"He that is baptized, when he is sick, ought not to be made a priest, for his coming to the faith is NOT VOLUNTARY, but from necessity." And, 2. As to the mode, while Novatian was living, one Magnus submits this question to Cyprian-" An habendi sint Christiani legitimi, co quod aqua salutari non loti sunt, sed perfusi ?" i. e. " Whether they are to be ESTEEMED RIGHT CHRISTIANS, who are not washed in the water, but only sprinkled ?" Cyprian answers, that the baptism was to be esteemed good, “necessitate cogente," "necessity compelling to it, and God granting his indulgence." I leave the reader to reflect on the force of this evidence.

From this period, A. D. 250, onward, sprinkling was permitted, but only in a case of necessity, and in prospect of death; originating in a false view of the necessity of the ordinance to salvation. "France (says Mr. Wall) seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health." This affusion, or pouring, in the church of Rome, was first tolerated in the eighth century, while immersion was still the established law of the church; and so things stood for several hundred years. In the sixteenth century, pouring was generally adopted. The Rituals of that church prove this to a demonstration. See Robinson's History of Buptism, p. 525; and Bishop Bossuet, just cited.

The Church of England held the original practice of dipping longer than those of the continent. "Perfunduntur (says Erasmus, A. D 1530,) apud nos, merguntur apud Anglos.” i. e. “With us (the Dutch) they have the water poured on them; in England they are dipped." The Rubric to this day instructs the clergyman, " he shall dip in the water discreetly and warily;" but it allows an exception, "but if they shall certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." The Catechism requires the youth to express the form of baptism only as by immersion, "Water wherein the person is baptized." In the early history of this church "the offices or liturgies (says Mr. Wall) did ALL ALONG... enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." In A. D. 1549, first appeared the exception for 'weak' children: four years afterward the word thrice, after the order to dip, was omitted. Sprinkling began to prevail about A. D. 1550, and "within the time of half a century, from A. D. 1550 to 1600, PREVAILED TO BE THE MORE GENERAL; as it is now almost the only way of baptizing." Mr. Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bap. Pt. II. ch. ix. § 2.

9. In what proportion of the Christion world has immersion been continued down. to the present time?

Answer. MR. WALL. "What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, is to he understood only in reference to THESE WESTERN PARTS OF EUROPE: for it is used ordinarily nowhere else. The Greek church does still use immersion; and so do all other Christians in the world except the Latins. All those nations of Christians that do now, or formerly did submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their infants by pouring or sprinkling; but all other Christians in the world who never owned the Pope's usurped power, Do and EVER DIÐ

DIP their infants in the ordinary use.... . All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, are of the last sort," Hist. of Inf. Bap. Part II. ch. ix. p. 376. Ed. 3.

Does my reader wish me to proceed any further? To my mind the subject is perfectly settled; because the evidence adduced before us has been, not in criticisms upon words, but in plain historical FACTS; facts admitted by every Christian writer that has examined the subject; and, as they include the practice of the apostolic age, they are DECISIVE upon the subject.

The contention, therefore, that the word Baptize has other senses beside to immerse, and that the prepositions rendered into and out of, in the baptism of the eunuch, may be rendered to and from the water; all this is perfect quibbling and trifling when the FACT is conceded, that Jesus, and his apostles, and the primitive Christians, observed and authorized the ordinance in this form. Thus the late editor of Calmet, after warmly contending against the views of the Baptists, adds, "Here again, I say, let me not be misunderstood; I believe that immersion was practised by John." Why, granting this, he grants me all: for if this was the form in which the LORD of glory' was baptized, and what he authorized, I want no more.

To a person disposed to question the evidence for immersion, I would beg to propose the following inquiries, founded upon those historical facts briefly given in the foregoing pages, and which he may more fully examine in the works I have referred to :

1. How came it to pass, that the early Christian writers expressed the rite of baptism by such Greek and Latin words and phrases (ex. clusive of baptizo) as signify, to be plunged; to be buried; to be dipped; to be immersed; to be let down in the water, and to be encompassed by the water on every side?

