ARGUMENT thirteenth is a mere sketch of the history of immersion and sprinkling. On the subject of immersion, we shall commence with the primitive Greek fathers. We have examined all their extant writings, and give the following as the sum of all that can be gathered from them on immersion.

      Barnabas: "Consider how he hath joined both the cross and the water together; for this he saith, 'Blessed are they who, putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water.'"   *     *   Again, "We go down into the water, full of sin and pollutions; but come up again bringing forth fruit; having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus."

      Hermes, writing about A. D. 95, speaking of baptism and backsliders, says, "They are such as have heard the word, and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but, when they call to mind what holiness it required in those who professed the truth, withdrew themselves." Again, "Before man receives the name of the Son of God, he is ordained to death; but, when he receives that seal, he is freed from death, and delivered unto life: now, that seal is water, into which men descend under an obligation to death, but ascend out of it, being appointed unto life."

      Justin Martyr. About A. D. 140, Justin Martyr wrote "An apology for Christians; addressed to the Emperor, the Senate, and People of Rome." In this work, he describes the doctrines and ordinances of the Church of Christ; and, on baptism, has the following passage:--"I will now declare to you, also, after [181] what manner we, being made new by Christ, have dedicated ourselves to God; lest, if I should leave that out, I might seem to deal unfairly in some part of my apology. They who are persuaded and do believe that those things which are taught by us are true, and do promise to live according to them, are directed first to pray and ask of God, with fasting the forgiveness of their former sins; and we also pray and fast with them. Then we bring them to same place where there is water, and they are baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were baptized: for they are washed (en to udati) in the water in the name of God the Father, Lord of all things; and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."

      Tertullian, A. D. 204: 'Because the person, [to be baptized,] in great simplicity . . . is let down in the water, and, with a few words said, is dipped." Homo in aqua demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus. Again, when speaking of the vain anxiety to be baptized in the Jordan,--"There is no difference, whether one is washed in a sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel; nor is there any difference between them whom John dipped in the Jordan and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber:" quos Joannes in Jordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit. He also uses the words, "In aqua mergimur," i. e. we are immersed in the water.

      Gregory Nazianzen, A. D. 360: "We are buried with Christ by baptism, that we may also rise again with him; we descend with him, that we may also be lifted up with him; we ascend with him, that we also may be glorified with him."

      Basil, A. D. 360: "En trisi tais katadusesi, &c. By three immersions, the great mystery of baptism is accomplished."

      Ambrose, A. D. 374: "Then wast asked, 'Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?' Thou saidst, 'I do believe,' and wast immersed; that is, thou wast buried, (mersisti, hoc eat, sepultus es.) Thou wast again asked, 'Dost then believe on our Lord Jesus Christ and his crucifixion?' Thou saidst, 'I believe,' and wast immersed again, and so wast buried with Christ."

      Cyril, of Jerusalem, A. D. 374: "As he ho endunon en tois udasi, who is plunged in the water, and baptized, is encompassed by the water on every side; so they that are baptized by the Spirit are also wholly covered all over."

      Chrysostom, A. D. 398: "To be baptized (kai katoduesthai) and plunged, and then to emerge or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it; and therefore, Paul calls baptism a burial."

      Witsius: "It is certain, that both John the Baptist and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practised immersion; whose example was followed by the ancient church, as Vossius has shown by producing many testimonies from the Greek and Latin writers." [182]

      Mr. Bower: "Baptism by immersion was, undoubtedly, the apostolical practice, and was never dispensed with by the church, except in case of sickness."

      G. J. Vossius: "That the apostles immersed whom they baptized there is no doubt . . . And that the ancient church followed their example is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the fathers."

      Mr. Reeves: "The ancients carefully observed trine-immersion, insomuch that, by the 'Canons Apostolical,' either bishop or presbyter who baptized without it was deposed from the ministry."

      Encyclopædia Ecclesiastica: "Whatever weight, however, may be in these reasons as a defence for the present practice of sprinkling, it is evident that, during the first ages of the church, and for many centuries afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed; and which seems, indeed, never to be departed from, except were it was administered to a parson at the point of death, or upon the bed of sickness,--which was considered, indeed, not as giving the party the full privileges of baptism,--or when there was not a sufficient supply of water. Except in the above cases, the custom was to dip or immerse the whole body. Hence St. Barnabas says, 'We go down into the water,'" &c.

      Mr. Wall, (who explored all the voluminous writers of antiquity in search of evidence of infant baptism,) says, "This [immersion] is so plain and clear, by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but PITY the weak endeavours of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, so we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoff's which some people give to the English Antipedobaptists [Baptists] merely for the use of dipping; when it was in all probability, the way by which our blessed Saviour, and for certain, was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. 'Tis a great want of prudence as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says." "The custom of the Christians in the near succeeding times [to the apostles] being more largely and particularly delivered in books, is known to have been generally or ordinarily a total immersion."

      Professor Campbell: "I have heard a disputant in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge; and in defiance of all antiquity, that the former was the earliest, and--the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as argument, and sometimes better; yet a candid mind will [183] always disdain to take the help of falsehood, even in the support of truth."

