"ST. LAWRENCE, a little while before he suffered, bap tized with a pitcher of water one of his executioners."* "NOVATIAN became a Christian about one hundred years after the apostles; and when visited with sickness, baptism was administered to him, according to the custom of those times, by affusion or sprinkling,"t BASILIDES is also mentioned by EUSEBIUS, as having been baptized in prison."+ CONSTANTINE the Great, "being clothed with a white garment, and laid upon his bed, was baptized in a solemn manner by EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Nicomedia."§ The AUTHOR of Letters to Bishop HOADLEY, a learned and professed Baptist, admits that for thirteen hundred years successively after the apostles, sprinkling was permitted upon extraordinary occasions."|| ZELENUS. "Dipping was formerly more used, especially in the hot countries of Judea; but this mode was not universally practised, or essential to the ordinance of baptism."+ ZANCHIUS. "As in a matter of liberty and indifferency, the church sometimes followed one ceremony, and sometimes the other, as she judged most expedient."¶ CALVIN. 66 Nothing of the substance of baptism is wanting, while the symbol of water is made use of, for the ends which Christ hath appointed. The substance being retained, the church from the beginning enjoyed a liberty of using somewhat different rites.”+ Dr. WALL. "In extraordinary occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face was by the ancients counted sufficient baptism." Of this, he says, there are "many proofs." ”—“ In the fifth century, baptism was administered in France indifferently, by immersion and aspersion."+ "ESTIUS, referring to times long before the year teen hundred, witnesseth that the ceremony of pouring on water had been much in use."** thir. BONAVENTURE, who was born about the year twelve hundred, "saith that in his tine pouring was much ob served in the French churches and some others."** i. * WALL'S Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. ii. p. 356. + Ibid. pp. 353 and 357. DUPIN'S Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 84; also, MILLAR'S Hist. of Prop. of Chris. voh p. 392. Other instances may be seen in ARNDII Lex. Antiq. Eccles. p. 66. Plain Account, &c. p. 16. In P, CLARK's Scrip. Grounds of Inf. Eap. p. 128. ** Ibid. p. 129. Dr. DODDRIDGE, speaking of the primitive ages, says, "I suppose immersion was often, though not constantly, used."* Pres. WILLARD. "Though in the primitive times the ceremony of immersion was the most frequently used, yet in the colder regions where religion was entertained, they used aspersion."t Dr. REED. "We do know that dipping and sprinkling were both practised in the second century; and each practice hath been continued from that period to the present time." Dr. LATHROP. "So far as the practice of the ancients is of weight, it proves all that we contend for. We don't say that immersion is unlawful, or a mere nullity. We say it is not necessary; that affusion is sufficient; and so said the ancient church."§ In view of these authorities, the publick will be able to judge of the opinion and practice of the primitive saints, in respect to baptism. That they frequently baptized by immersion, we see no reason to doubt; but that they ever considered this mode essential, we positively deny. In short, we have no account that immersion was, in any age," or by any sect, supposed essential to baptism, till the pearance of the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. We may safely conclude, therefore, that such an opinion in respect to this ordinance, is not conformable to the scriptures of truth, ap Mr. J. has but two arguments in favour of exclusive immersion, which have not already been considered, and, it is believed, refuted. "The idea of immersion," says he, "is the only one which will suit all the various connexions in which the word" denoting baptism "is used in the New Testament." (P. 9.)-Will the idea of immersion suit all *Fam. Expos. on 1 Cor, i. 16, t Lectures on Catechism, p. 846. Apol. for Inf. Bap. p. 239. A work which we can heartily recommend, and to which we acknowledge ourselves deeply indebted. Discourses on Bap. p. 23. See also Don. Fam. Expos. on Acts viii. 35; SCOTT's Comment. on Matth. ii. 6, and Rom. vi. 4; LIGHTFOOT's Hora Hebra→ icæ, in Matth. iii.; Dr. A. CLARKE'S Comment. on Mark xvi. 16; Hor. Sys. Div. vol. ii. p. 304. See Dr. WORCESTER's Letters to Dr. BALDWIN, p. 123. A considerable part of what Mr. J. has offered under this, his fifth particular, is taken verbatim from BooтH's Pedobaptism Examined, See chap. ii. pp. 37, 39. He ought to have quoted, and given him credit. these various connexions? Take but a single instance. "John indeed baptized with water." (Canlio udal. Acts i. 5.) Is it less improper to speak of an immersion with water, than of a sprinkling or washing in it ?In this argument it is taken for granted, that the word "used to denote the ordinance of baptism has one uniform meaning, which is applicable in every instance." (P. 9.) But this proposition