fully come, they were all with one accord, in one place. And fuddenly there was a found from heaven, as of a ruthing, mighty wind, and it filed all the house where they were fitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it fat upon each of them, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghoft.

Here was, truly, a wonderful inftance of Chrift's baptizing with the Holy Ghoft.

Here, 1. All the houfe was filled with the found, wind or Spirit from heaven. 2. Cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it fat upon each of them." 3. They were all filled with the Holy Ghoft,

We here fee that they were all overwhelmed, for all the house, where they were fitting, was filled, and not only were they all overwhelmed, but they were also filled.

It is left with you to determine, what becomes of Mr. C's argument, upon which he lays fo much frefs, and of which he speaks with fo much confidence, and not unfrequently with an air of triumph. Is there a word about sprinkling in any part of it? or is there any thing which looks like it? Does it not look confiderably like immerfion, or overwhelming At least, does it not favour immerfion, or overwhelming, as much as it does sprink ling? If fo, then it proves nothing for fprinkling. It is left with you to determine which fide it favours.

It is poffible, however, that fome of you may fuppofe, that Mr C. might intend that baptifm, if it may be fo called, which the Holy Ghost minifters, when it creates the foul anew. To this fuppofition, I will juft obferve, "The wind bloweth (faith Chrift) where it lifteth, and thou heareft the found thereof, but canft not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth; fo is every one that is born of the Spirit." Would it not be extreme folly to fuppofe

that

that water baptifm reprefents the operations of the Spirit, when none can know whence it cometh, or whither it gocth? It may represent the effect of the Spirit's operations, and it is called, a being born, not sprinkled, of the Spirit.

5. In reading Mr. C's defence of sprinkling, as being authentic baptism, I noticed but one more distinct argument, and it is this:

“Niptō, baptizō, louō, brechō, plună, or apoplunō, all signify to wash." The conclufion which he draws from this is, in fhort, the following: To baptize is not to immerfe, but to fprinkle. I fee no connection between his premife and conclufion. Besides, Mr. C. tells us, page 86, that the Jews, by adhering to the tradition of the elders, obferved the washing of hands, and divers other things, as a religious ceremony. Now, if all the words, which Mr. C. mentions, fignify to wash, and yet some of them fignify common washing, and another, and that baptizō, fignifies ceremonial washing, and that be to put into water, as is the cafe, what does his argument prove? It proves juft nothing to his point. Had he proved, what he hath not even attempted, that they all fignify the fame kind of washing, and that the washing fignified was not immerfion, but sprinkling only, then his conclufion would have followed, that fprinkling is baptism.

If the above arguments will not fupport Mr. Cleaveland's theory, it must all come down, for they are the fubftance, if not all the arguments, which he hath adduced, and I prefume better cannot be found.

I thought to have taken Dr. Lathrop's arguments upon the fame fubject, into confideration; but upon reexamining them I find there is no material diffimilarity between his and Mr. C's; they therefore both ftand or

fall

fall together. A word or two however may be here ad ded.

Dr. Lathrop affures us that Cyprian, who wrote within about one hundred and fifty years of the apostles, fpeaking of fprinkling, fays, " In the facrament of falvation (that is baptifm) when neceffity compels, the shortest ways of tranfacting divine matters do, by God's grace, confer the whole benefit." The Doctor adds, The an

cients practifed immerfion."*

By this quotation of the Doctor's from Cyprian, and confeffion of his own, being put together, it appears, at once, that all his preceding arguments are erroneous. For Cyprian does not intimate that sprinkling was from heaven, but fays it was from neceffity. Befides, his calling baptifm the facrament of falvation, shows us the error, whence the neceffity of fprinkling came, namely, a belief that the ordinance of baptifm was neceffary to fal vation. This being the cafe, and it also being true, the Doctor acknowledges, that the ancients practifed immerfion, fave when neceffity compelled, as they erroneoufly fuppofed, the confequence is fairly this, that immerfion is from heaven, the ancients being judges; and that sprinkling is from men, from neceffity, or rather from

error.

as

I thought to have added no more upon the Doctor's mode of Chriftian baptifm. However, one argument ought to to be taken out of his hands, left it mifguide fome of his readers. He tells us that baptizō, in Mark vii. and Luke xi. is ufed to fignify the application of water to the hands. The only answer needed is, It is not thus faid, in Mark, or Luke, or in any other part of the

* Pages 24, 25.

Bible.

Bible. When the Doctor fhall re-examine the paffages, he will probably, fee the mistake.

Wilf gentlemen, and Christians too, forever contend against immerfion, the inftitution of heaven, and for fprink. ling, which hath nothing but error and convenience for its fupport!

F 2

THE MODE AND SUBJECTS

OF

BAPTISM.

SERMON V.

MATTHEW XXVIII. 19, 20.

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 bave commanded you: And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I

HAVE confidence in you, brethren, that ye will keep the ordinances, as I fhall deliver them to you, and prove them to be from the word of the Lord.

One thing I would ftill know of you, my brethren, whether you, like the more noble Bereans, will receive the word with readiness, searching the feriptures, daily, you may know the truth of what you hear.

that You will bear in mind, that whofoever loveth father or mother, house or lands, wife or children, more than Chrift, is not worthy of him. If, through affection for any of thefe, you should refufe to obey Chrift, it will be too evident that you love them more than you do him, and so are not worthy of him.

Should