In conclusion, It appears from the well defined meaning of the original word, from the places selected for the administration of the rite; from the designs of the institution; from the figurative uses of the word, and from Ecclesiastical History, that immersion is not "the mere form of a ceremony;" "the mere shadow of a shade;" or even the mode of baptism. It is baptism itself; and nothing else can deserve the name. Different modes of baptism can be only different modes of immersion.

Let all then examine the subject in the light of truth, and abide by the unerring decisions of the Bible. It is worthy of remark that in no country where papacy (which keeps the Bible from the common people) has not prevailed, has immersion been abandoned. When we take into consideration that the Greek, the Armenian, the Georgian and Nestorian churches, and all the Oriental churches which have never acknowledged the papal power, have throughout their whole history practised in this way; and when we farther reflect on the number of the Baptists, now scattered through the Christian world, we are sure that a great portion, if not half the professed followers of Christ, do at this very hour adhere to immersion. The change of the rite from the original design can be defended by no authority save that which justifies extreme unction and all the other fooleries of popery-the privilege of the church to change positive institutions, and to ordain such rites as she chooses. Even Calvin, the protestant reformer, who admitted that immersion is justified by the meaning of the original word and the practice of the primitive disciples, gave for the substitution of sprinkling the following reason: "The church did grant liberty to herself since

the beginning to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance." But the Lord complained of the people in the time of Isaiah (xxiv. 5.) "They have chan ged the ordinance." Let us be careful how we incur his displeasure by a similar course.

And let those who keep this ordinance as it was "once delivered to the saints," be careful to shew that inward purity of which it is an emblem, by external holiness of conduct. Let us indeed walk in newness of life-" presenting every day and every hour a lovely practical demonstration of the import and utility of baptism."

Let us be animated by the hope of a better resurrection, symbolically represented by our immersion. In a word, let us shew that baptism is the broad line of demarkation between the world dead in sin, and the church alive to God; let us by a holy and amiable ex ample, so exemplify the practical influence of christian immersion, as to render it safe and pleasant for our fellow men to tread in "the footsteps of the flock."

Not in baptism only, but in every other duty, may we imitate our blessed and perfect pattern; that of us it may be said, when we stand before the throne: "These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth."

SERMON IV.

RESTRICTED COMMUNION.

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you."-1. Cor. xi. 2.

We have now come to the consideration of that sentiment of the Baptist denomination, against which the most strenuous objections have been urged. Some affect to be very favorably impressed with many of our sentiments, and profess a willingness to embrace them even, were it not that we restrict the privilege of communicating with us at the Lord's table to those who have been baptized according to one of those opinions. "We believe," say these liberal minded friends, "that you are correct in the fundamental principles of Christian theology; we think you are correct in admitting none to baptism but believers in Christ; we allow that you have "the best of the argument" in administering by immersion only; we can but regard your church order and discipline as more agreeable to the apostolic pattern than any other; in a word,

"We entertain a high respect,
"For many of your little sect,

"And with them feel a Christian union,

"But can't endure your close communion."

Now when we hear persons express themselves in this manner, we are ready to ask, why do you not go with the Baptists as far as you can consistently with your views of propriety? If you believe that infants are to be debarred the rite, why not abstain from giving it to them? If you believe that immersion is scriptural baptism, why do you not practise that? So far as such a course should be adopted, it would destroy the obnoxious close communion; if all were to adopt it, the restriction of which you so loudly complain would of consequence cease.

I can see no consistency in the conduct of him who professes to regard immersion as the only scriptural baptism, and yet refuses to be immersed, merely because the denomination of Christians that practise immersion exclusively refuse to communicate at the table of the Lord with those who have not been immersed.

If I considered it my duty, all things considered, to join an Episcopal, Methodist, or Presbyterian church, I would nevertheless be immersed. I should come to this determination for the following reason: Here are three applications of water called baptism—sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. The validity of sprinkling, by a part of the Christian community, is doubted'; the validity of pouring is doubted; the validity of immersion has never been doubted. Now I would decidedly prefer a mode concerning which there could be no question, irrespective of communion. I would make sure of a baptism that all admit to be scriptural, and then one point at least, would be forever settled, without the possibility of a change.

We cannot consistently admit to the Lord's Supper those who have not been immersed, because, in common with other denominations, we believe that

BAPTISM IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO COMMUNION AT THE TABLE OF CHRIST.

I proceed to give the reasons which induce us to adopt this sentiment.

I. THE ORDER OF TIME IN WHICH THE TWO ORDINANCES WERE ESTABLISHED, GIVES TO BAPTISM A PRIORITY OF CLAIM ON OUR OBEDIENCE.

"That baptism was an ordinance of God, that submission to it was required, and that it was administered to multitudes before the sacred supper was heard of or had an existence, are undeniable facts. There never was a time, since the ministry of our Lord's forerunner commenced, in which it was not the duty of repenting and believing sinners to be baptized. The venerable John, the twelve apostles, and the Son of God incarnate, all united in recommending baptism, at a time when it would have been impious to eat bread and drink wine as an ordinance of divine worship. Baptism, therefore, had the priority, in point of institution; which is, to say the least, a presumptive evidence that it has, and ever will have, a prior claim on our obedience."

II. THE TERMS OF THE COMMISSION GIVEN BY JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES, SHEW THAT BAPTISM SHOULD PRECEDE COMMUNION.

Invested with "all power in heaven and in earth,” the King of Zion said to his disciples, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teach