      Edinburgh Reviewers: "We have rarely met, for example, with a more weak and fanciful piece of reasoning than that by which Mr. Swing would persuade us that there is no allusion to the mode by immersion, in the expression 'buried with him in baptism.' This point ought to be frankly admitted, and, indeed, cannot be denied with any show of reason."

      Bishop Bossuet: "We are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that for THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS, baptism was thus [by immersion] administered throughout the whole church, as far as possible."

      Stackhouse: "Several authors have shown, and proved, that this immersion continued, as much as possible, to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ."

      Stuart: "The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time: see Alatii de Eccles. Orient. et Occident. lib. iii. ch. 12. sec. 4; Acta et Script. Theol. Wirtemb. et Patriarch. Constant. Jer. p. 63, p. 238 sq.; Christ. Engeli Enchirid. de Statu hodierno Graecor. ch. 24; Augusti, Denkwurd. vii. p. 226, sq. The members of this church are accustomed to call the members of the western churches sprinkled Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt: Walch's Einleit. in die relig. Streitigkeiten, Th. V. pp. 476-481. They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but immerge: and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by aspersion; and they claim to themselves the honour of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the church free from change and from corruption, which would destroy its significancy: see Alex. de Stourdza, Considerations sur la Doctrine et l'Esprit de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, Stutt. 1816, pp. 83-89.

      "F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, has recently published a learned work, which contains a copious history of usages in respect to the baptismal rite: viz. Geschichtliche Darstellung der Verrichtung der Taufe, etc., 1818. I have not seen the work; but it is spoken of highly, on account of the diligence and learning which the author has exhibited in his historical details. The result of them, respecting the point before us, I present, as given by Augusti, Denkwurd. vii. p. 68.

      "'Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the immersion of a man under water; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods of baptism were called in question and even prohibited.' Brenner adds, 'For fifteen hundred years was the person to be baptized, either by immersion or affusion, entirely divested of his garments.'

      "These results will serve to show what a Roman Catholic [184] writer feels himself forced by historical facts to allow, in direct contradiction to the present practice of his own church; which nowhere practises immersion, except in the churches of Milan: it being everywhere else even forbidden.

      "In the work of John Floyer, on Cold Bathing, page 50, it is mentioned that the English Church practised immersion down to the beginning of the seventeenth century; when a change to the method of sprinkling gradually took place. As a confirmation of this, it may be mentioned that the first Liturgy, in 1547, enjoins a trine-immersion, in case the child is not sickly: Augusti, ut sup. p. 229.

      "We have collected facts enough to authorize us now to come, to the following general conclusion respecting the practice of the Christian Church in general, with regard to the mode of baptism, viz. from the earliest ages of which we have any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and downwards for several centuries, the churches did generally practise baptism by immersion, perhaps by immersion of the whole person; and that the only exceptions to this mode which were usually allowed, were in cases of urgent sickness, or other cases of immediate and imminent danger where immersion could not be practised.

      "It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular cases been now and then practised in primitive times, were gradually introduced. These became, at length, as we shall see hereafter, quite common, in the western church almost universal, sometime before the Reformation.

      "In what manner, then did the Churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the least, understand the word baptizo in the New Testament? Plainly, they, construed it as meaning immersion. They, sometimes, even went so far as to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy only excepted.

      "If, then, we are left in doubt, after a philological investigation of baptizo, how much it necessarily implies; if the circumstances which are related as accompanying this rite, so far as the New Testament has given them, leave us still in doubt; if we cannot trace, with any certainty, the Jewish proselyte-baptism to a period as early as the baptism of John and Jesus, so as to draw any inferences with probability from this; still, we are left in no doubt as to the more generally received usage of the Christian Church, down to a period several centuries after the apostolic age.

      "That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of the word baptizo, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial. That they might be confirmed in their view of the import of this word, by common usage among the Greek classic authors, we [185] have seen in the first part of this dissertation." Stuart's Bib. Repos. p. 662.

      To an authority so plenary and venerable with all the Pedobaptists of New England and of the Union, little can be added from other sources. One short step more, however, would have destroyed all this authority, so far as serviceable to us; for then Professor Stuart would have been a Baptist. He has, then, said all that a Pedobaptist could say, both in the philological and also in the historical department. That he can repose in satisfaction upon a probability so perfectly slender, is a problem in casuistry to which I shall not now allow myself to advert; that he has not one chance in ten thousand to be safe on this point, his own reasonings show.

      Neander's History of the Christian Religion: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration: the immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ; and both taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life. An exception was made only in the case of sick persons, which was necessary, and they received baptism by sprinkling."

      Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History--1st century: "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for the purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.

      "The sacrament of baptism was administered publicly twice very year, at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop or the presbyters in consequence of his authorization and appointment. The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express command of our blessed Lord. After baptism, they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and, by prayers and imposition of hands, were solemnly commended to the mercy of God, and dedicated to his service; in consequence of which, they received the milk and honey, which concluded the ceremony. The reasons of this particular ritual coincide with what we have said in general concerning the origin and causes of the multiplied ceremonies that crept, from time to time, into the church. [2d century.]

      "Adult persons were prepared for baptism by abstinence, [186] prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to answer for them that sponsors or godfathers were first instituted, though they were afterward admitted also in the baptism of infants.

      "There were, twice a year, stated times when baptism was administered to such as, after a long course of trial and preparation, offered themselves as candidates for the profession of Christianity. This ceremony was performed only in the presence of such as were already initiated into the Christian mysteries.

