the late origin of the doctrine of the Antipadobaptists, and its derivation from Gnosticism, now universally exploded, must furnish a reasonable and very strong objection to it in the minds of rational Christians.

SECTION V.

On Dipping or Sprinkling, and of the Obligation of the Rite of Baptism itself.

On the mode of applying water in the rite of baptism I shall not say much. But as the use of water is only emblematical, and as washing, or sprinkling, may answer that purpose as well as dipping, I have little doubt but that, if the apostles themselves had lived in a climate in which bathing the whole body had been very inconvenient, or unpleasant, they would not have adopted it. To denote purity, as well as to give an example of humility, our Lord washed the apostles' feet, and on his saying to Peter, who would have declined it, that if he did not wash him he had no part in him, and Peter then replying, "not my feet only, but also my hands and my head," Jesus said, (John xiii. 10,) "He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet." And as a mere emblem, this was quite sufficient for the purpose.

Also the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the phrase sprinkling as well as washing, when he had to express the idea of moral purity. Heb. x. 22: "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies bathed in pure water."

That the Christians in ancient times thought that dipping was not absolutely necessary to the validity of baptism, though they thought a valid baptism necessary to salvation, appears from their being content to sprinkle those that were sick in bed, without dipping them afterwards. They who only sprinkled a sick person would probably, on the same principle, have been content with sprinkling, or washing, those who were not sick, in a cold climate.

Cyprian in his epistle to Magnus, who inquired of him whether they who had only been sprinkled in baptism were as complete Christians as they who had been dipped, answers without hesitation in the affirmative; and after quoting Ezek. xxxvi. 25, in which mention is made of sprinkling with water as an emblem of moral purity, and some cases in the ceremonial law, in which sprinkling was sufficient for

purification, says, "Spiritus Sanctus non demensura datur, sed super credentem totus infunditur."*

It is acknowledged, that in Palestine and other warm climates, baptism was administered by dipping; though the case is not quite so clear when great numbers were baptized by John, if it was necessary (as I believe the Baptists think, and it is their practice at present) for the baptizer to go into the water along with the person baptized. For the baptist must then have continued all day long, or a very inconvenient time, in the water. Though it may be said that he baptized, if they who had been baptized by him performed the ceremony. It is also more probable that Philip and the eunuch found a well of water in the desert they went through, rather than a river, or a lake deep enough for them to bathe in, and the words that we render going into the water, and coming out of it, may be rendered going to the water, and coming from it.

2. As the rite of baptism itself is only emblematical, and merely a particular form in which a person declares himself to be a Christian, and of course takes upon himself the obligations that Christianity lays him under, it was much more necessary when a Heathen or a Jew was converted, and when there were in the same country many who continued Heathens or Jews, from whom the new converts were to be distinguished, than it is at this day, in countries in which all the inhabitants make profession of Christianity; especially since the regular attendance on public worship, and joining in the celebration of the Lord's supper, are a sufficient declaration of the same thing; shewing that men are Christians, and wish to be considered as such.

In this case, though it was the direction of Christ himself, addressed to the apostles, to baptize all nations, and the apostles unquestionably conformed to that direction; yet if the abuses of the institution should come to exceed the uses of it, many persons say they see no great evil to arise from laying it aside altogether. This, some may think the apostles themselves would have done, if they had lived to see the excessive and almost incurable nature of the abuses that have actually been introduced into it.

Since, however, the baptism of adults, and also that of children, affords a favourable opportunity of explaining the nature of the Christian profession, and of urging the motives to live as becomes that profession, I think it more advise

Opera, II. p. 187. "The Holy Spirit is not given in part, but entire, to every believer." (P.)

able to administer baptism in the original, simple manner, in which all the abuses of the institution may be pointed out and guarded against, than to lay it aside. More especially, let it be expressed to be a rite in which the child bears no part, or by which it can be directly benefited; but merely as a badge of the profession of Christianity in the parent, or sponsor, a form of taking upon himself the obligation of educating the child as a Christian should do; and by no means let any child be baptized that is in danger of death.

That what a person does to others should only concern himself, we see in several circumstances recorded in the Scriptures. Thus when Abraham was circumcised, he was directed to circumcise not only his son, but even all the slaves in his family, though they were no way interested in the thing that was signified by the rite. And when the Ninevites expressed their repentance, they made their cattle to fast as well as themselves. Jonah iii. 7.

