It has been shown,

2nd. That the meaning of the word baptizo, is to sprinkle, to pour, to wash, to immerse.

This position has been established by an appeal to the opinion of sixty lexicographers, critics, and Greek classic scholars, as to the definition of the word; and an examination of the use of the word among ancient Greek writers and of its use by the writers of the New Testament. It was shown that these sixty witnesses all define baptizo- to wash to pour-to sprinkle, as well as to immerse; and that this definition is fully and amply sustained by the ancient Greek writers, and by the New Testament writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. The evidence from the New Testament, that best of all Lexicons, is clear, full and decisive. It appears, also, that if our blessed Lord had designed to confine the ordinance to any one mode, he might have specified the mode by the use of the word dupto, to diplouo, to wash-ekcheo, to pour-or rantizo, to sprinkle :

as neither Christ nor the Apostles have used either of these words with reference to the ordinance of baptism, but have uniformly used baptizo, a word which signifies the application of water either by sprinkling, washing, pouring or immersing, the conclusion is clear and decisive, that they designed to leave the church to practice either of these modes, as should seem good to her members. It was further shown that when Christ and the Apostles designate the act of dipping or immersing they use the word bapto, and not baptizo, a plain proof that they did not consider baptizo as designating this act with sufficient definiteness; but rather as more generally signifying other modes of applying `water. It was shown, moreover, that though the word baptizo is used (with its derivatives) eighty times in the New Testament, fifty-seven of which refer to persons; yet the translators of the Bible have never translated it immerse, but when they have translated it, they have used the word wash, or some other word which does not signify a total immersion. These arguments and facts establish the position upon solid rock, that the word baptizo signifies affusion as well as immersion.

It has been shown,

3d. That the circumstances attending those cases of baptism which are recorded in the Bible, furnish no conclusive proof that immersion was practiced in a single instance- but contrariwise,

they do furnish conclusive proof that in most of the recorded cases, affusion must have been the mode, and that in all of them it was probably the mode. Here the baptisms of John-the baptism of our blessed Lord of the three thousand of Cornelius and his family of Paul- of the Eunuch of the Jailer and his family and the multitudes baptized by Christ and the Apostles were examined, and shown to furnish strong, some of them unanswerable proof that affusion was commonly, if not always, the apostolic mode.

It has been shown,

4th. That the allusions in Scripture to this ordinance, and several considerations connected with the design of its present and future universal prevalence furnish striking confirmatory evidence of the foregoing conclusions.

It has been shown,

5th. That immersion never was considered essential to the ordinance previous to the sixteenth century, and that though immersion has been more or less practiced, affusion has also been always practiced in every age since the Apostles' day.

And now, my dear hearers, what say you of these truths? Are the views of this church, and of all Congregational, and all other Pædobaptist churches, correct and scriptural in relation to this ordinance, or not? Who are right; they who tell us there is but one mode of being baptized, and that unless we are immersed, they will shut the door of Christian communion against us? or we, who hold with the Bible, and with the Apostles, and with the Christian church in all ages, that the mode of baptism may be indifferently, either by affusion or immersion; and that upon this broad basis all evangelical Christians who hold the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, should commune together at the table of their common Lord? Who preaches and holds the truth, and who is engaged in vindicating Christian baptism and the cause of God? And who, coming to the touchstone of the unerring word, is weighed in the balances and found wanting? Judge ye. And may you "all be baptized by one Spirit into one body," and so be fitted for that kingdom where is "one fold and one Shepherd."

LECTURE III.

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

QUESTION STATED.-IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH, AND OF THE COVENANT UNDER THE TWO DISPENSATIONS.-CHILDREN UNDER BOTH HAVE A PECULIAR RELATION TO THE CHURCH, AND ARE ENTITLED TO THE RITE ESTABLISHING THIS RELATION.-BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. THE INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE OF CHRIST AND OF THE APOSTLES.- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.

MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19.

In view of the text, I have remarked on a former occasion, that in this commission, Christ instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism — and that the language of this commission suggests two inquiries :

What is the MODE of Christian Baptism?

Who are the SUBJECTS of Christian Baptism?

Having considered the mode - I propose now to consider the subjects of this ordinance. Who are the proper subjects or persons to receive Christian Baptism?