      "We have only to add, that none were admitted to this solemn ordinance, until, by the menacing and formidable shouts and declamation of the exorcist, they had been delivered from the dominion of the prince of darkness, and consecrated to the service of God. The origin of this superstitious ceremony may be easily traced, when we consider the prevailing opinion of the times. The driving out of this demon was now considered as an essential preparation for baptism; after the administration of which, the candidates returned home, adorned with crowns and arrayed in white garments, as sacred emblems; the former, of their victory over sin and the world; the latter, of their inward purity and innocence." [3d century.]

      History of the Church, by George Waddington, M. A.: "The ceremony of immersion (the oldest, form of baptism) was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity; it was believed to be attended by the remission of original sin, and the entire regeneration of the infant or convert, by the passage from the land of bondage into the kingdom of salvation."

      Text-Book of Ecclesiastical History, by J. C. I. Geiseler: "The custom of considering certain doctrines and rites as mysteries [in the 3d and 4th centuries] would naturally have some effect on the mode of admission to the church. Baptism was preceded by a long preparatory course, during which the catechumens (katechumenoi) were gradually led, from general religious and moral truths, to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, by teachers appointed for the purpose, (catechistes,) and must pass through various grades (audientes, genuflectentes, competentes,) before they were deemed fit to be actually admitted. This course usually occupied several years, and often the catechumens voluntarily deferred their baptism as long as possible, on account of the remission of sins by which it was accompanied. Hence, it was often necessary to baptize the sick, and in that case sprinkling (baptismus clinicorum, tou klinikou,) was substituted for the usual rite. The baptism of infants became now more common. The use of exorcism is distinctly mentioned, and all who had been baptized, even the children, partook of the Eucharist."

      Cave's Primitive Christianity: "The action having proceeded thus far, the party to be baptized was wholly immerged or put under water; which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notably and [187] significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism. For, as in immersion there are in a manner three several acts the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again; so by these were represented Christ's death, burial, and resurrection; and, in conformity thereunto, our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life. By the person's being put into water was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and being washed from the filth and pollution of them; by his abode under it, which was a kind of burial unto water, his entering into a state of death or mortification, like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of death. Therefore, as many as are baptized into Christ, arc said to be 'baptized into his death, and to be buried with him by baptism into death, that, the old man being crucified with him, the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth he might not serve sin, for that he that is dead is freed from sin,' as the apostle clearly explains the meaning of this rite. Then, by his emersion, or rising up out of the water, was signified his entering upon a new course of life, differing from that which he lived before, that, 'like as Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.'"

      Grotius: "Buried with him by baptism. Not only the word, baptism, but the very form of it, intimates this [immersion]. For an immersion of the whole body in water, so that it is no longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which is given to the dead. There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and of a resurrection."

      Bishop Taylor: "The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion; in pursuance of the sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment and example of our blessed Saviour. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem, that they did not think it lawful to receive him into the clergy who had been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch."

      Archbishop Usher: "Some there are, that stand strictly for the particular action of diving or dipping the baptized under the water, as the only action which the institution of the sacrament will bear; and our church allows no other, except in case of the child's weakness; and therein is expressed our Saviour's baptism, both the descending into the water, and the rising up."

      Church of England: "As we be buried with Christ by our baptism into death, so let us daily die to sin, mortifying and killing the evil motions thereof. And as Christ was raised up from death by the glory of the Father, so let us rise to a new life, and walk continually therein." In the directions for the "Public Baptism of Infants," the Book of Common Prayer says: "Then [188] the priest shall take the child into his hands, and shall say to the godfathers and godmothers, 'Name this child.' And then, naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child will endure it,) he shall DIP it in the water, discreetly and warily, saying," &c.

      Encyclopædia Britannica: "The Muscovite priests plunge the child three times over head and ears in water."--Art. Russia.

      Richard Baxter: "It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the apostles' time, the baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signified their profession, both of believing the burial and resurrection of Christ; and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth (Col. iii. and Rom. vi.;) and though we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water, yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it."

      To these testimonies from ecclesiastical histories, and others alluding to ancient records, many more might be added; such as testimonies from Du Pin, Milner, and the Roman Fathers, without at all increasing the evidence. For, on reading Mosheim's notices of the three first centuries, we may see the ancient institution and the continual change going on in the concomitant rites and usages, as clearly, though not as fully, as from a thousand volumes. In the first century we have a simple immersion--a few additions in the second--many more in the third--and so on.

      We shall, therefore, glance for a moment at the origin and history of sprinkling, and thus add to the chapter of evidence now before us. And with whom should we more naturally commence than with the father of ecclesiastical historians--Eusebius himself?--

      "Novatus, being relieved thereof by the exorcists, fell into a grievous distemper; and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled¹ with water, on the bed wheron he lay, (if that can be termed baptism,) neither when he had escaped that sickness, did he afterwards [189] receive the other things which the canon of the church enjoineth should be received: nor was he sealed by the Bishop's imposition of hands: which, if he never received, how did he receive the Holy Ghost?"

      The canon to which he alludes is the following:--

      "That they who were baptized in their beds if they recover again, should afterwards go to the Bishop that he might supply what was wanting in that baptism."

