of them above ankle deep. That John is said to have bap tized in Jordan, and the persons baptized are said to have gone down into, and to have come up out of the water, is no certain proof that they were immersed; for it is no where said that they went under the water. Even admitting that they went into the water, they might have done this for the purpose of pouring or sprinkling. The climate was warm, and persons either went barefoot, or wore only sandals or a kind of soles tied under their feet; and it was natural, and refreshing, to step into the water, when they were at a river side, even if they were to be baptized by pouring or sprinkling. But there is no certain evidence that they went into the water at all, or even wet the soles of their feet. For it is well known to those acquainted with the Greek language, in which the New Testament was originally written, that the word en translated in, as in the text, "And were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan;” Mark i. 5, may be and often is rendered, nigh, near, at and by; that the word eis, translated into, as in the passage, "They went down into the water;" Acts viii. 38, signifies also to or unto; and that the words apo and ek translated out of, as in the passage, "When they were come up out of the water;" Acts viii. 39, might with equal propriety have been translated from. So that these expressions on which so much stress is often laid-such as Baptized in the river of Jordan; they went down into the water, and when they were come up out of the water," may signify according to the frequent use of the words, baptized at, near, or by Jordan; they went down to the water, and they came up from the water. From these

66

remarks the conclusion is confidently drawn, that there is nothing in the account which we have of John's mode of baptism, that proves immersion to be the only proper mode. Review the reasoning. John's baptism was not christian baptism. If it were, and it were certain he baptized by immersion, it would only prove the ordinance is rightly administered in this way; but not at all that every other way is wrong. But it cannot be proved that he certainly administered it in this way. Even admitting it to le true, as our English translation renders the original, that they went down into the water, this does not prove that the baptized went under the water. But further there is no certain evidence that they even stepped

into the water or wet their feet, as the original words will bear translating, they went down to, and came up from the water.

66

The same remarks which were made on John's baptism show that nothing can be proved as to the mode from the baptism of the eunuch by Philip. On this instance, I would only remark, that if it proves any thing in favour of immersion, it proves too much. For there is as much evidence from the history that Philip went under the water, as that the eunuch did. The history is as follows, “ 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;" Acts viii. 38, 39. We have now examined the strongest examples in favour of immersion, and have seen that they contain no certain evidence that immersion was practised at all, and much less that it is the only proper mode.

Let us now attend to some other instances, where we have at least presumptive evidence against immersion. There were three thousand baptized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. We do not hear that they were immersed, or that they were by a stream or pool of water. Peter baptized Cornelius and those that were collected in his house; and we have every reason to believe that they were baptized in the house; for we do not hear that they went out; and it is not at all probable, that there were conveniences in the house for immersing them. Paul also baptized the jailer and his household; and it is certainly, very improbable, that he, a prisoner, went out of the precincts of the prison, in the night, to seek a place suitable for immersion; and it is equally improbable, that there was a place suitable for it in the prison. In all these instances, the presumption is certainly against immersion. And it is worthy of remark that in all the instances of baptism recorded in Scripture, there is not a single instance mentioned of the baptizer, and persons to be baptized, leaving the place where they were worshiping, and going to some other to seek water to be baptized. But in every instance as soon as they were ready to receive baptism, we find them immediately baptized, in the place in which they then were, whether it was by a river side, on the road, in the city, in a house, or in a prison; and in no instance is the particular mode mentioned. Can it

be possible then that a particular mode is essential to the validity of the ordinance? Most assuredly if it is, we might have expected that mode to have been particularly pointed out.

3. That immersion is not essential to the ordinance of baptism, but that it is rightly administered, by pouring, sprinkling, or washing, may be further proved from the Scripture allusions to this ordinance. We are said to be buried with Christ by baptism. The passage is found, Rom. vi. 3, 4; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” There is a similar passage, Col. ii. 12. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." Much stress has been laid upon these passages to prove that immersion is the only proper mode. But if there be an allusion to the mode at all in these passages, which is certainly doubtful, they only prove that immersion is a proper mode, and not that it is the only mode. But there is no certain evidence that the Apostle alludes at all to the mode. It is evident he is speaking of the spiritual meaning of baptism. It signified our union to Christ, and conformity to him, in his death, burial, and resurrection. By baptism we profess that as he died, so we have become dead to sin; as he was buried, so sin in our souls should be buried; and as he rose from the dead, so should we rise unto newness of life. In the same connexion, we are said by baptism to be planted together in the likeness of his death, to have our old man crucified with him, and to be circumcised in him. If in the word buried, therefore, there is an allusion to the mode of baptism, there is equal reason to suppose an allusion in the words planted, crucified, and circumcised, which is not plead for. If we suppose the mode to be alluded to in these passages, we must carry the allusion through, and to be consistent, and correct, must have something in the mode to express planting, crucifixion, and circumcision, as well as burial.