My first object will be to state definitely and fairly, the real question to be discussed. The question is not whether unbaptized adults who give no evidence of faith and repentance are proper subjects of baptism; we agree with the opposers of Infant Baptism, that they are not; and we agree with them in adopting the full force of those texts of Scripture which enjoin upon adults, repentance and faith, before baptism. Neither is it the question whether those unbaptized adults, who give evidence of true piety, are the proper subjects of baptism: we insist they are. Tho only difference between the opposers of Infant Baptism and ourselves, is this: We affirm and insist, THAT CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDER THE CARE OF BELIEVING, COVENANTING PARENTS, ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. THIS

THEY DENY.

This is the precise point of difference; this is the real question in debate: Are the children of visible believers fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? This being the simple question, it follows plainly, that all those texts which have reference only to the baptism of adult believers, furnish no proof, either way, on the question of our present consideration: inasmuch as they have no reference to this question. As the whole controversy about the baptism of children depends materially upon a clear understanding of this point, let me give a short illustration of it. I inquire of an opposer of Infant Baptism; Is the young child of a believer a proper subject of baptism? He answers, No. I ask, Why so? He replies, the Bible says, repent, and be baptized if thou believest thou mayest. I rejoin; your answer is not in point. I inquired, is a child a proper subject of baptism? You reply by telling me that an adult who repents and believes may be baptized. Now, as I asked no question about adult baptism, the answer is nothing to the purpose. Were I to ask; Is a child a creature of the rational kind? it would not be a pertinent, proper reply, to tell me that adults are rational creatures. No answer can be a good and proper answer, unless it have reference to the question proposed. Hence, when I inquire, is a child of a visible believer a proper subject of baptism, and my opponent quotes a dozen texts to show the propriety of adult baptism, his texts do not touch the question, and therefore they furnish no proof either for or against the baptism of children. This illustration will make it obvious to all, that inasmuch as the simple and single question is, Are the children of believers proper subjects of baptism? It is plain that all those texts which speak of the baptism of adult believers, furnish no proof, either way, on the question now before us. With this illustration of the point in question, we affirm, and shall show, that children who are under the care of believing, covenanting parents, are proper subjects of baptism. The Bible proof of this position is full and conclusive.

The arguments upon which I rely are these:

I. The CONSTITUTION and PERPETUITY of the church of God.

II. The INSTRUCTION given by Jesus Christ, united with his TREATMENT of children.

III. The INSTRUCTION given by the Apostles, united with their PRACTICE.

IV. The EARLY HISTORY of the church confirms the foregoing arguments, and therefore furnishes additional proof of our position.

To the consideration of these four arguments I ask your careful and unbiased attention.

The sum of them all may be briefly expressed thus: The COVENANT which God made with Abraham and his seed, expressly included infants, and the seal of that covenant was ap plied to infants by the express command of God. We believing Gentiles, (and all other believers,) are the seed for whom the covenant with Abraham was made: and therefore our infants, as well as his, are entitled to the privileges of the covenant, and subjects of the seal of the covenant, by virtue of the original promise made to Abraham, inasmuch as that promise has never been revoked. This covenant was renewed at the Red Sea; and again in the plains of Moab; and still infants are expressly included. All along under the Jewish dispensation, children are comprehended with their parents, in all covenant transactions between God and his people, and the token of the covenant is constantly applied to the children. The Prophets foretold that it would be so still in gospel days: that "Christ should gather the lambs with his arm,”—that God would "pour his Spirit upon the offspring of his people who should be the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." Christ, when he came, took infants in his arms and blessed them, and directed that they should be brought to him, because of such is his kingdom; into which persons are to be admitted by being born of water. He taught his Apostles to receive infants in his name, and treat them as his disciples, (Matt. 18: 5, 6,) and when he gave them his baptismal commission, he expressed it in terms of such universal import, as must obviously include infants; and the Apostles, knowing what had been the constant usage concerning infants, and how Christ had ever treated them, could not but understand the commission as including the children of believers. Accordingly, when the Apostles, soon after, urged the inquiring and convicted multitude to be baptized, they placed their right to baptism on the ground of that promise or covenant, which belonged equally to them and their children. And when the