That may be performed in different ways, the expression of the apostle, in Hebrews ix. 10, "divers washings;" in the Greek,

baptism denotes an action which

divers baptisms, fully proves. That baptism, as a christian ordinance, was performed in different modes, I think appears from the exhortation of the apostle to the Hebrews-" Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." That the apostle here speaks of the doctrine of christian baptism, and not of Jewish baptisms or purifications, appears from his classing it with five other first principles or elements of the doctrine of Christ. But why does he use the term in the plural number instead of the singular? Strictly speaking, there is but one baptism-the rite of initiation into the christian church, accompanied with its spiritual blessings, or supposed to be so accompanied. In this sense, the same apostle says, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." But why does he here say, "doctrine of baptisms?" Probably he refers to the different subjects of baptism, and to the various modes by which the ordinance was administered. As to the subjects, it is clear that all persons admitted into the visible church, were baptized, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, adults or infants. As to the mode, we believe it to have been variable, because the scripture fixes on none, and seems to refer to several. There is no passage in the New Testament where the word "baptize" is made use of, that confines this mode of

purifying to immersion; nay, there is no passage from which it may be fairly adduced, and much less positively proved, that immersion was used in any particular instance. I would not affirm that in some cases, where the word occurs, immersion was not used. In profane authors, "baptize" generally, though by no means universally, signifies to immerse, and the term may sometimes have that signification in scripture; but it does not exclusively bear that sense, either in the Old or the New Testament. The meaning is there much more general, and signifies to "wash" in any manner. To sup pose, then, that baptism is limited to immersion, is to beg the question in dispute, and to disregard those circumstances which oblige us, in many cases, to give the word a different signification. I conclude this part of my subject with a general remark. The word "baptizo," which signifies, to dip in water, to bedew with water, to sprinkle with water, and still more generally, to wash or purify with water, without any exact distinction, seems to have been adopted into the style of scripture in a peculiar sense, namely, to signify the use of water in a religious ordinance. If, then, we were to use any other word instead of baptize; such as plunge, or dip, or bedew, or sprinkle, or pour, or wash, none of these terms would in every case answer to that of baptize; and in many cases the change would make the sacred text of the word of God appear puerile, absurd, or ridiculous. It is therefore evident that the word

'baptizo" must be retained in all languages into