just as obvious that the females partook of it as it is that the males did. They are included in the pronoun "we," and in the adjective" all," as it is evident at first sight.

The proof, then, is explicit, that there were women in that church-that the church collectively was ordered to attend upon the supper; and that they actually did so. Besides, the last clause of the last cited passage, viz. "we are all partakers of that one bread," includes all other Christians, so that the case of that church was not peculiar.

It is said, indeed, verse 28, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;" but this does in no measure restrict the privilege of communion to males; for the word anthropos, (man,) is here, as in many other places, evidently used as a name for the species, and not to distinguish a man from a woman.

In view, therefore, of all this, the warrant for female communion is, properly speaking, explicit, and not based upon inference and analogy.

Let such testimony be brought in the case of infant baptism, and it will suffice.

But in relation to that subject, as we have seen, all is silent. There is not so much as a plain and necessary inference from scriptural premises in support of it.

In regard to the change of the Sabbath, I would remark, that this is a moral duty, in part, at least; and, therefore, the subject will admit of proof by way of inference and analogy. So far, at least, as the institution respects the keeping of a seventh part of time holy, it is of a moral nature; otherwise it would not have been inserted in the moral law, but have been placed in the ceremonial. It being, therefore, a moral precept, the above kind of proof may be brought in relation to the change from the seventh to the first day of the week. There are now the same reasons for observing the latter, which there were anciently for observing the former.

2. The example of the Apostles and primitive Christians, is in favour of this change. The first day of the week was observed by them as a day of religious worship, and breaking of bread. It is, hence, denominated the Lord's day in distinction from other days, which is a plain intimation of the change.Moreover, it was particularly distinguished and honoured by Christ's appearing thereon to his disciples after his resurrection.

There is reason, also, to conclude that the apostle Paul alludes to this change, and to the New Testament Sabbath in Heb. iv. 9: "There remaineth therefore a rest (in the Greek, Sabbatismos, a Sabbath) to the people of God."

THE DIFFERENT MODES OF ADMINISTERING THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM IN USE AMONG THE CHURCHES SHOWN TO BE VALID.

Containing an examination of the Greek word, baptizo.

THE question at issue, is not whether immersion be a valid mode of baptism. This no one disputes. But whether it be the only valid mode, or whether the other modes in use, viz. washing, pouring and sprinkling, are not valid also. My object is to show that these modes are valid, as well as immersion. And to that end, I will commence with an examination of the Greek work, baptizo; the word used in the institution.

This word signifies "to immerse, to wash, or to wet." Therefore, if we keep within the proper scope or meaning of this term, the baptism, if otherwise correct, is valid. In regard to the action of baptizing, the apostles were directed to do what this word imports. If therefore it signify washing in general as well as immersion, then any kind of washing, by a proper officer, in the name of the Trinity, is baptism.

That baptizo signifies to wash, or to wet, as well as to immerse, we have the testimony, in the first place, of the best lexicographers.

It is rendered into Latin, "mergo, lavo," the English of which is, (in the infinitive mood,) to immerse, to wash, or to wet." Washing, then, is one of its significations. The Greeks used it to denote both immersion and washing in general. The import was not confined to immersion, either in classical writings or common conversation.

If, therefore, washing comes within the proper import of this

term, it is a valid mode of baptism, whether the subject be applied to the water, or the water to the subject.

When it is admitted that baptizo means to immerse, many seem to think it is proved that this is the only valid mode of baptizing. There is great account often made of this admission, as though it decided the whole controversy.

But in truth it proves no more than that immersion is a valid mode of baptism, without affecting the validity of other modes. Take this admission, which is made by many learned Pedobaptist authors, apart from what they further say respecting the import of baptizo, and it would, indeed, appear to have great weight; because it would represent them as yielding the ground to the Baptists, and as contradicting their own practice.

But these authors have immediately added, that it signifies also to wash, to wet, or to cleanse. It is unfair, therefore, to quote only a part of their testimony, viz. so far as it contains an admission that this Greek term means to immerse, while they maintain in the same connexion, and with equal plainness and confidence, that it means also to wash, or to apply water in any mode. From a partial quoting of the testimony of these authors, (which I am sorry to say is frequently done,) one would be ready to think the cause of immersion triumphant. Whereas, when it is quoted entire, it yields no support to that cause: i. e. it affords no proof that immersion is the only valid baptism.

These authors admit no more than every one admits who is acquainted with the subject, viz. that one of the meanings of baptizo is to immerse, while he maintains that it signifies also to wash or to cleanse in any mode.

I am willing to allow the Baptists every thing which can be reasonably claimed from the import of this word. And this I have already done. It signifies to immerse, to wash, or to wet.

But this admission does not determine in which of these senses it is used when it pertains to the ordinance of Christian baptism. The word may be oftener used to denote immersion than washing; but this will not prove that it means immersion, exclusively, when applied to this subject. There is nothing in this circumstance which necessarily restricts its import to immersion. It may notwithstanding, when applied to this ordinance, be used in the other sense, and this may be sufficiently indicated by the circumstances of the case. At any rate, it plainly includes the other sense, so as to determine that washing in any mode is baptism as well as immersion.

It is plead in favour of the first rendering of this term, that it is a derivative from bapto, the meaning of which is to dip, to

plunge all over in water; consequently, that this also means to immerse, and that only.

But this conclusion will not follow, allowing the truth of the premises. For the very circumstance that baptizo is a derivative from bapto, shows that its import is less. The full meaning of the root, or primitive word, is not ordinarily retained in the derivative. Allowing, therefore, that bapto means to dip exclusively, we cannot justly infer that baptizo means also to dip and nothing else but the natural inference is, that its common signification is something short of dipping. To wash in any mode, is a meaning which well suits a derivative from bapto. Accordingly, some of the best writers have said that the proper meaning of baptizo is to wash in general, and that it only signifies to immerse, as that is one mode of washing.

The inconclusiveness of this argument is still more evident, from the circumstance that bapto itself does not invariably mean to dip. In Daniel, iv. 33, it plainly signifies to wet, or to sprinkle; for it would not be proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar was dipt in the dew of Heaven; but he was "wet with it," as the passage is rendered, or the dew was distilled upon him.

The common meaning, however, of bapto, is to dip. But it is never applied to the ordinance of baptism. The Saviour has employed a term of more extended, or general import.

That baptizo signifies to wash as well as to immerse, appears, in the second place, from the use of it in the Scriptures, when applied to other purifications than that of baptism. The translators have rendered it in this sense; and a careful examination of the several passages will show that they have rendered it correctly.

The first is Mark, vii. 4: " And when they come from the market, except they wash, (in the Greek, 'ean me baptisontai,' i. e. except they baptize,) they eat not: and many other things there be which they have received to hold as the washing (in the Greek, baptismous,' baptisms) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." The translation in both cases is manifestly correct, except in the latter, the word, "baptismous," should have been rendered in the plural, washings. In the first clause, reference appears to be had to the custom of washing hands, or at most to the washing of the more exposed parts of the body. And in the latter, to the different methods of washing or cleansing the articles described. The word being plural, denotes different methods of applying water, or the applying of it any mode. And the tables, from their size and peculiar construction, could not have been immersed in water without great inconvenience, as every one must see who is acquainted with

in