      This clinic baptism slowly advanced, but never got into much favor for thirteen centuries. As to the introduction and progress of sprinkling, the Edinburgh Cyclopædia gives the following account:

      "The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen II. being driven from Rome by Adolphus, king of the Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped the crown of France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Britany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this fact be allowed--which, however, some Catholics deny--yet pouring, or sprinkling, was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not tell the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practised in ordinary cases, till after the Reformation, (about the middle of the sixteenth century.) From Scotland, it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church." Art. Baptism.

      Wall, the most learned and able of Pedobaptist writers, gathers up into one paragraph a volume of evidence in attestation of the fact just now asserted. I shall give his words in lieu of a hundred extracts which can be readily gleaned from ecclesiastic writers:--

      "France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. They [the Assembly of Divines at Westminster] reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery. And that accordingly all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the font: [190] but that all other countries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it: and that basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves. What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to these Western parts of Europe; for it is used ordinarily no where else. The Greek Church in all the branches of it does still use immersion; and they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptized without it. And so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. That which I hinted before, is a rule that does not fail in any particular that I know of, viz. All the 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. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of Popery, yet they have since received it from such neighbouring nations as had begun in the time of the Pope's power. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordinary use." History of Infant Baptism, Part ii., chap. ix.

      Bishop Burnet's reason for the change is thus expressed:--

      "The danger of dipping in cold climates may be a very good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling." Vol. iv., page 162.

      Novatian, as before shown in the histories quoted, had water poured all over him in a bed. This happened not earlier than A. D. 251, probably 253. (Eusebius, p. 114.) About eighty years after this time, when other sick and feeble persons were preferring, this method introduced by Novatian, so far as all authentic records inform us, a decree was issued, called "the 12th canon of the Council of Neocæsarea," against such pourings, inhibiting persons so poured upon from any participation in the honours of the ministry or priesthood. Dr. Wall, who cannot be suspected of any partiality to Baptists, or any of us, gives such a history of the introduction of sprinkling and pouring as must satisfy every candid and disinterested man that it came into use by slow degrees, and only in some of the more western parts of the western Latin church, and that for full thirteen centuries the whole world practised immersion, with the exception of invalids and pretenders of inability to endure cold bathing. Bonaventure, in A. D. 1160, alludes to sprinkling in France as becoming [191] an ordinary practice. So do the Synod of Angiers, 1275, speak of dipping and pouring as indifferent. The Synod of Aix, 1585, allowed pouring, or dipping or pouring, according to the usage of the church, but commanded the water to be poured out of ladles.

      It made very little progress in Italy, Germany, or Spain, till the 14th and 15th centuries. Erasmus, who spent some time in England, during the reign of Henry VIII., observes, "With us the Dutch have the water poured on them. In England they are dipped." In his colloquy, called Ichthusphagia, supposed to have been written in England, he represents infants as "dipped all over in cold water, soon after birth, and that, too, in a stone font." Wickliffe thought it immaterial whether they be dipped once, or thrice, or water poured upon their heads, according to the custom of the church to which they belong. The Manuale ad Usum Savum, printed 1530, the 21st of Henry VIII., orders, "Let the Priest baptize [the candidate] him by dipping him in the water thrice:" So decrees the Common Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549: "the Priest shall dip it in the water thrice." Edward VI. was himself dipped: so was Queen Elizabeth. Dipping continued during Queen Mary's reign. Watson, a Papist Bishop, in 1558, the last of the Queen's reign, published a volume on the sacraments, in which he says, "Though the old ancient tradition of the church hath been from the beginning to dip the child three times, it is sufficient."

      Wall: "It being allowed to weak children (though strong enough to be brought to church) to be baptized by effusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favour of the Priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. 'Especially,' as Mr. Walker observes, 'if some instances really were, or were but fancied and framed, of some child's taking cold or being otherwise prejudiced by its being dipped.'"

      "And another thing that had a greater influence than this, was, that many of our English divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's bloody reign, fled into Germany. Switzerland, &c.; and, coming back, in Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them a great love to the customs of those Protestant churches wherein they had sojourned: and especially the authority of Calvin, and the rules which he had established at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great number of our people about that time. Now, Calvin had not only given his dictate in his Institutions, that 'the difference is of no moment, [192] whether he that is baptized be dipped all over; and if so, whether thrice or once; or whether he be only wetted with the water poured on him:' but he had also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva, (and afterwards published to the world,) a form of administering the sacraments, where, when he comes to order the act of baptizing, he words it thus: 'Then the minister of baptism pours water on the infant, saying, I baptize thee,' &c. There had been, as I said, some synods in some dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all; that being the common practice: but for an office or liturgy of any church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes affusion absolutely. Then Musculus had determined,--'As for dipping of the infant, we judge that not so necessary; but that it is free for the church to baptize either by dipping or sprinkling.' So that (as Mr. Walker observes) no wonder if that custom prevailed at home, which our reformed divines in the time of the Marian persecution had found to be the judgment of other divines, and seen to be the practice of other churches abroad; and especially of Mr. Calvin and his church at Geneva."

