1. Let us attend to the real meaning of the original word which is employed in the New Testament to express this sacramental rite.

The Greek word βαπτιζω, which we translate baptize, from the circumstance of its having been so constantly and so long the subject of earnest discussion; and from its near resemblance to the English word which we employ to render it, (or, we might rather say, its identity with that word) has become so familiar with the public mind, that it may almost be regarded as a naturalized term of our language.

Now, we contend, that this word does not necessarily, nor even commonly, signify to immerse; but also implies to wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with any liquid; and, therefore, accords very well with the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion.

I am aware, indeed, that our Baptist brethren, as before intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legitimate and authorized meaning of this word, is to immerse; and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other manner. I can venture, my friends, to assure you, with the utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incorrect. I can assure you, that the word which we render baptize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can assure you, if the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not only may, but manifestly must signify sprinkling, perfusion, or washing in any way. Without entering into the minute details of Greek criticism in reference to this term, which would be neither suitable to our purpose, nor consistent with our limits; it will suffice to refer to a few of those passages of Scripture which will at once illustrate and confirm the position which I have laid down.

Thus, when the Evangelists tell us that the Scribes and Pharisees invariably "washed (in the original, baptized) their hands before dinner;" when we are told that, when they come in from the market, "except they wash, (in the

९

original, 'except they baptize') they eat not;" when we read of the Pharisees being so scrupulous about the "washing (in the original, the 'baptizing') of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables;" when our Saviour speaks of his disciples being "baptized with the Holy Ghost," in manifest allusion to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; when John the Baptist predicted, that they should be "baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with fire," in reference to the Holy Ghost sitting upon each of them as with "cloven tongues of fire" on the same day: when we find the apostle representing the children of Israel as all baptized by a cloud passing over without touching them; and also as baptized in the Red Sea, when we know that none of them were immersed in passing through, or, at most, only sprinkled by the spray of the watery walls on each side; for we are expressly told that they went through "dry shod:" when Judas, in celebrating the Paschal supper with his Master, in dipping a morsel of bread on a bunch of herbs in the "sop" in the dish, is said, by Christ himself, to "baptize his hand in the dish," (as it is in the original, Matt. xxvi. 23.) which no one can imagine implies the immersion of his whole hand in the gravy of which they were all partaking; I say, when the word "baptize" is used in these and similar senses, it surely cannot mean in any of these cases to immerse or plunge. If a man is said by the inspired Evangelist to be baptized, when his hands only are washed; and if "tables" (or couches, on which they reclined at meals, as appears from the original) are spoken of as "baptized," when the cleansing of water was applied to them in any manner, and when the complete immersion of them in water is out of the question; surely nothing can be plainer than that the Holy Spirit who endited the Scriptures, does not restrict the meaning of this word to the idea of plunging, or total immersion.

Again; the New Testament meaning of this term appears from the manner in which it is applied to the ablutions of the ceremonial economy. The apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, and speaking of the Jewish ritual, says, "It stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings," (in the original, "divers baptisms.") Now we know that by far the greater part of these "divers washings" were accomplished by sprinkling and affusion, and not by immersion. The blood of the Paschal Lamb was directed to be "sprinkled" on the door-posts of the Israelites, as a token of Jehovah's favour, and of protection from death. When they entered into covenant with God at Sinai, their solemn vows were directed to be sealed by a similar sign. After Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, and they had given their consent, and promised to obey; he took the blood of the sacrifice, and water, and "sprinkled" both the book and the people, (Heb. ix. 19.) On the great day of atonement, when the High Priest went into the most Holy Place, he "sprinkled" the blood of the sacrifice on the Mercy Seat, as a token of propitiation and cleansing. When any individual was to be cleansed, and delivered from legal guilt, the blood of the sacrifice was to be " sprinkled" upon him seven times. In like manner at other times, the consecrated oil was to be sprinkled upon him who applied for deliverance from pollution.

