WE do not think that we would presume too much upon the candour and good sense of all impartial inquirers after the proper action and subject of Christian baptism, who may have read with impartial consideration our previous essays on these highly interesting topics, if we should say, that, in their judgment, these two important items of the Divine will have been amply and satisfactorily developed by an appeal to the proper sources of evidence and authority, on such questions. Still, as the minds of very many well-disposed persons have been greatly sophisticated by a show of authority and certain special pleadings, based on some comparatively obscure passages of Scripture, or allusions to ancient customs, not well understood, I judge it expedient to select a few specimens of these, by way of appendix to the direct evidence already furnished on those topics.

      And, first, on the action of baptism, much has been inferred from one occurrence of the word baptizo, rendered by the word wash, Mark vii. 3, 4.

      Professor Stuart, of Andover, writes a very elaborate essay to sustain the opinion of Calvin--viz. "It is of no consequence at all whether the person baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different regions, although [392] the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practised by the ancient church." P. 364. "To this opinion," says he, "I do most heartily subscribe." Of course, then, the strict and proper meaning of the word baptize is of no consequence whatever, as every one's choice is all-sufficient to please God! The Lawgiver of the universe enacts a positive law, and gives to every man his choice of three modes of observing it. Whichever of the three best pleases A, B, or C, will perfectly please God!! This is certainly a very complaisant and generous condescension to human predilections and caprices. But with him the word wash justifies this: for, as we may wash by sprinkling, pouring, dipping, it is wholly indifferent which of the three we use. Whichever pleases us, pleases God!!

      In looking over the use of baptizo in the New Testament, finding that in eighty times occurring, it is twice translated wash; and baptismos, occurring four times, though never applied to the ordinance, is three times translated washing, he assumes that this rendering, because of its permitting three ways of using water, is the very meaning which we should always affix to the word when indicating the institution of Christ!! Yet, strange to tell, by only looking at a good concordance, he might see that the word baptisma, appropriated to the ordinance by the Messiah and his Apostles, though occurring twenty-two times, is never translated by the term wash or washing. What a glorious ambiguity is here created! Out of the whole family of baptizo, though occurring one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, he finds once wash and washed, and thrice washing.

      Now, then, the only ground of debate at present is, Does the term wash, in these passages, or rather the verb wash, as found in the English Testament, Mark vii. 3, 4, indicate any thing short of immersion in that particular case? And that I may save the labour of much writing, I will freely quote from Professor Ripley's Examination of Professor Stuart's Essay. On pages 39-47, the professor says:--

      "The whole passage, as expressed in the common version, is the following:--'For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders and when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.' Here are mentioned two instances of washing, (so called;) the first, a matter of constant occurrence; the second, an observance performed after returning from the market. The inquiry is a very natural one, Did these washings differ from one [393] another in any respect? To this inquiry, an affirmative answer can scarcely be avoided. For, in the first place, one was a washing which commonly occurred before a meal, without regard to the employment that had preceded it; so that even if a person had remained at home, still, before taking his meal, he would wash his hands. The other was a ceremony, performed after having been exposed to the various occasions of defilement which would be connected with his attendance at market. Such was the variety of persons and things with which he might have contact, that a more formal and thorough ablution would naturally be performed.

      "In examining the whole passage, especially in the original, an attentive reader will perceive an advance in the thought. There is presented, at first, the general custom, and then a specific case, namely, after returning from the market. If, in common, the hands were washed before eating, the reader is prepared to hear that, after returning from a mixed crowd of people, something different from, or additional to, this washing was performed. The English reader might overlook this, on account of the repetition of the word wash in the fourth verse; although I cannot but think he would, if attentive, be sensible of some deficiency in the representation, unless he should conclude, from the repeated use of the same word, wash, that his expectation of a more formal and thorough ceremony after returning from market, was an incorrect one. But, to a careful reader of the Greek, no such sense of deficiency arises, and no such disappointment occurs. For, as further showing that there was a difference between the two instances of washing, I observe:--

      "In the second place, two different Greek words are employed to express the washing in the two different cases. In the third verse, we read ean me nipsoontai; while, in the fourth, we read ean me baptisoontai. These two words well correspond to the circumstances of the two cases; and, rendered according to the proper meaning, clearly exhibit the advance in the thought. To make this matter plain to a mere English reader, I observe, there is a difference between these two verses in the original, like what would be felt if they were thus translated 'For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not; and when they come from the market, except they bathe, they eat not'

      "To proceed. Since, now, there is a plain difference between these two cases of washing, as suggested both by the occasions and by the different verbs employed in the original, what was the precise difference between them? Was it that, on common occasions, they washed their hands only; while, on the occasion of returning from market, they immersed, or bathed, their whole persons? So thought Vatablus, a distinguished professor of Hebrew at Paris, for whom the Jews of his acquaintance [394] entertained a very high regard. 'They bathed,' says he, on Mark vii. 4, 'their whole persons.' So thought Grotius, who says, on Mark vii. 4, 'They cleansed themselves more carefully from defilement contracted at the market, to wit, by not only washing their hands, but even by immersing their body. In conformity to this, may the passage in Mark be rendered, without the least violence to its language. In conformity with this, too, were the conveniences among the Jews: accommodations for frequent ablutions were everywhere ready. Nor, with their mode of dress, would the practice be so cumbersome as it would be among us.'

