of BAPTISM, or our insisting that this Christian rite can be nothing less than the submersion, dipping, or bathing of the subject in water; while the generality of Christians consider sprinkling or pouring as quite sufficient." To this also we urge in reply, that the whole New Testament account or history of the administration of this ordinance, is uniformly and decidedly on our side, so as clearly to support and justify our sentiments on this disputed point.-The ordinance, we say, was originally performed, or administered in JORDAN, the largest river in the whole country, and at FNON, near Salim, because there was much water there! Our Lord, after John had baptized him in Jordan, went up straightway out of the water. Philip and the Eunuch came to a certain water; and they afterwards went into that water, where the latter was baptized; they then came up out of the said water; all plainly indicating, that the performance then spoken of, or the rite then administered, could be nothing less than immersion. What is said of this ordinance as representing, or resembling a burial and resurrection, is a further confirmation of the truth, or justness of our sentiments on this subject. In sprinkling or pouring there can be no such resemblance or representation; but the case is evidently and strikingly otherwise as to immersion.-Here we also further urge the testimony of the most eminent lexicographers and critics, who make it appear that the Greek words expressive of this ordinance, signify immersion as plainly and necessarily as even our common English words dip,

dipped, dipping, bathe, bathed, bathing, &c. And if any thing were here wanting to constitute a complete demonstration in favour of our practice and way of thinking, we could appeal to the judgment and custom of the Greek Christians, who have always adhered to immersion: a plain and demonstrative proof, that it must be the real and proper signification of the words expressive of Baptism in their language. This ought to settle this controversy, and silence all future objections on this head; for who can be so likely to know the meaning of Greek words as the Greeks themselves; or who so likely to know the true and proper meaning of those Greek words that relate to Baptism, as the Greek Christians, to whose mother tongue, or native language, those same words belong? That they do not, and never did, in their opinion, signify sprinkling or pouring, is certain, for they have never adopted such a practice. On the other hand, that they understand, and have always understood immersion to be naturally and necessarily meant by those words, is equally certain, for such has been their constant practice from generation to generation. This circumstance we ought never to overlook or forget, while combating the present objection, as it will apply effectually and decisively in support of our sentiment and practice, as well as against theirs. It surely must appear, if not providential, yet at least exceedingly remarkable, that the Greek Christians, from age to age, should adhere to this practice of immersion, without ever once attempting to lay aside, or depart from the

same, widely as they have departed from primitive Christianity in a multitude of other matters. How otherwise is it possible to account for this, but by admitting that the Greek words expressive of this ordinance, were so clearly and universally understood among the Greeks to signify immersion, that that practice could not be laid aside there for shame, or without insulting and offering violence to the common sense and common feelings of the people? In as much then as the Greeks, who must have been the best judges in the world, considered immersion as the proper native legitimate meaning of the original or Greek word for Baptism, it must be allowed to be really so; for in the face of such a well-known and undeniable fact, who can avoid admitting it, without appearing blind to the clearest evidence and plainest proof, or a slave to the most unreasonable prejudice?

But the objection which it is designed here chiefly to consider and obviate, is that which militates against the duration or perpetuity of THIS ORDINANCE. The people called Quakers, and many of those who have gone under the name of Socinians, have long objected, that Water Baptism was a mere temporary rite, and ought by no means to be considered as of perpetual obligation, or as a duty incumbent upon any of the inhabitants of Britain or of Christendom; and this notion is said to be now very rapidly gaining ground in this country. Its advocates are ever asserting, that the ordinance doth not extend to the descendants of professing Christians; being neither

uitable to their circumstances, nor intended to bind them. "Such as have only doubts concerning the Divine authority of infant Baptism, or have been accustomed to consider it as unauthorized by the Scriptures, are often more apt to fall into this sentiment than to adopt ours. Our notion is the opinion of a small part of the Christian world; and the minds of some revolt from a practical compliance with it, as a kind of tacit intimation that they themselves, hitherto, have not been Christians. But men

of candour and good sense should divest themselves of such prejudices; they well know, that popularity is no test of truth—that the time was when the Christians were a sect every where spoken against; and that though their profession of Christianity should have been unequivocal, yet if in any respect it hath not been so complete and full as the Gospel requires it to be, it will be no reflection on their wisdom or piety, to make up what has been deficient in the expressions of their reverence to the character and authority of Christ."

In support of the notion which we are now combating, it has been frequently pleaded, that the original words in Matt. xxviii. 20. which our common version renders, " unto the end of the world," ought to be rendered, "to the end of the age." Be it so; what then? Why then, they pretend it will follow, that the end of the age must signify the conclusion of the Jewish dispensation, and therefore that the command to baptize could be in force no longer. But this objection will be sufficiently answered and

refuted by observing, that it equally affects or militates against all the other precepts of Christ, and makes the obligation to observe them to terminate at the same time. For the end of the age applies as much to the "ALL things whatsoever that Christ hath commanded," as it does to BAPTISM:-and so the objection, if it prove any thing, proves that all the precepts of Christ have ceased to be obligatory or binding on Christians at the dissolution of the Mosaic œconomy, or termination of the Jewish dispensation. It must, surely, be very unreasonable and absurd to suppose, that by the end of the age, our Lord there meant the end of that dispensation, when it was, in truth, at an end then, when he spoke the words, and the new or Gospel dispensation was at the very same time commencing. Nothing, therefore, can well be more natural, evident, and certain, than that by the end of the age is there meant the end of the Gospel dispensation, or in other words, the end of the world: so that it will thence naturally follow, that BAPTISM, together with all those other precepts of Christ mentioned along with it in the above passage, do, and will continue to be binding upon Christians till the time of his second advent.

Of the last mentioned passage, as well as that in Mark xvi. 16. others have affirmed that no reference is there had to Water Baptism, but only to that of the Spirit, which they are pleased to call, by way of pre-eminence, the Baptism of Christ. But to this it seems a very sufficient reply, that the Apostles understood the words of those passages as relating