contradict of all their ministers. Luther has even remarked, that this sacrament is called Tauf, in German, on account of the depth; because they plunged deeply in the water those whom they baptized. If then there be in the world a fact absolutely certain, it is this. Yet it is no less certain, that with all these authors, baptism without immersion is considered as lawful; and that the church properly retains the custom of pouring....There is, then, the same foundation for continuing the communion under one kind, as to continue baptism by pouring; and the church, in supporting these two customs, which tradition proves are equally indifferent, has not done any thing unusual; but maintained, against troublesome persons, that authority upon which the faith of the igno rant rests." *—I am reminded here of a remark made by Mr. James Owen, concerning Episcopacy; which, with a slight alteration, will apply to the case before us. These are his words: "Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one argument for its defence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish prelacy."† -I Our English Episcopalians also do not fail to argue on the same topic, when defending their hierarchy, and various rites, against the objections of Pædobaptist Dissenters. Thus, for example, Bp. Burnet, after having mentioned several things which he thought for his purpose, proceeds: "To these instances another may be added, that must needs press all that differ from us, one body only excepted, very much. We know that the first ritual of baptism, was by going into the waters, and being laid as dead all along in them; and then the persons baptized were raised up again, and so they came out of them. This is not only mentioned by St. Paul, but in two different places he gives a mystical signification of this rite, that it signified our being buried with Christ in baptism, and our being raised up with him to a new * Hist. des Eglises Protest. tom. ii. p. 469, 470. + Plea for Scrip. Ordinat. p. 17, 171. life; so that the phrases, of rising with Christ, and of putting on Christ, as oft as they occur, do plainly relate to this and yet, partly out of modesty, partly in regard to the tenderness of infants, and the coldness of these climates, since such a manner might endanger their lives, and we know that God loves mercy better than sacrifice,' this form of baptizing is as little used by those [Pædobaptists] who separate from us, as by ourselves . From all these things this inference seems just, That according to the practices of those who divide from us, the church must be supposed to have an authority to adjust the forms of our religion, in those parts of them that are merely ritual, to the taste, to the exigencies, and conveniences of the several ages and climates. "*The right reverend prelate here speaks out. He talks like one who heartily believes, that "the church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies.' This will do almost as well, so far as the ritual part of religion is concerned, as the claim of infallibility, of a dispensing power, and the pretence of unwritten apostolic tradition, which are advanced by the partisans of another communion. Such, however, is the bishop's avowal; and such, he insists upon it, is the implicit language of those Dissenters who practise pouring or sprinkling instead of immersion. What a pity but the church, under the ancient Jewish economy, had been acquainted with this doctrine of taste, of exigence, and of convenience, relating to the ceremonial part of divine worship! What a pity but the hoary Abraham had well understood it, when he received an order to circumcise himself and his male posterity! for had he known and approved of it, he would certainly have performed the rite on a different part from that which Jehovah specified. What shall I ? This doctrine of taste, of exigence, and of conve say * Four Discourses to the Clergy, p. 281, 282. Compare this with what he says, Exposit. of Thirty-nine Art. p. 436, 437, as quoted before, p. 301. nience is of such extensive application, that it would have saved the venerable ancients a world of trouble, and screened them from a thousand reproaches of their Gentile neighbours, had it been duly improved; because, as God is "in one mind," it cannot be doubted, that "he loved mercy better than sacrifice" in those early times as well as now. But let us hear another learned Episcopalian or two in reference to the same subject. Thus, then, Mr. Evans, when defending a kneeling gesture at the Lord's table. "There is a confessed variation allowed of, and practised by the generality of Dissenters, both Presbyterians and Independents, from the institution and practice of Christ and his apostles, in the other sacrament of baptism; for they have changed immersion or dipping, into aspersion or sprinkling, and pouring water on the face. Baptism by immersion or dipping, is suitable to the institution of our Lord and the practice of his apostles, and was by them ordained and used to represent our burial with Christ, a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, as St. Paul explains that rite, (Matt. iii. 16, and xxviii. 