2. How came it to pass, that when affusion or sprinkling was had recourse to, as an expedient in prospect of death, and the person recovered, he was not deemed so properly baptized as to be admissible to any sacred office?

3. How came it to pass, that the fathers should name, as suitable places for baptizing, "the sea, a pool, a river, a fountain, a lake, a channel, the Jordan, the Tiber;" and that the baptism may be alike "in" any one of them?

4. How came it to pass, that by the authority of the 'Canons Apostolical,' if a Bishop or Presbyter baptized by any other way than immer. sion, yea, trine-immersion, he should be deposed?

5. How comes it to pass, that those Christians with whom the com mand of the Lord Jesus to baptize is in their NATIVE TONGUE, have, in all ages of their history, observed this mode?

6. How comes it to pass, that the ANCIENT RITUALS of those churches in which pouring and sprinkling now prevail, solemnly ENJOINED, or do still enjoin, the mode of immersion?

7. How came it to pass, that the whole Christian world, however afterward divided, uniformly observed immersion, except in sickness, for THIRTEEN HUNDRED years?

1

Now, though the evidence I have produced upon these points from ancient and modern writers be brief, which it would have been much easier to have extended than to have thus compressed, it is beyond doubt, that what the above inquiries state, are

INCONTROVERTIBLE HISTORICAL FACTS.

And if the New Testament contained no decisive evidence on the subject, the above FACTS afford a most indisputable proof that immersion was the original, and if so the DIVINELY AUTHORIZED mode: and consequently that which should be INVARIABLY and UNALTERABLY observed to the end of time; for who can alter what Christ ordains?

APPENDIX, PART III.

ON THE SPIRITUAL DESIGN OF BAPTISM.

THAT this sacred ordinance was intended by the Great Head of the Church to be SYMBOLICAL, and to teach by an expressive and visible sign what the gospel taught by the word preached, is a truth too evident in the New Testament to be doubted; and that the particular form or mode of it was to be indicative of some important truths, and that its observance was to have a beneficial iufluence on the Christian church, are equally clear. We have now in few words to state, what the ordinance was intended to teach, what to exhibit, and what practical influence it should have on the church of Christ.

1. It was to teach the sinfulness of man, and the necessity of purification from sin, in order to eternal life. These truths are implied in Peter's words, when exhorting to the ordinance, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins;" and in Ananias', "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts ii. 38. xxii. 16.

2. Baptism was intended to teach and to signify the Christian's entire abandonment of a life of impiety, and his entrance upon a new life of devotion and dedication to God. The metaphors of a death and burial express the former, and a resurrection the latter. Hence the apostle, Rom. vi. 8, declares the Christian "dead with Christ;" and not only dead, but "buried with him ;" and here Christ's own institu tion is introduced to confirm the apostle's doctrine; "therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death," &c. See the Scriptures at p. 45.

3. Baptism was intended to exhibit our LORD's overwhelming sufferings-To this most interesting circumstance our blessed Redeemer does himself allude in affecting terms. See pp. 22, 23.

4. No less does baptism pre-represent what the Christian anticipates as the destiny of his own human nature, when he shall descend like

his Redeemer into the grave, and at his Saviour's second coming be raised to glory. So the apostle, "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all." In no way but immersion does the ordinance answer this and the foregoing designs.

5. And, finally, this sacred rite, in reference to its subjects, appears evidently designed to form a line of separation between the world and the church. A baptized person, in the primitive age, was considered as having come out from the ungodly, and assumed the character and profession of a follower of Christ. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. Just as when a person, entering the service of an earthly prince, puts on the attire by which the servants of that prince are distinguished, so the Christian, by baptism, puts on, as a garment, an open profession of his Lord and Master; declaring that he is no longer his own, or the servant of sin and Satan, but bought with a price, and now surrenders himself to him that loved him and died for him. This entire separation of the church from the world our Saviour most plainly taught in John xv. 19. xvii. 6, 9, 20, 21, and xviii. 36. As did also the apostles; see, as an example, 2 Cor. vi. 14 to 18. In none but believers can this practical use of baptism be realized.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.