Thus the people were to be ceremonially delivered from their uncleanness. When Aaron and his sons were set apart to their office, they were sprinkled with blood, as a sign of purification. When tents or dwelling houses were to be cleansed from pollution, it was done, among other things, by sprinkling them with water. When the vessels, used in domestic economy, were to be ceremonially cleansed, the object was effected in the same manner, by sprinkling them with water. In a few cases, and but a few, the mode of cleansing by plunging into water is prescribed. Now, these are the "divers baptisms" of which the apostle speaks. It is worthy of notice that they are divers, (διαφοροις.) If they had been of one kind-immersion only-this term could not with propriety have been used. But they were of different kinds some sprinkling, others pouring, some scouring and rinsing, (see Leviticus vi. 28.) and some plunging; but all pronounced by the inspired apostle to be baptism.

* See Exodus, xxix. 40; Leviticus, i. 3, 4, 5. 8, 9. 14 and 15 chapters; Numbers, 19th chapter, and Deuteronomy, 12th and 15th chap

ters.

† See Numbers, xix. 17-22.

But, happily, the inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt what those "divers baptisms" were, of which he speaks. He singles out and presents sprinkling as his chosen and only specimen. "For, (says he, in the 13th 19th and 21st verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by divers baptisms,') if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, &c. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry." If the apostle understood his own meaning, then, it is manifest that in speaking of "divers baptisms," he had a principal reference to the application of blood and of water by sprinkling.

In short, it is perfectly manifest, to every one competent to judge in the case, that the Greek words which we translate baptize and baptism, do undoubtedly signify, in a number of cases, in both the Old and New Testaments, the washing with water, or the application of water in any way. To immerse, is, undoubtedly, one of the senses which may be applied to the words. But it is so far from being the universal, the necessary meaning, as our Baptist brethren assert, that it is not even the common meaning. And I am well persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one of the greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, is borne out by truth when he pronounces, "That no one instance can be given in Scripture, in which the word which we render baptize, does necessarily signify either to dip or plunge." In every case the word admits of a different sense; and it is really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always does, and necessarily must signify immersion.*

* See this point set in a clear and strong light by the Rev. Dr. Woods, in his "Lectures on Infant Baptism;" by the Rev. Professor Stuart, in the "Biblical Repository," No. 10; by the Rev. Professor Pond, of Maine, in his "Treatise on Christian Baptism;" in the "Biblical Repertory," Vol. III. p. 475, &c. &c.

In like manner, if we examine the senses manifestly attached to βαπτω and βαπτίζω, by the best Greek classical writers, as shown by the ablest lexicographers and critics, the same result will be established; in other words, it will appear that these words are used, and often used, to express the ideas of cleansing, pouring, washing, wetting, and tinging, or dyeing, as well as immersion: and, of course, that no certain evidence in favour of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, can be derived from this source. Indeed, a late eminent anti-pædobaptist writer, while he strenuously maintains that βαπτιζω, always signifies to immerse, acknowledges that he has "all the lexicographers and commentators against him in that opinion."* How far the confidence which, in the face of this acknowledgment, he expresses, that they are all wrong, and that his interpretation alone is right, is either modest or well-founded, must be left to the impartial reader.

It is evident, then, that our Baptist brethren can gain nothing by an appeal to the original word employed in the New Testament to express this ordinance. It decides nothing. All impartial judges-by which I mean all the most profound and mature Greek scholars, who are neither theologians nor sectarians-agree in pronouncing, that the term in question imports the application of water by sprinkling, pouring, tinging, wetting, or in any other way, as well as by plunging the whole body under it.

2. There is nothing in the thing signified by baptism which renders immersion more necessary or proper than any other mode of applying water in this ordinance.

Our Baptist brethren suppose and insist that there is something in the emblematical meaning of baptism, which renders dipping or plunging the only proper mode of administering the ordinance. And hence nothing is more common, among the brethren of that denomination, than to pour ridicule on all other modes of baptizing, as entirely deficient in meaning and expressiveness. I am persuaded, my friends, that the slightest examination of the subject will convince every impartial inquirer that there is no solid ground for this representation.

* Carson on Baptism, p. 79.

H