and Master. There is reafon to fuppofe, that this rite was uniformly obferved by all profeffors of christianity, in the age immediately fucceeding the apostles, and therefore had the fanction of both apoftolic inftructions and practice. It is believed that the early history of the church does not point to a time when it was confidered as a novelty, or when the propriety and neceffity of the ordinance were called in queftion.

The nature and defign of this fervice have been variously explained, and without doubt grofsly miftaken and perverted in subsequent periods. In our times, not only the mode and fubjects, but even the obligation and ufe of the ordinance, have become matters of difpute with fome, who name the name of Christ. There are those who contend against forms with a precife formality; and there are others who seem to think pofitive duties of no value, because moral duties are fuperior; and fome have probably been led to difparage rites altogether, from difguft at the abuses attending them.

Different fects in modern times have maintained that baptifm with water was not commanded by Christ; and that though it was administered by the apoftles and first ministers of the church, yet they did not confider it as a gospel ordinance, but as a ceremony to be ufed or neglected according to their discretion. Hence they have inferred, that if baptifm be lawful, yet it is not required. One fect profefs to account it a Jewish carnal ordinance, which is abolished. Another talk of there being but one christian baptifm, that of the Holy Ghoft and of fire, at the fame time admitting that if any wifh for water baptifm, either by fprinkling or im

nerfion, for themfelves or their infants, they may e gratified. In the following difcourfe we thi ttempt to fhow that baptifm with water is a landg ordinance of the gofpel. All unbaptized perfons hould be baptized in teftimony of their faith, enagements, and privileges as chriftians. The quef ion of the right of children to this rite, and of the node of administering it, is not now to be confidered. The text has refpect to a fentiment of thofe who decry the rite in queftion, viz. that baptifm by the Spirit is all which is meant by baptifm in the New Teftament. From this paffage it appears, that though the defcent of the fpirit, or fpiritual bap-tifm had preceded, yet the apoftle Peter alleges this as a reafon for baptizing with water afterwards.

1. The first clafs of argument in fupport of the univerfal and perpetual obligation of this practice is derived from Chrift's commiffion to his apoftles. "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 whatfoever I have commanded you.. And lo! I am with you always even unto the end of the world."

Here we fay is the inftitution of water baptifm*. by Jefus Chrift; a general account of its meaning and defign; and a ftrong intimation of its perpet-ual obligation. Here our Lord exprefsly appoints that water fhall in a folemn manner be applied to believers. The apostles are not only to teach or difciple, but to baptize; and to baptize in the paf

Matthew, xxviii. 19, 20,