19; Rom. vi. 4, 6, 11; Col. ii. 12.) Now, it is very strange that kneeling at the Lord's supper (though a different gesture from that which was used at the first institution) should become a stumbling-block in the way of weak and tender consciences, and that it is more unpassable than the Alps; and yet they can with ease and cheerfulness pass by as great or a greater change in the sacrament of baptism, and christen as we do, without the least murmur or complaint. Sitting, kneeling, or standing, were none or them instituted or used to signify and represent any thing essential to the Lord's supper, as dipping all over was: why cannot kneeling then be without any wrong to the conscience, as safely and innocently used as sprinkling? How comes a gnat (to use our Saviour's proverb) to be harder to swallow than a camel? Or why should not the peace and unity of the church, and charity to the public, prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's supper, as much, or rather more, as mercy and tenderness to the infant's body, to sprinkle or pour water on the face, contrary to the first institution?"*- -Thus also Dr. Whitby: "If, notwithstanding the evidence produced, that baptism by immersion is suitable both to the institution of our Lord and his apostles; and was by them ordained to represent our burial with Christ, and so our dying unto sin, and our conformity to his resurrection by newness of life, as the apostle doth clearly maintain the meaning of this rite; I say, if, notwithstanding this, all our [Pædobaptist] Dissenters do agree to sprinkle the baptized infant, why may they not as well submit to the significant ceremonies imposed by our church? For, since it is as lawful to add unto Christ's institutions a significant ceremony, as to diminish a significant ceremony which He or his apostles instituted, and use another in its stead, which they never did institute; what reason can they have to do the latter, and yet refuse submission to the former? And why should not the peace and union of the church be as prevailing with them to perform the one, as is their mercy to the infant's body to neglect the other?"† Hence the reader may plainly perceive, how much the practice of aspersion is calculated to embarrass Protestants, in their disputes with Papists; and Nonconformists, in their controversies with Episcopalians. Reflect. IV. Admitting the tenderness of infants to be a sufficient reason for not immersing them, what is the natural inference? That they should be sprinkled, or have water poured upon them? By no means; but that our divine Legislator does not require them to be baptized. For, as our opposers themselves have proved, * Cases to Recover Dissenters, vol. iii. p. 105, 106, edit. 3rd. + Protestant Reconciler, p. 289. See also Bp. Stillingfleet's Irenicum, part ii. p. 345. we must insist that baptism is immersion. Consequently, were it evinced that infants cannot bear plunging, without the hazard of health and of life, it would only be a presumptive argument against their claim to the ordinance: and the greater the danger the stronger the presumption; for our opponents inform us, that a natural incapacity will always excuse.* That it is better to omit a positive ordinance than to perform it contrary to divine appointment, Pædobaptists themselves assure us. Thus the famous Buddeus: "Persons who cannot drink wine, had better entirely abstain from the sacred supper than receive it under one species only."--Deylingius: "It is better entirely to abstain from using the holy supper, than receive it contrary to the appointment of Christ."- -Mr. Blake: "Omissions seem better to me, than a prohibited, or a disorderly proceeding, expressly against a command, or ordinance of Jesus Christ. The ark had better stayed where it was, than a new cart should have carried it in that disorder to the place appointed for it. Better that Saul and Uzziah had let sacrifice alone, than any to whom it did not appertain should have undertaken it.....I never saw sufficient reason given, that a man should break an express rule, rather than omit a duty of mere positive institution. Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice, than that Dan and Bethel should be the place for it."§Mr. Brad bury: "It is better, I think, to leave such a duty [as baptism] undone, than not to have it well done. God never expects it either from you or me, when he has thrown a bar in our way, that we should break it, or leap over it." To which I may add, Better that the Israelites had entirely omitted circumcision while in the |