      "And when there was added to all this the resolution of such a man as Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor at Cambridge, 'Though in case of grown persons that are in health, I think dipping to be better; yet, in the case of infants and of sickly people, I think sprinkling sufficient.' The inclination of the people, backed with these authorities, carried the practice against the rubric, which still required dipping, except in case of weakness. So that in the latter times of Queen Elizabeth, and during the reigns of King James and King Charles I., very few children were dipped in the font."

      Concerning the use of basins, Dr. Wall remarks:--

      "The use was, the minister continuing in his reading-desk, child was brought and held below him; and there was placed for that use a little basin of water, about the bigness of a syllabub-pot, into which the minister dipping his fingers, and then holding his hand over the face of the child, some drops would fall from his fingers on the child's face. For the Directory says, it is 'not only lawful but most expedient' to use pouring or sprinkling."

      How the Church of England has changed its practice, the same learned doctor observes:--

      "Upon the review of the Common Prayer Book, at the restoration, the Church of England did not think fit (however prevalent the custom of sprinkling was) to forego their maxim--that it is most fitting to dip children that are well able to bear it. But they leave it wholly to the judgment of the godfathers and [193] those who bring the child, whether the child may well endure dipping or not; as they are, indeed the most proper judges of that. So the priest is now ordered, 'If the godfathers do certify him that the child may well endure it to dip it in the water discreetly and warily. But, if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.' The difference is only this: by the rubric, as it stood before, the priest was to dip, unless there were an allegation of weakness. Now he is not to dip, unless there be an averment or certifying of strength sufficient to endure it."

      Amongst the most distinguished men of the Church of England that, in Dr. Wall's time, or before it, argued for immersion, are Sotus, Mede, Bishop Taylor, Dan. Rogers, Sir Norton Knatchbull, Walker, Towerson, Whitby, Dr. Cave, &c. &c. He gives the words of some of them:--

      Sotus: "Baptism ought to be given by dipping; so as that it is not lawful to give it otherwise, unless for some necessary, or creditable, and reasonable cause."

      Vasquez says of sprinkling, "That it is not at all in use, and so cannot be practised without sin, unless for some particular cause."

      Mede: "There was no such thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in baptism in the Apostles' times, nor many ages after them."

      Sir N. Knatchbull: "With leave be it spoken I am still of opinion that it would be more for the honour of the church, and for the [peace and] security of religion, if the old custom could conveniently be restored."

      Dr. Whitby: "It were to be wished that this custom [of immersion] might be again of general use."

      Dr. Cave: "The almost constant and universal custom of the primitive times."

      Dr. Towerson, after reciting the arguments in favour of immersion, in his explication, makes, for a Churchman, the following remarkable concession:--

      "How to take off the force of these arguments altogether, is a thing I mean not to consider; partly because our church seems to persuade such an immersion, and partly because I cannot but think the forementioned arguments to be so far of force as to evince the necessity thereof, where there is not some greater necessity to occasion an alteration of it."

      With the above specimen, selected from Dr. Wall, I shall conclude this species of evidence. With regard, however, to the introduction of sprinkling and affusion into Scotland, England, [194] and consequently into America, we must give a few extracts from his 4th volume.

      Dr. Wall argues the cause of dipping, and the necessity of the return to it, on various occasions. I shall give but one extract, because it contains much of the history of sprinkling in a few words:--

      "That our climate is no colder than it was for those thirteen or fourteen hundred years from the beginning of Christianity here, to Queen Elizabeth's time; and not near so cold as Muscovy, and some other countries where they do still dip their children in baptism, and find no inconvenience in it.

      "That the apparent reason that altered the custom was not the coldness of the climate, but the imitation of Calvin and the church of Geneva, and some others thereabouts.

      "That our reformers and compilers of the liturgy (even of the last edition of it) were of another mind. As appears both by the express order of the rubric itself, and by the prayer used just before baptism, 'Sanctify this water,' &c., 'and grant that this child to be baptized therein,' &c.; (if they had meant that pouring should have always, or most ordinarily have been used, they would have said therewith;) and by the definition given in the Catechism of the outward visible sign in baptism: 'Water, wherein the person is baptized.' I know that in one edition it was said 'is dipped or sprinkled with it.' I know not the history of that edition; but as it is a late one, so it was not thought fit to be continued. The old edition had the prayer beforesaid in these words, 'baptized in this water.'

      "That if it be the coldness of the air that is feared; a child brought in loose blankets, that may be presently put off and on, need be no longer naked, or very little longer than at its ordinary dressing and undressing; not a quarter or sixth part of a minute.

      "If the coldness of the water, there is no reason, from the nature of the thing; no order or command of God or man that it should be used cold; but as the waters, in which our Saviour and the primitive Christians, in those hot countries which the Scripture mentions, were baptized, were naturally warm by reason of the climate: so if ours be made warm, they will be the liker to them. As the inward and main part of baptism is God's washing and sanctifying the soul, so the outward symbol is the washing of the body, which is as naturally done by warm water as cold. It may, I suppose, be used in such a degree of warmth as the parents desire.

      "As to those of the clergy who are satisfied themselves, and do in their own minds and opinions approve of the directions of the liturgy, and would willingly bring their people to the use of it; it is too apparent what difficulties lie in the way. So that [195] this quarreller has no ground in his assuming way to demand, 'Why they do continue,' &c.