In closing my little work I must request my reader's attention to a few thoughts, suggested by the general objections of opponents to the practice for which I have contended; and add my reasons, in a summary form, for abiding strictly by that practice.

I. OBJECTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE BELIEVERS' BAPTISM.

1. In the form of objection to the principles of the Baptists, relative to this ordinance, it has been remarked that The MAJORITY of Christians, with whom are associated an immense number of great, good, and learned men, have held, and do hold, the opposite views;' and (it is asked) • Can they all be wrong?'

6

Answer. I admit that a large majority of the professed Christian inhabitants of the world, with whom are joined many most eminent writers, are against us. But is a majority never wrong,-never found on the side of error? Let my reader, whoever he may be, ask Whether the majority of professed Christians do not think differently from him upon some equally important points? and how little does he think of the consequence of numbers upon those points!' The Chinese plead their majority against Christians; the Catholics against Protestants; &c. &c., but who feels the force of an argument in the plea? -And " as to great men and great names (says Mr. A. Clarke) we

find them enrolled and arranged on the side of ALL controversies;" and I will allow my opponent to reckon them up by hundreds, or thousands, and place them all on the side of infant baptism;-I will take and place on the other side, Christ and his apostles, and then I appeal to my reader, Who has the BEST SUPPORT, though my number be but 'a little flock' in the comparison?

Now I must be allowed to INSIST UPON IT that I have Christ and the apostles with me, giving their sanction to believers' baptism; and all will admit, that their sanction is NOT TO BE FOUND on the opposite side. Much then as I venerate the great, good, and learned men referred to, as not they, but Christ is my Lord and Master, and is to be my sole Judge at the last day, I hesitate not to quit my connexion with any majority, or with any particular eminent men, supposing I am found in a minority, IF CHRIST IS WITH ME THERE.

2. It has also been objected That our principles are of recent origin; and were unknown previous to the appearance of certain enthusiasts in Germany, at the time of the reformation.'

Answer. Our principles are as old as Christianity. We acknowledge no founder but Christ. With enthusiasts in Germany, or in any age or country, we have no connexion, and our forefathers never had. Enthusiasts may be designated by the same name, but that proves nothing.-Persons holding our distinctive principle, i.e. the baptism of believers only' have appeared in all ages of the Christian era. From Christ to nearly the end of the second century there were NO OTHERS; at least, if there were any, their history is a blank.* After infant baptism was introduced, many did not receive it, and many opposed it.

How else can we account for the case of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others, who, says Bishop Taylor, "were born of Christian parents, and yet not baptized until the full age of man, and more ?"t How else can we account for the pressing exhortations found in early writings, addressed to professed Christians, to come to baptism ?+ How, especially, can we otherwise account for the awful anathemas pronounced at different times by the dominant party, upon those that denied infant baptism?

If my reader has opportunity to make himself acquainted with the history of the numerous bodies of Christians which appeared at different periods, while popery was dominant in Europe, he will find that there were many MYRIADS OF PERSONS, who, for several centuries before the Reformation, lifted up their voice against that spiritual domi

It may be proper to state, that Mr. Wall thought that there was a passage in Irenæus, in the second century, favorable to infant baptism. "Christ," says Irenæus, came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him (renascuntur in Deum) are regenerated to God; infants, and little ones, and youths, and elder persons." and Christ came to save only those who received that ordinance, and by it, then Now, if the word regenerated had no other sense than baptized, this passage would be, what Mr. Wall calls it, "the first express mention of infant baptism." But as it is, it is begging the question to cite it at all on the subject. Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. II. p. 117.

See Basil's Oratio Exhort. ad Bapt. in Mr. Wall's Hist. Pt. I. ch. xii. § 3.