really needs proof. It is the very point in dispute. We do not believe that the word denoting "baptism has one uniform meaning which is applicable in every instance." We do not believe, in other terms, that there is but one valid mode of baptism. The idea of wetting, without doubt, enters constantly into the literal meaning of this word; but persons may be wetted in different modes, and in each be equally baptized. There is probably no one word, "which will suit all the various connexions in which the word denoting baptism is used in the New Testament." This fact should convince us, that no precise mode of applying water has been enjoined, or is essential to the ordinance. Mr. J. adduces the practice of the Greek church, "who certainly understand their native language better than foreigners," as proof that immersion is essential to baptism. (P. 9.)-The signification of words varies with every age. This remark is so common, and so obviously true, that in, stances to justify it need not be adduced. The word Banliw may not convey precisely the same idea to a modern Greek, that it conveyed in the days of Homer or of Paul. While, therefore, it is true, that the Greeks "understand their native language better than foreigners," it may not be true that they better understand the meaning of this word, as used by the writers of the New Testa ment. But we deny that the Greeks consider immersion essen tial to baptism. Probably this is the mode in which they usually administer the ordinance; but they frequently administer it in other modes.* This is proved from those very quotations which Mr. J. has made to disprove it. He has brought in Dr. WALL, who testifies that "they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptized without immersion." (P. 10.) This necessarily im *See P. CLARK's Scrip. Grounds of Inf. Bap. p. 126, plies, that in cases of sickness, if not in others, they do count their children "well baptized," though they have not been immersed. It implies, therefore, that in their o pinion immersion is not essential; and this is all for which we contend. We conclude this part of our Treatise with two obvious deductions. 1. If immersion is not essential to baptism, then for any to be re-baptized because they have not been immersed, is altogether unjustifiable. Baptism is now the seal of God's immutable covenant. Wherever it has been administered, it implies that God has promised. Hence the virtual language of a second baptism is-" We will not believe our Maket, unless he will promise a second time.' We do not charge all who have been re-baptized with this impiety. Their palliation is, they have done it ignorantly. 2. If immersion is not essential to baptism, then for those churches who practise immersion to refuse communion with those who do not, is altogether unjustifiable. Alas! what dissensions among brethren-what schisms in the church-what rents in the seamless coat of Christhave been occasioned by this bar and bone of contention, the principles of close communion! Blessed Redeemer ! Is not the period at hand, when the members of thine own body shall no longer be torn asunder; and when the children of thine own house shall be willing to sit down to gether, at the same table and feast of love! END OF PART I. PART II. On the Proper Subjects of Christian Baptism. INTRODUCTION. THERE is unhappily a difference of opinion between us and the Baptist brethren, in respect not only to the mode, but the subjects of Christian baptism. It is impor tant, in the very commencement of the present discussion, that this point of difference should be precisely understood. It is not, whether unbaptized adults, who give no ev idence of faith, are proper subjects of the ordinance. We agree with them that they are not. Hence we agree with them in admitting the full force of those precepts which enjoin repentance and faith on adults, in order to baptism. Neither is it, whether those unbaptized adults who give evidence of faith are proper subjects. We agree with them that they are. The sole point of difference between us and them, in respect to the proper subjects of baptism, is this-We affirm, and they deny, that those children who are under the care of believing, covenanting parents, should be baptized.* To establish and defend what is here affirmed, is our principal object in the ensuing remarks.-It will be necessary, in some of the first sections, to attend to subjects that have rather an indirect, though an important, bearing on the point under consideration. We claim herein the indulgence of the Christian publick. *It will perhaps be said, that we differ from the Baptists in another important point. They affirm, and we deny, that those believers who have been baptized in infancy, should be re-baptized. But why do they affirm that such should be rebaptized? Because they consider infant baptism wrong. And why do we deny that such should be re-baptized? Because we consider infant baptism right. The difference, therefore, respects infant baptism only; and the point is left precisely as we have stated it above. |