      "The difficulty of breaking any custom which has got possession among the body of the people, (though that custom be but of two or three generations,) is known and obvious. And there being a necessity of leaving it to the parent's judgment whether their child may well endure dipping or not, they are very apt to think or say not: and there is no help for it. For none, I think, will pretend that the minister should determine that, and dip the child whether they will or not. He can but give his opinion the judgment must be theirs; and they are for doing as has been of late usual.

      "But there are, besides this general, two particular obstacles, which it may he fit to mention.

      "1. One is, from that part of the people in any parish, who are presbyterianly inclined. As the Puritan party brought in this alteration; so they are very tenacious of it; and as in other church matters, so in this particularly, they seem to have a settled antipathy against the retrieving of the ancient customs. Calvin was, I think, (as I said in my book,) the first in the world that drew up a form of liturgy that prescribed pouring water on the infant, absolutely, without saying any thing of dipping. It was (as Mr. Walker has shown) his admirers in England, who in Queen Elizabeth's time brought pouring in ordinary use, which before was used only to weak children. But the succeeding Presbyterians in England, about the year 1644, (when their reign began,) went farther yet from the ancient way, and instead of pouring, brought into use in many places sprinkling: declaring at the same time against all use of fonts, baptisteries godfathers, or anything that looked like the ancient way of baptizing. And as they brought the use of the other sacrament to a great and shameful infrequency, (which it is found difficult to this day to reform,) so they brought this of baptism into a great disregard. Now I say, a minister in a parish, where there are any considerable number inclined, this way, will find in them a great aversion to this order of the rubric. They are hardly prevailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a basin or porringer is a bed-chamber, hardly persuaded to bring them to church; much farther from having them dipped, though never so able to endure it.

      "2. Another struggle will be with the midwives and nurses, &c. These will use all the interest they have with the mothers, (which is very great,) to dissuade them from agreeing to the dipping of the child. I know no particular reason, unless it be this. thing which they value themselves and their skill much upon is, the neat dressing of the child on the christening day; the setting all the trimming, the pins, and the laces in their [196] right order. And if the child be brought in loose clothes, which may presently be taken off for the baptism, and put on again, this pride is lost. And this makes a reason. So little is the solemnity of the sacrament regarded by many, who mind nothing but the dress, and the eating and drinking. But the minister must endeavour to prevail with some of his people who have the most regard for religion, and possibly their example may bring in the rest."

      The history of sprinkling water on men, women, or babes, is without any authority from Old testament or New. Neither the Jews' religion nor Christianity ever required or approved it. It has no more authority from the Bible than transubstantiation, auricular confession, purgatory, celibacy, or the worship of angels and demi-god mediators.

      In the history of Christianity, the whole world, Eastern and Western Christendom, with the exception of a few sick and dying persons, practised immersion during the long space of thirteen hundred years. Since that time, license was granted first by the Pope, in 1311, to practise affusion with the authority of the church. Calvin next gave a law to his branch of the church, authorizing affusion. This was carried first into Scotland, and then into England, after the reign of Mary of bloody memory; and finally imposed upon the people, much against their own conviction and inclination at first. Time, however, reconciled them to it; and it was not often necessary to fine and punish them for neglect of duty, as it once was in our good Episcopalian Commonwealth of Virginia, as the following penal statute, lamentably for the honour of our forefathers, too amply witnesseth:--

Copy of a law, found in Henning's Statutes at large, vol. 2,
page 165, Dec. 1662, 14th Charles II.

      "ARTICLE III.--Against persons that refuse to have their children baptized.

      "Whereas many schismatical persons, out of their averseness to the orthodox established religion, or out of the newfangled conceits of their own heretical inventions, refuse to have their children baptized--

      "Be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That all persons that, in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall refuse, when they may carry their child to a lawful minister in that county, to have them baptised, shall be amerced in two thousand pounds of tobacco--halfe to the informer, and halfe to the publique." [197]

      A few such statutes would soon make infant sprinkling both orthodox and popular.

      The largest half of Christendom, as respects territory, including all Asia, all Africa, much of the north of Europe, still practise immersion--indeed, all Christendom, as Wall says, that never bowed to the throne of the Pope of Rome.

      With this Virginian statute, I shall conclude this mere sketch of the introduction, progress, and prevalence of sprinkling in the western section of the Christian profession. Were it not for a gross imposition, some way practised upon western and Protestant Christendom--that immersion is a thing of yesterday, and limited to a few hundred thousand Baptists; and that sprinkling and pouring have been always and almost universally in popular faith and practice,--I should not have supposed it of much importance to pause in the way of comment upon the facts now clearly lying before us. But, in view of this most unfounded and fallacious assumption, I deem it incumbent on me to fix the attention of the community upon this voluminous and instructive, and incontrovertible fact.

      I have not used, in this branch of the argument, more than in the preceding part of it, any ex parte witnesses; unless, indeed, the universal repudiation of Baptist testimony and the constant listening to Pedobaptist should be regarded as preferring one-sided evidence. But, I presume the Pedobaptists, if not the Baptists, will forgive me this wrong. That I have repudiated a respectable multitude of faithful and competent vouchers from giving testimony, merely because they are on my side, is, indeed, not treating our friends so kindly and respectfully as our opposers; still, I opine, it is the shorter and the safer, and, therefore, the better way of conducting the controversy.

