while you cannot but acknowledge, that antiquity, significancy, and safety of being right, may be all fairly pleaded against it? As if they As if they professedly imitated the Roman Catholics, in regard to the invocation of saints! For Chemnitius tells us, "Many among the Papists acknowledge, that it is better, more agreeable to rule, more certain, and more safe, to invocate God himself in the name of Christ, than to address prayer to saints.”* Strange that there should be such charms in a religious custom, which is a confessed variation from the examples of apostles, of martyrs, of Christians almost universally for the long time of thirteen hundred years, and of so great a part of those who bear the character of Christians at this day! Strange, indeed, that any who are the friends of Christ, should confessedly impoverish the significancy of a sacred rite; and then labour, and strive, and toil, in order to prove that they have not annihilated the essence of it! Very singular conduct this, relating to an ordinance of God, a branch of divine worship, and a mean of human happiness! But is it commendable, is it justifiable, is it rational, that the professed followers of Jesus Christ should study to find out the exact boundaries of essence, in a positive institution; that they may be able to determine with precision, how far they may vary from the natural import of our Lord's command, his own example, and the practice of his ambassadors, without intrenching on what is essential to the appointment? Let candour, let common sense determine. Dr. Mayo has well observed, that "all great errors and evils in the Christian church had small beginnings; we are, therefore, not to make light of those things in religion, which yet may not be of the essence thereof."†

How much is the conduct of these authors like that of the Roman Catholics in another case! The latter, we know, administer the Lord's supper to the people in * Exam. Concil. Trident. p. 613. † Apology and Shield, p. 166.

one kind;--even while they cannot but acknowledge that Christ appointed the use of wine, as well as of bread; that the apostles administered both kinds; that the church for many centuries received the sacred supper in both kinds; and that the representation of our Lord's death is more complete, by the administration of both kinds; after all these concessions pretending, that they do not intrench on the essence of the ordinance, by administering the bread only! But, strange as their procedure is, it must be with an ill grace that any of the writers here produced object against that mutilation of the holy supper. For though they do not explicitly avow, they seem entirely to approve the reasoning of Bellarmine, when he speaks in the following manner : "Though more grace and advantage be received by partaking of both kinds, than only of one, it is not therefore necessary that all should communicate of both species; because of two evils, the less ought always to be chosen. Now, it is a less evil that some persons should want a benefit which is not necessary, than that the sacrament should be exposed to the evident danger of being irreverently used."* It is danger of irreverence, we see, that is pleaded by Papists for their mutilation of the holy supper: it is also danger of indecency, or of health, which urges Pædobaptists to lay aside immersion, as the reader may learn from the following chapter. How lamentable to reflect, that, respecting the administration of positive appointments, there should be such a coalition between the subjects of the triple crown and professed Protestants!

Besides, the best evidence yet produced, that pouring or sprinkling contains the essence of baptism, has always been treated, by a very large part of the Christian world, as extremely doubtful. In proof of this assertion, I appeal to the authorities produced, Chap. IV. and V. and to those which follow in the next.

* Apud Chamierum, Panstrat. tom. iv. 1. ix. c. x. § 6.

Being taught, therefore, by so many respectable Pædobaptists, that the radical idea of the term baptism, the chief design of the ordinance, the apostolic example, the present practice of one half of the Christian world, and the emphasis of signification, are all in favour of immersion; we must stand acquitted of blame, and our conduct in regard to dipping deserve imitation. It cannot indeed be otherwise, except it should hereafter appear, that substantial reasons may be assigned for altering the practice of immersion to that of pouring, or of sprinkling: and substantial they must be to answer so important an end, in the face of all these concessions and all this evidence. It would be the height of precipitancy, and little short of religious madness to desert, without the most cogent reasons, a practice thus recommended, for one that appears in such embarrassment. What those

reasons are, that have been thought sufficient by many of the most learned Pædobaptists; what their force, and what regard they deserve, must be considered in the following chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

The Reasons, Rise, and Prevalence of Pouring, or Sprinkling, instead of Immersion.

DEYLINGIUS.-"So long as the apostles lived, as many believe, immersion only was used:* to which afterward, perhaps, they added a kind of affusion, such as the Greeks practise at this day, after having performed the trine immersion. At length, after the apostles were dead, the baptism of clinics was known; when disease, or extreme necessity in any other respect, forbade immersion, sprinkling and pouring began to be introduced; which in a course of time were retained, plunging being neglected. For in following times, when adult persons were very seldom baptized, infants were initiated into the Christian church by pouring and by sprinkling." Observat. Sac. pars. iii. observ. xxvi. § 2.

2. Salmasius:-"The clinics only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of which they were capable; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water, but the whole body had water poured upon it. As Cypr. iv. epist. vii. Thus Novatus, when sick, received baptism; being (πepixles) besprinkled, not (Baπriobes) baptized. Euseb. vi. Hist. cap. xliii." Apud Witsium, Econ. Foed. 1. iv. c. xvi. § 13.

3. Mr. Formey." Putting off their clothes, they were dipped three times in water; but when they administered baptism to the cliniques, i. e. to those who

* Of this opinion is Mr. Picart, who says: "Baptism by ablution, or aspersion, was not known in the first century of the church, when immersion was only used; and it is said it continued so till St. Gregory's time." Relig. Cerem. vol. ii. p. 82.

were confined to their beds from illness, they made use only of simple sprinkling." Abridg. Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 33.

4. Turrettinus.-" Immersion was used in former times and in warm climates, as we are taught by the practice of John the Baptist, (Matt. iii. 6, 16;) of Christ's apostles, (John iii. 22, and iv. 1,2;) and of Philip, (Acts viii. 38.) But now, especially in cold countries, when the church began to extend itself towards the north, plunging (KaTaTOVTIOμos) was changed into sprinkling, and aspersion only is used." Institut. Loc. xix. quæst. xi. § 11.

5. Mr. W. Perkins." The ancient custom of baptizing was to dip; and, as it were, to dive all the body of the baptized in the water, as may appear in Paul, Rom. vi. and the councils of Laodicea and Neocæsarea; but now, especially in cold countries, the church useth only to sprinkle the baptized, by reason of children's weakness; for very few of ripe years are now-a-days baptized. We need not much to marvel at this alteration, seeing charity and necessity may dispense with ceremonies, and mitigate in equity the sharpness of them." Works, vol. i. p. 74, edit. 1608.

6. Dr. Manton.-"You will say, If the rite [of immersion] hath this signification, [Christ's death for sin, and our death to sin] why is it not retained? I answer, Christianity lieth not in ceremonies: the principal thing in baptism is the washing away of sin, (Acts xxii. 16;) that may be done by pouring on of water, as well as dipping." Serm. on Rom. vi. 4.

7. Walæus." In warm countries, the ancients practised an immersion of the whole body; but in colder climates, they generally used aspersion: because, a ceremony that is free ought always to give way to charity." Enchiridium, de Bap. p. 425.

8. Pamelius."Whereas the sick, by reason of their illness, could not be immersed or plunged (which,