TO persuade the Ephesians to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Apostle urges this, among other arguments, that they had received one Baptism. If this one Baptism was designed to be a bond of peace and unity among christians, how unhappy it is, that it should become an occasion of division and separation? Some will say, 'It is not one baptism, but different baptisms that cause divisions.' It is true, baptism is administered in different modes, and to different subjects; but still, I hope, it will appear to be one baptism; and if so, then this difference is no just reason for disunion.

You are sensible, my brethren, that I have not been wont to bring controversies into the pulpit. I have purposely avoided the controversy concerning baptism in years past, and should have done so still, had it not been lately revived among you-It is not any prejudice against our brethren, who differ from us, but a regard to your present circumstances, and to the desire of many among you, that now induces me to enter upon it; and I hope to handle it in such a manner, as, at least, not to offend, if I should not convince. I shall not call in question the validity of the baptism of our brethren: I only aim to vindicate our own. And surely when we are charged with having essentially changed a divine institution-when we are represented as being in an unbaptized state-when we are treated as unfit for christian communion, we have a right tổ plead in our defence.

There is a late pamphlet which many of you have read, written by way of Letters to Bishop Hoadly, the author of which labours to disprove the validity both of sprinkling, and of infant baptism, and treats them both

with great contempt. I shall pay particular attention to this piece, and take notice of every thing that is material in it.

The questions before us are wo; whether sprinkling is a scriptural mode; and whether infunts are proper subjects of baptism? These questions have no necessary connexion with each other. But as the validity of our baptism is denied on account of the mode in which it was administered, as well as of the age at which we received it, I shall distinctly consider both questions; and shall begin with the former.

PART I.

WE will first inquire, What is the true scriptural mode of Baptism?

There are two ways, in which this ordinance is administered; one is immersion, or plunging the whole body into water: The other is affusion, which is pouring or sprinkling water upon the body. We do not deny the validity of immersion; we only deny the necessity of it: But our brethren (at

least many of them) deny the validity of affusion, and represent it as no baptism, to whomsoever administered. It is therefore of some importance that we inquire, whether there be not such evidence, that affusion is a scriptural mode, as may justify our use of it, and satisfy those who have received baptism in this manner.

I shall first examine the import of the Greek word used for baptism-then consider the uses of baptism and the allusions of scripture to these uses-next inquire, what was the apostolic practice—and lastly take some notice of the usage of the church after the apostolic age.

I. We will examine the import of the word baptizo, which is the usual, if not the only word by which the writers of the New Testament express the Christian ordinance of baptism.

It is agreed, that the word baptizo, signifies to Wash by the application of water: But then, how the water is to be applied, whether by plunging the subject into water, or by pouring or sprinkling water upon the subject, is the question. This will best be

determined by considering, how the word is used upon common occasions.

The author of the Letters to Bishop Hoadly tells us, That the writers of the New Testament borrowed their phrases from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint.' He refers us to this for the sense of the words, which they have used for baptism. He allows that' baptizo is the offspring of bapto;' and consequently may be taken in the same sense. Zealous as he is for immersion, he is constrained to acknowledge, that bapto is never used in the Septuagint for the rite of washing a person's. whole body:' But on the contrary, is sometimes used for wetting the body by sprinkling; as in Dan. iv. 33, and v. 21, where Nebuchadnezzar's body is said to be wet with the dew of heaven. Now he says, We all know, that a person is wet with dew, not by immersion into it, but by its distillation in gentle drops; we are sprinkled with it.' And if bapto is never used for plunging the whole body, but sometimes for sprinkling it, probably baptizo, its offspring,' is generally used in the same sense.

Ac