the age far better than sprinkling, so that not only did it become
the common mode, but the subjects were completely undressed, without any
distinction, to denote the putting off the old man and the putting on of
the new, and the putting away of the filth of the flesh.[5] Public
sentiment finally abolished this practice. After a considerable time
affusion, or sprinkling, returned, and became the prevailing mode,
without any special enactment, or any formal renunciation of the late
mode. The Eastern church, however, retained immersion, while the Greek
and Armenian branches use both immersion and sprinkling for the adult
and child. But the sick and dying were always baptized by sprinkling,
which is sufficient to prove that sprinkling was regarded as equally
valid with immersion. It is natural to say that it was superstitious to
baptize the sick and dying, by sprinkling, if we hold that only
immersion is valid baptism. The sick and dying cannot be immersed; now,
is it superstition for a sick person, giving credible evidence of piety,
to be admitted into the Christian church, and receive the Lord's Supper?
In order to do this properly, the subject must be baptized; hence, we
derive one powerful argument that sprinkling is valid baptism. Our Lord
would never have made the modes of his sacraments so austerely rigid,
that the thousands of sick and feeble persons, ministers in poor health,
climate, seasons of the year, times of persecution and imprisonment, and
all the stress of circumstances to which Christians may be subjected,
should be utterly disregarded, and one inconvenient, and sometimes
dangerous, form, of applying water, be insisted on, inflexibly, as
essential to the introductory Christian rite. If the early Christians
baptized the sick by sprinkling, they of course supposed that it was
valid baptism. If it was valid at all, and in any case, of course it was
Christian baptism, even if other modes were most commonly used.

[Footnote 5: See "Coleman's Ancient Christianity," chap, xix., sec. 12.
He refers to Ambrose, Ser. 20. Chrysostom, Hom. 6. Epistle to Col., &c.,
&c.]

_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that you would not object to administer
baptism in any other mode of applying water than sprinkling, or pouring.

_Dr. D._ One mode was, I believe, practised at first; and the New
Testament teaches me that this was affusion. The application of water in
any way, by an authorized administrator, to a proper subject, in the
na