      If, then, the Apostles authorized and allowed sprinkling privately, as some few of our opponents assume, in that case it would be preferable to the custom of immersion; because, 1st, it is a matter of no self-denial or trouble to have a wet finger pressed upon one's brow, or a few drops sprinkled upon the check; and, 2d, because it would have been just as pleasing to the Lord as immersion, inasmuch as he is always pleased with his own appointments, and most cheerfully accepts the obedience which he requires. It is, indeed, a most unprecedented case of divine legislation, that the Lord should command and [198] authorize two actions, so very diverse in form and significance; to be performed by his own direct authority, and then call them by one and the same name. Be it so, however, that he was pleased to sanction privately one such anomaly; I ask, on the principles that govern human nature, and from the customs and history of the world, how it could so soon have degenerated from affusion to immersion, and in so short a time become so universal, that not one instance of sprinkling is found on record, either in the New Testament or in ecclesiastical history, for the first two hundred and fifty years? Men generally degenerate from hard and grievous exactions to those which are lighter and more agreeable; but, on the assumption before us, as Bishop Smith of Kentucky argues, the whole church immediately abandoned the easy and light service of sprinkling for immersion! When God formerly asked the fat and costly sacrifices of the flocks of Jacob for his altar and his priesthood, the ungrateful Israelites in a few centuries so far degenerated as to offer only the poor and worthless. But in this case, when he asks for a dove or a sparrow, they degenerate to a full-grown ox or a heifer! I should be pleased to hear some ingenious essayist attempt an explanation of this singular anomaly. Till satisfactorily explained, we must, however, continue to regard it as a most unfeasible assumption, destitute of any, the least probability.

      We have, then, but one case of pouring on record during two hundred and fifty years. The Messiah was gone to heaven more than two centuries before the sick and distracted Novatian, of Rome had water poured all over him on a bed;--if, indeed, as Eusebius says, that could be called baptism. Perhaps there may have been, about that time, a few others; but so few and so obscure, (if there were any,) that neither Eusebius nor any other historian names them.

      The Council of Neocæsarea, sixty-four years after this time, condemned such pourings, which, being the first public notice of the affair, proves that it had not yet spread far, and, in the second place, that it was not then regarded by the bishops with much favour.

      The delicacy of infants, the fond and foolish tenderness of superstitious mothers, the notion of the deadly influence of original sin, the importance of baptism as an ablution, and the sick and dying invalids that could not endure immersion, one would [199] think, would have earlier made larger inroads upon the Apostolic law and ordinances, and prevailed more extensively than it seems they did.

      The facts then are, the whole world immersed, with these few exceptions, for thirteen centuries. The east half of Christendom still continues the practice. The Greek portion of the church never to this day has given up the primitive practice.

      This, too, is an argument of more weight that even the numerical magnitude of this immense section of the church. It is not merely the voice of many millions, but the voice of many millions of Greeks;--of men who knew what Apostles and Greek fathers had written; who needed no translators, nor scholiasts, nor annotators, nor historians, to read them lessons on the primitive practice or on the meaning of Christ's commission. Some seventy-five or a hundred millions of such vouchers on a mere question of fact, qualified as they were, on the mere principle of human authority, would outweigh the world.

      But, even when the Council of Ravenna granted to France and the Papal territory the privilege of affusion, it is not to he concluded that the millions of Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and England immediately accepted of the indulgence. They did not. France herself did not. England held on for three centuries more to immersion;--so did some other portions of eastern Europe; and one portion of the Roman church holds on to this day to the old apostolic custom. We have, then, a tremendous majority, if that is of any value:--the whole church for thirteen hundred years; the half of it for eighteen hundred years; and of the balance, some portions of it for fourteen hundred, and one large portion for sixteen hundred years.

      Concerning the magnitude of the Greek church, compared with the Roman, we learn much from the fact, that during the first seven general councils, the aggregate of Greek bishops was some twenty-two thousand, while that of the Roman bishops was less than thirty! But there is a very plain and tolerably accurate way of ascertaining the comparative number of those immersed and sprinkled in all time. We have, first, all Christendom for thirteen centuries, and half of it for five.

      Now, allow an average of one hundred millions every third of a century to have been baptized, which is certainly within the limits of the actual number, (but it will show the ratios just as well as the true number,) then we have for eighteen centuries, [200] in all, five thousand five hundred millions; of this number, four thousand millions were immersed during the first thirteen centuries. Then we have the one-half of five centuries, which is seven hundred and fifty millions, added to four thousand millions,--giving an aggregate of four thousand seven hundred and fifty millions immersed, for seven hundred and fifty millions sprinkled, during all the ages of Christianity; that is, in the ratio of seven immersed to one sprinkled. In making this estimate, we have given all that have been immersed in the western half of Christendom for the last five hundred years, to compensate for all the clinics that were sprinkled during the first thirteen centuries. After making the most reasonable deductions which can be demanded, we have an immense majority of immersed professors, compared with the sprinkled. This argument is not urged in proof of the truth of our positions, but as a refutation of those who would represent immersion as a small affair, in the esteem of all ages, compared with sprinkling.

