fre? But he ordered the priests to do that, not once only, but he says, do it the second time, and they did it the second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this man who did not then baptize, but asssigned that work to others, would himself baptize, when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear here upon the earth.'

Whoever will turn to the first book of Kings, XVIII. 33, will learn that Elijah, after having put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, ordered four barrels to be filled with water, and the water to be poured on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. This he ordered to be twice repeated. This pouring of water, this renowned scholar and divine, of the primitive ages of christianity, called baptizing. His views, therefore, of the term baptize, must have widely differed from these entertained by our brethren. And doubtless his views coincided with those generally entertained in his day.

Many Baptist writers, as it is believed, have been guilty of no small degree of unfairness, in the manner in which they have quoted the opinions of deceased critics and expositors. They have not given a fair view of their real sentiments on this subject. While they have, perhaps, exhibited the truth, they have not exhibited the whole truth. They have suppressed, in a great measure, if not intirely, what these critics & expositors have advanced, unfavorable to their own sentiments. The inquiring, unsuspecting reader is, by this means, led to form erroneous conclusions, even to believe that a great number of persons, highly distinguished for piety and learning, taught what they did not teach, viz. that the word baptizo means exclusively to dip, to plunge or immerse, whereas these very wri

ters only expressed this as being one of its meanings. Pursuing the same.course, an advocate for sprinkling might present his reader with the same authority in support of his views.

Were a Socinian to present his readers with those sentences in the writings of Trinitarians, in which the humanity of Christ only is asserted, as proof that these writers held that Christ was only a man; he would, in the view of every one, be guilty of manifest dishonesty. A course of conduct little less deserving of censure, are those pursuing who present their readers or hearers with insulated remarks, or sentences from the writings of divines, eminent for piety and learning, who baptized in no other mode than affusion or sprinkling themselves, as proof that they held to the exclusive validity of immersion. A good cause needs not a bad defence, neither will it shrink from beholding the whole truth.

Omitting the critical remarks of Zelenus, Beza, Wickliff, Hammond, Whitaker, Lightfoot, Mastricht, and others, who supposed that the word before us means to sprinkle and to pour, as well as to dip.* Ι will close with some extracts from the writings of two gentlemen, Mr. John Horsey, and the late Doctor. Hopkins..

Says the former Baptism is an equivocal, open, general term-Nothing is determined by it further than this, that water should be applied to the subject, in some form or other. The mode of use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the sup

*The reader is referred to Dr. Reed's apology for infant baptism, letter X. where he will find an interesting view of the more judicious and learned criticisms en this controverted term,

per of our Lord, the time of day, the number and pos ture of communicants, the quality & quantity of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential, by any party of christians. Sprinkling, pouring and plunging, are perfectly equivalent and equally valid."

The latter observes, "that the mode of baptism, and the form and manner of applying and using water, does not appear to be decidedly fixed in scripture: That when the scriptures are carefully examined, it will not appear that plunging was instituted by Christ, or practiced by the apostles; or that the original word, translated baptism, or to baptize, invariably signifies plunging the whole body under water. This, says he, has been particularly proved over and over again, by writers upon the subject. Therefore, their opinion & practice, appear most agreeable to scripture, who think that no particular form of applying water in baptism is there prescribed, either by precept or example, or by any thing said on this point."

"And they seem to be rigid, beyond any scripture warrant, and, in a degree superstitious, who insist that all shall be baptized by plunging, and reject all those to whom water has not been applied in this particular mode, as not baptized. This is doubtless making that essential to this ordinance which the scriptures have not made so, and rejecting those from christian communion, and the privileges of the visible church, whom Christ receives. If they who have adopted this mode of baptism, by plunging, did not make it a term of communion, and exclude all as not baptized, who have not had water applied to them in this particular way, and not visible christians, the dispute and contention would be at an end; and they who think and practice differently, might hold communion with each other, and be

members of the same churches; though baptized in different modes." System Divinity vol. II, p. p. 261-2.

But I do not adduce these opinions, respectable and deserving of attention as they really are, as decisive in the present case. My own opinion rests not on this ground. Neither would I have the opinion of my hearers.

Let us now appeal to the scriptures, to the law and to the testimony, & see in what sense the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, hath used the word there. If on examination, it be found that it exclusively signifies to dip, or immerse, as here used, then let us adopt that meaning and practice accordingly,

Though the word frequently occurs in the original of the new testament, it has not once been translated either to dip, or plunge, or immerse. It is not a little singular that the translators, if they in any degree adopted the sentiments of our brethren, had not in some one instance given their rendering to the word. In all the instances, in which it is used in reference to the sa crament of baptism, they have translated it baptize.-In other instances they have translated it by the tern. wash. It being the custom of the Pharisees and of al the Jews who held the tradition of the elders, not to eat without first washing their hands, they were at a certain time offended at the disciples of Christ for omitting this practice,

And when they came from the market, saith the inspired pennman, except they wash, Gr. baptize-they eat not.

It is a well known and authenticated fact, that the Jews washed their hands by pouring water on them→ that they washed at a vessel rather than in it.

Elisha poured water on the hands of Elijah. 2 Kings 3, 11. Such an application of water to the hands only, is here termed by the spirit of inspiration, baptizing.

And many other things, adds the inspired pennman, they have received to hold, as the washing, Gr. baptisms, of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables. Mark 7, 4.

Will any one maintain that these articles were baptized, or washed by a total immersion in water? None can suppose it.

The apostle, Heb. 9, 10, speaking of the Jewish service, represents it as standing, in diverse washings, Gr. diverse baptisms.

How were these diverse washings, or baptisms administered? I answer by pouring or sprinkling, as is evident from the ceremonial law generally.

Those which appertained to persons, were administered by sprinkling. See Num. 8, 7. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, take the Levites from the chitdren of Israel and cleanse or baptize them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse or baptize them— Sprinkle water of purifying upon them.

From these and similar passages abounding in scripture, it cannot but be inferred that the word under consideration has been frequently employed by the inspired writers to denote partial washings, and washings too performed by sprinkling or pouring,

This fact being admitted, as it certainly must be, by all candid perusers of the sacred oracles, the interpretation which our brethren put upon the word, falls to the ground. The spirit of truth hath contradicted it.While there is not a single passage of scripture, in which it can certainly be determined, that the word baptizo is used to denote dipping, or immersing, there arc several in which it is certainly used to express' pouring or sprinkling.

It is very evident from many passages of scripture, that a body may be said to be baptized, or washed, when water has only been applied to a single part of it.