I believe, has been the occafion of much doubt and confufion in the minds of fome, if not the fource of real impofition, in this point, on many christians. But, I hope, your minds may be free from all fuch impofitions, and that you may be able, in the truth, to ftand fast in the liberty wherewith Chrift has made you free.

Let us now, keeping these things in view, confider the words of the institution, as we have them in our text. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, Teaching them to obferve all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Here we have the plain command to baptize, but not any thing pofitive respecting the mode. Does this prove that plunging is the only fcripture baptifm?-Would not one of the baptifts have expreffed it differently, if he defigned to establish dipping the body under water as the only mode of baptifm? Since the baptists affert, that the true meaning of the word baptize, is to dip or plunge under water, this must command some attention; but as it will lead us back to the original language in which the gospel was written, waters too deep for most of you, my dear hearers, I fhall firft lead you where you may fee for yourselves.

1. We affert, that the word baptize does not now generally fignify to plunge or dip any thing under water; nor is it any where confined to this fignification alone, but among the baptifts.-They fay, on the contrary, that we have perverted the word to fupport our own practice. We therefore affert,

2. That the word baptize did not, in our Saviour's time, always fignify plunging or dipping. Luke, xi. 38, "And, when the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled, that he had not first washed before dinner;" or, as it is in the original, that he was not first baptized. We all know that baptizing here does not mean the dipping or plunging of the whole body under water, but only the washing of the hands. But is the word baptize here mifapplied and perverted? Who has done it?

It is also certain, that this word is used by infpiration to fignify divers washing without any reference to the mode, Mark, vii. 4, "And from the market, except they baptize or wash, they eat not.' The word baptifmous, in this and the eighth verse, deferves particular attention. Being in the plural number, it must fignify various modes of washing, of cups, pots, brazen veffels, and of tables. The word is likewise applied to the many kinds of ceremonial washings. Heb. ix. 10. "Only in meats and drinks, and divers baptifms or wafhings." Some of these washings or cleanfings were performed by pouring, others by sprinkling, and fome of them could not be done by dipping or plunging.

There are many other places in the fcriptures where the word is used to fignify any kind of washing or cleanfing, even where there is no dipping. Some of our brethren, the Baptifts, may, perhaps, ftill infift, that according to the beft lexicographers and most approved masters of the original language, this word fignifies dipping or plunging only.

It may therefore be neceffary for their fakes, to pay some farther attention to this matter; though if all the Lexicons in the world fhould confirm their appropriate meaning of the word, it ought to

have no weight with you contrary to the known ufe of it by divine infpiration-However, for your better fatisfaction, I have examined a number of lexicographers, and find, that all of them allow the word baptizo, to fignify any kind of washing, or cleanfing with water. This matter I believe, will be clear beyond all doubt, to any one who will take the trouble to examine Hefychius, Budeus, Scapula, Stephanus, and .Dr. Leigh's Critica Sacra. They are all acknowledged to be great masters in the Greek language, and they allow the word to fignify washing in general.

In their Lexicons and Commentaries, they fay, baptizo lavo, which fignifies, beyond all difpute, washing in general-baptifma lavatio, ablutio, washing, ablution, which we all know may be done, and is often well done, without plunging the body all under the water. It is of no force to fay, that the word alfo fignifies to wash by dipping, or plunging; because it then allows of other modes of baptizing befides dipping.

This is granting all we contend for in the text, that our bleffed Saviour did not command and fix any particular mode of wafhing with water in the facred inftitution of baptifm, and that he does not require dipping or plunging, any more than sprinkling or pouring, but only baptifm.

*

Some fay, that the word baptizo is derived from bapto, which all allow to fignify dipping or plunging only, as the dyers do when they mean to tinge, or form a bright colour; and, therefore, it must have been the defign of our Saviour to fix the mode of baptifm by that word.-But this is nothing

*Even the word bapto does not always fignify to dip or plunge. It is used in Dan. iv. 33, where it fignifies to wet or sprinkle.

to the purpose. If our Saviour designed to establifh the mode by the word, why did he not in the institution of baptifm, make use of bapto inftead of baptizo, which would at once have carried the allufion more strongly, and forever fixed the mode of baptifm to plunging only, as the Baptifts would have it? It is more than probable that the word baptizo was used by our Saviour, and not bapto; because it carried the beautiful allusion of the other, but left his church at liberty to use the various modes of administering the holy ordinance according to the different climes and feafons-according to the different circumftances and neceffities-and according to the various infirmities of his dear people.

It was his maxim, "I will have mercy and not facrifice."-But not to weary you with thefe remarks, we shall return to the law and teftimony-I imagine you fee that the mode of dipping as the only true baptifm, is not enjoined by our Saviour in the words of the inftitution, where we fhould most certainly have found it, had it been his defign-let us examine fcripture example refpecting the mode of baptifm. There we have a right to expect some positive proof, that dipping is the only mode, especially fince it is not pofitively and exprefsly enjoined in the words of the inftitution. But if all the examples of baptifm we have record. ed, were most evidently performed by plunging, it would no more than prove that plunging is one' fcriptural mode, or at leaft it would not alone prove, that it is indifpenfably neceffary to baptifm. The baptism of our bleffed Saviour, by John, in Jordan, claims our first attention. Matt. iii. 16, " And.Jefus when he was baptized, went ftraightway out of

F

the water."-This may be true hiftory, though he were not baptized by plunging. His coming up out of the water may have no refpect at all to the mode of baptifm; for it was manifeftly after he was baptized. Here we might most surely have expected it to have been established, were any one of the modes of baptizing to be the only true baptifm. But we are still left without any thing certain to determine, whether our blessed Saviour himfelf was baptized by fprinkling, pouring, plunging, or fome other way.-Mark alfo fays, "Jefus was baptized of John, in Jordan ;" but refpecting the mode, he is wholly filent.-He might have been baptized by either mode, especially as there was water enough for dipping.-The fact that Jefus came up out of the water after he was baptized, cannot with any certainty prove, that he had been plunged all under the water upon that folemn oc

canon.

The next example is John's baptizing at Enon, John, iii. 23, “And John was alfo baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized." This does not even prove that John baptized by plunging, much lefs that dipping is the only mode of baptifm. Where there were fuch multitudes of people as reforted to John, much water must have been neceffary for their use, had he baptized by pouring or fprinkling.

John, notwithstanding all that appears to the contrary from the facred hiftory, might have used all the modes on different fubjects, according to their fex, age, and circumstance. On the day of Pentecoft, when there were three thousand added to the church in one day, is it not very improbable