At the same time, candour requires us to observe, that since the great object of Christianity is purity of heart and life; if this end be really attained by those who, for insufficient reasons, omit what we take to be even an useful means, and much more what is merely an emblem of it, we should not condemn either the Quakers, who reject both baptism and the Lord's supper, or those Christians who, judging baptism to be now unnecessary, do not choose to have their children baptized. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

There is, I think, sufficient evidence that the Jews bap tized, as well as circumcised their proselytes; but that they did not baptize, though they circumcised the children of proselytes, any more than their own. The stock being holy, the branches were deemed to be holy too; and on this principle some Christians think that the baptizing of the children of parents who are Christians is unnecessary. But I do not find any trace of the primitive Christians thinking in this manner. They certainly had their children baptized, though they had been baptized themselves.

Thus, my friend, I have laid before you the principal facts and arguments that weigh with me in favour of infant baptism; and I cannot help thinking that when you give due attention to them, they will make some impression on your mind. I also hope that they will contribute something towards the great Christian virtue of mutual

candour.

The greatest allowance ought to be made for the original adoption of your present sentiments and practice by the Petrobrussians, as it was in a very dark age, when the abuses of Christian ordinances were gross, and the tracing of the origin and progress of them was exceedingly difficult, and to most persons absolutely impossible: so that it was natural to reject altogether what they saw to answer no purposes but those of superstition and priestcraft, and to adhere to what appeared to them to be rational and useful, especially when they found nothing in the Scriptures decisively against it.

Now, the direction of our Lord to proselyte, which implied instruction, and of course a capacity for it, before baptizing persons of all nations, was certainly consonant to reason; and there is not in the New Testament any clear example of the baptizing of any infant. And we neither can nor ought to be willing to deny that all the real uses of Christianity, in correcting the vices and improving the characters of men, may be obtained without any such ordinance as that of baptism, and especially without the administration of it in infancy. It would, therefore, appear more safe and more rational to reject it rather than practise it as it was then done, viz. as a mere charm, operating without any sense or knowledge in the subject to which it was applied. These are the arguments on which you rest your cause at this day, and by their great plausibility you are certainly making converts.

But had the Petrobrussians been learned, that is, in antiquity, which they were not, they would, I doubt not, have proceeded and acted differently. They would have rectified. the abuse without rejecting the ordinance that was abused. And as the ancient Antipedobaptists were not learned, that is, not acquainted with Christian antiquity, or the doctrines and practices of primitive times, so you must, my friend, excuse me, if I add that, in my opinion, few of the modern ones have been so.

The Polish Socinians, who were, at least generally, Antipædobaptists, were men of extraordinary good sense, and well acquainted with the Scriptures, beyond any of their contemporary reformers; but they did not study the fathers. They rather seem to have despised them. But it is only from the writings of any particular age that we can acquire a knowledge of what was thought and done in that age. And though this kind of learning is now more easy and common, by means of the many editions of the Christi

fathers, prejudice in favour of particular opinions and practices has taken such deep root, that it cannot be expected to give way very soon to the light reflected from it.

This we see with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. There have been more learned Trinitarians than Unitarians; and yet I think I have shewn that from the fathers themselves may be collected the most decisive evidence, that the great body of Christians in the age immediately following that of the apostles were Unitarians; and a great majority of Christians in all countries are Trinitarians still, notwithstanding the most abundant evidence of the truth of Unitarianism from the Scriptures, as well as from these historical researches.

In this manner I account for the rise and progress of Antipedobaptism, as well as of Trinitarianism; indulging the hope, that when opportunity shall have been given for examining into the state of things in the primitive times, † and consequently for distinguishing abuses from the genuine doctrines of Christianity, Antipædobaptism, as well as Trinitarianism, will be acknowledged to have no sufficient foundation; and that then, if the rite of baptism (to which I see no good objection) be retained, there will be no exception made to the case of infants.

Submitting all that I have written to your judgment and candour,

"We know very little," says Mr. Frend," of the history of the early Christians for the first hundred years after the death of Christ, and, much as the deficiency of records may be lamented by the historian, I have accustomed myself to consider it as beneficial to the cause of truth. Had more ample materials been handed down of the age next to the apostolical, future times might have acquiesced too much in the practice and opinions of those early Christians, and have studied with less attention the true records of their faith in the New Testament.

"But Providence now seems to speak in the strongest and clearest manner to Christian societies. Study the Scriptures alone; make them the rule of your faith and practice. An apostle was suffered to err after divine inspiration, that you might learn to form your practice not by the practice of others, but by the inspired word of God. The early Christians ran into errors, that you might not make them the guide of your conduct: you have the revealed will of God in the Scriptures, and the interpretation of it will not be difficult, if you interpret scripture by scripture, not by the uncertain traditions and opinions of fallible men." Animadversions on Bishop Pretyman's "Elements of Christian Theology," 1800, pp.

18, 19.