Let us now attend to the allusions in Scripture which favour our mode of administering the ordinance. The things signified by baptism, as has been observed, are the blood of Christ by which we are justified, and his Spirit by which we are renewed and sanctified. These are frequently represented by sprinkling, and pouring. Thus

we know that under the Old Testament dispensation, the blood of Christ, which was to take away sin was constantly represented by the sprinkling of the blood of the numerous sacrifices which were offered. I need not point you to particular passages. The books of Moses abound with them. In the epistle to the Hebrews the blood of Christ is called "the blood of sprinkling ;" Heb. xii. 24. And Peter also speaks "of the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ;" 1Pet. i. 2. As therefore baptism represents the blood of Christ, spiritually sprinkled on our hearts, for the pardon of sin, it is very properly and expressively performed by sprinkling. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of Christ and gospel times, seemed to predict the ordinance of baptism by sprinkling. "As many (said he) were astonished at thee; (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men ;) so shall he sprinkle many nations ;" Is. lii. 14, 15. Ezekiel also seemed to predict the same, when speaking of gospel times he said, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean;" Ezek. xxxvi.

25.

The influences of the Holy Spirit, which is the other thing signified by baptism, are also frequently represented by sprinkling and pouring. The Spirit is said to "come down like rain upon the mown grass; as showers that water the earth;" Ps. lxxii. 6. And in the epistle to the Hebrews we read, "Let us draw near with a true heart, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience;" Heb.

x. 22.

The Scriptures frequently speak of baptism with the Holy Ghost: and baptism with water is evidently a sign of baptism with the Holy Ghost. Just before his ascension, our Saviour promised to his apostles, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence;" Acts i. 5. This promise was fulfiled on the day of Pentecost. Now how were they baptized with the Holy Ghost on that day? We learn from the 2d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which gives an account of that baptizing, where, in one place the Spirit is said to be poured out, and in another shed down. And in the 10th chapter of the Acts, where we have an account of Peter's preaching in the house of Cornelius, it is recorded, "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them

which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; Acts x. 44, 45. From all

these texts, it is evident that the things signified by baptism, are very frequently expressed by sprinkling, and pouring; and indeed they are far more frequently expressed by these terms than by any which signify immersion; and hence we conclude that the sign is properly performed by sprinkling or pouring.

And I would observe further, that these are by far the most expedient modes, as they are adapted to all ages, to all situations, to all circumstances, to all countries, and to all seasons, which the mode of immersion is not.

And further I would ask the question, if none but those who have been immersed are truly baptized, is it at all probable, that God would bless, as he does, those, who on this principle neglect the ordinance of baptism, which is so frequently enjoined? There can be no question, but the Lord blesses with the things signified by baptism, many of those societies, which only sprinkle or pour, as much at least, as he does those which immerse. They have the testimony of God in the saving blessings which he bestows that he approves of their mode. Look at the frequent and extensive revivals of religion, with which our church has been blessed? And would God so greatly bless us, if we are all living in the constant neglect of a very important ordinance, and have no visible connexion with his covenant? Our brethren may disown us, and refuse to hold communion with us, because in their estimation we are unbaptized persons, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise; but the Lord has given the best of testimonies that he owns us as a part of his church, by the Holy Spirit which he hath given us. I ask again brethren, is it possible that the long list of eminent saints who have been greatly useful in the world, in promoting the cause of Christ, and who were admitted to intimate communion with him, were unbaptized persons, and did not belong to his church on earth? Were such men as Owen, and Baxter, and Flavel, and Watts, and Doddridge, and Newton, and Scott, and Edwards, and Dickinson, and Davies, and thousands of others like them, unbaptized persons,