      In displaying the documentary evidence of the universality of immersion in the early ages of Christianity, and of the opinions of learned men on the question of the baptismal practice of the church in all ages, we have dealt rather with a sparing hand. We could fill a respectable volume with concessions, confessions, and candid acknowledgments from the greatest Pedobaptist names of Christendom; but, really, it seems to us a work of supererogation. After such men as Mosheim, Waddington, Geiseler, Neander, Brenner, Cave, Taylor, Baxter, Usher, and Grotius, of the modern witnesses;--after such admissions on the part of Stuart and Wall, from their extensive readings;--all declaring the ancient practice, for so many centuries, to be the almost universal practice of the church, why should we summon a hundred others to tell the same story, and to reiterate the same facts? Like Wall, we might fill several volumes with such details. But, may we not say, that if any one hear not these evidences, they would not be persuaded though they were multiplied a thousand-fold!

      I do not quote the Koran to prove that the Mohammedans so render and understand baptism, though I could have done it; nor do I refer to the frequent immersions enjoined in the Mohammedan code; nor did I tell how many conveniences there were for practising immersion either in the brook Kedron, at the pool of Bethesda, being, according to Maundrel, several [201] hundred feet long and broad, and eight feet deep, or at the private and public baths all over Judea; nor have I gone to Philippi, nor to the baptisteries of ancient renown,--not even that of St. Sophia, erected by Constantine, with its immense convocation-room, large enough for an œcumenical council; nor have I told of the famous Lateran baptistery, once bestowed by Constantine to Sylvester, bishop of Rome; nor of the baptistery of Ravenna, with its octangular edifice of two hundred and thirty English feet square; nor have I named the baptistery at Florence, remarkable for its numerous baths; nor have I told of the thousand baths of Robinson; nor gone into the proof of the proposition that baths were as common in the East as bake-ovens in Pennsylvania; neither have I given long accounts of the immersion of many kings, and queens, and princesses, from Elizabeth back to Constantine the Great; nor have I alluded to a score of little things usually introduced to substantiate the testimony given;--all of which, after what I have said and cited, appears about as superfluous, unnecessary, and, I might add, as ridiculous, too, as if, after proving, by twelve of the most veracious witnesses ever sworn, that A B was actually drowned within one mile of Jerusalem, I should then summon a few travellers that had sometimes visited Jerusalem, to say that there was actually water deep enough to drown A B, within one mile of the city!

      Nor have I quoted Milton and all the old poets, to prove from their sayings and allusions that they all admitted immersion to have been found either in baptizo or in history; nor even half of the great men now living: I have not introduced the great German Tholuck, on Rom. vi. 4, saying, "In order to understand the figurative use of baptism, we must bear in mind THE WELL-KNOWN FACT, that the candidate, in the primitive church, was immersed in water and raised out again;" nor have I introduced Urner, saying, "that, in the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolic action shows;" nor Belchneider, in his Theology, saying, "Immersion was the original apostolic practice;" nor Starck, nor Guericke, nor Hahn, nor Von Coeller, nor Frilsch,--all affirming the same, in words either tantamount or paramount.

      Nor have I been peculiarly attentive to the removal of the little objections made by great men, on numerous accounts, to the difficulties of immersing three thousand in one day--as if [202] immersion required twice as long time as sprinkling, which no one of experimental knowledge would believe, for sixty persons have often been immersed by one person in one hour; nor have I, from this fact, repudiated the custom of long narrations of Christian experience prior to immersion, though the argument is irresistible:--three thousand persons in one day enlightened, convinced, converted, declare their faith and penitence, relate their experience, and are immersed in some six or eight hours; nor have I at all adverted to the great difficulty of finding water at all seasons and in all places, as if a man could live long in any country where he could not find water enough to cover him,--or, as if the Lord would condemn any man for not doing what, at a particular day or in a particular place, was physically impossible; as if men would not have as much sense nowadays as in old times, when they went out of one place to another to be baptized, on various accounts besides scarcity of water; nor yet have I shown that Philippi was situated upon a river, and Corinth between two seas; and that there was not a church constituted in the apostolic age, known to history, that had not within its precincts, or in its vicinity, baths, public and private, rivers or pools of water, adequate to all the requisites of Christian immersion.

      The reason why I have not attempted all this, is, because such an effort on my part would be wholly gratuitous. For, if John the Harbinger baptized our Lord in the Jordan; if all Jerusalem, Judea, and the circumjacent country went out to him, confessed their sins, and were baptized by him in the Jordan; if John baptized at Enon, near to Salem, because there was much water there; if an Ethiopian officer went down into the water, in the desert, and came up out of the water, when baptized by Philip; and if the first Christians were all buried with the Lord in baptism; follows it not, that neither sprinkling nor pouring is Christian immersion, or Christian baptism?

      Nay, if in a single case it were clearly shown that any one, in the act of Christian baptism, had been immersed, follows it not that in every case Christian baptism was Christian immersion? unless, indeed, there are two Christian baptisms! But this is inadmissible; inasmuch as the Holy Spirit, by Paul, has said, that "there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." As rationally, therefore, might any one plead for two Lords and two faiths as for two baptisms. [203]

      To conclude, then, on all the premises submitted in this book, I must say, that it appears to me as congruous with good sense, good learning, and good taste to affirm that a person can be immersed by sprinkling or by pouring--or poured or sprinkled by immersion, as that he can be baptized by either the one or the other. [204]

[CBAC 181-204]