      "That some of the stricter sort, that many, enough to justify the Evangelist's general expression, did practise total ablution on the occasion mentioned, is altogether credible. Kuinoel, however, in his commentary, asserts that the existence of such a custom among the Pharisees is not sustained by sufficient arguments. In the absence of clear, satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make any positive assertions. However striking the language of Mark may, by some, be considered, as recognising such a practice, (and the language is certainly coincident with such a practice, especially when we look at it by the investigations respecting baptizo on the preceding pages,) yet I am not disposed to urge it. But, assuming the ground that the Evangelist did not intend to distinguish a total bathing from a partial washing, I again inquire, did he distinguish one sort of partial washing from another sort of partial washing, one of which sorts was performed by the dipping of the hands into water, and thus was properly expressed by the peculiar term (baptizo) which he has employed? If so, this word is here used in its radical, proper meaning; and, consequently, examined in its connection, is so far from requiring or justifying Professor Stuart's view of its meaning, that it is a decisive instance against his view.

      "I have already said that the word (baptisoontai) in this passage may, without any violence, be considered as distinguishing a total immersion from a washing of the hands. I am by no means satisfied, however, that this is a necessary view of the passage. The verb is in the middle voice; and, as there is no object expressed after it, it would be lawful, in order to express the Greek, to employ, as Professor Stuart has, the word themselves, as being contained in the verb itself; so that the translation would be, 'except they immerse or bathe themselves.' Still, as the verb (nipsoontai) in the former part of the passage has, in the middle voice, an object (cheiras, hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable, though not necessary, to maintain that the verb in the latter part of the passage (baptisoontai) has the same word understood after it for its object. The passage would then read, 'The Pharisees . . . except they wash their hands oft, eat [395] not, . . . and when they come from the market, except they immerse or bathe their hands, they eat not.' The ambiguity in the Greek is much the same as there is in the following English sentence: 'The Pharisees . . . except they wash their hands oft, eat not . . . and when they come from the market, except they bathe, they eat not.' The word hands may be considered as understood after the word bathe, or the word themselves may be understood. The illustration is a complete one, because we are not in the habit of distinguishing between different modes of washing the hands.

      "I proceed now to the inquiry, whether there were two sorts of washing of the hands, and what the distinction between them? The following quotations exhibit all that I have to offer; and I present them the more readily, as they are selected from Pedobaptist writers:--

      "Jahn, in his Biblical Archaeology, section 320, makes the following statement: 'The washing of hands before the meals (a custom which originated from the practice of conveying food to the mouth in the fingers) was eventually made a religious duty; on the ground that, if any one, though unconscious of the circumstance at the time, had touched any thing, whatever it might be, which was unclean, and remained unwashed, when he ate, he thereby communicated the contamination to the food also.' The Pharisees judged the omission of this ablution to be a crime of equal magnitude with fornication, and worthy of death.

      "They taught that, if a person had not departed from the house, the hands, without the fingers being distended, should be wet with water poured over them, and then elevated so that the water might flow down to the elbows; furthermore, the water was to be poured a second time over the arms, in order that (the hands being held down) it might flow over the fingers. This practice is alluded to in Mark vii. 3. On the contrary, those who had departed from the house, washed in a bath, or, at least, immersed their hands in water with the fingers distended. The ceremony in this case (Mark vii. 4) is denominated ean me baptisoontai, (except they immerse, or bathe.)

      "Dr. George Campbell, on Mark vii. 3, 4, says, 'For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, first, that the two verbs, rendered wash in the English translation, are different in the original. The first is nipsoontai, properly translated wash; the second is baptisoontai, which limits us to a particular mode of washing; for baptizo denotes to plunge, to dip. This is more especially the import when the words are, as here, opposed to each other. Otherwise, niptein, like the general word to wash in English, may be used for baptizein, to dip, because the genus comprehends the species; but not conversely, baptizein for baptein, the species for the genus. By this interpretation, the [396] words which, as rendered in the common version, are unmeaning, appear both significant and emphatical; and the contrast in the Greek is preserved in the translation.' Accordingly, Dr. Campbell translates the passage thus: 'For the Pharisees . . . eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them; and if they be come from the market, by dipping them.'

      "Rosenmuller, in his notes on this passage, speaks of two modes of washing the hands; namely, 'immersion of the hands in water, and when one hand is washed by the other.'

      "Kuinoel, also, speaking of the opinion entertained by some, that a total ablution was performed in case of returning from the market, says, 'But an immersion of the hands, duly performed, would have abundantly sufficed for this end;' that is, for purification from contact with the multitude.

      "Spencer, on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews, speaks thus: 'Some of the Jews, ambitious for the credit of superior purity, frequently immersed their whole persons in water; the greater part, however, following a milder discipline, frequently washed only their hands, when they were about to take food. That the greater part, and especially the Pharisees, attended to this rite privately, at home, and considered it a very important part of religion, is sufficiently evident from Mark vii. 3, 4. Hence it was that stone vessels for water water-pots, [John ii: 6] were provided for every house of the Hebrews; so that all, when about to take food, might perform the frequent washings, according to the discipline of the Pharisees. These vessels were very unsuitable for performing these daily purifications of the Jews; for it was customary among the Jews, sometimes to wash the hands by water poured upon them; at other times, to immerse the hands in water up to the wrist.'

      "From Lightfoot, I gather the following: On Mark vii. 4, he says, 'The Jews used "the washing of hands," and "the plunging of the hands." And the word nipsoontai, "wash," in our Evangelist seems to answer to the former,--and baptisoontai, "baptize," to the latter . . . 'Those that remain at home, eat not . . . "unless they wash the fist." But those that come from the market eat not, . . . "unless they plunge their fist into the water," being ignorant and uncertain what uncleanness they came near unto in the market.' 'The phrase, therefore,' Lightfoot adds 'seems to be meant of the immersion or plunging of the hands only.' But I remark, though it were only the hands that were plunged, yet the meaning of baptizo is sufficiently obvious."

      "The preceding copious examination helps us, of course, rightly to understand the quotation from Luke xi. 48, which is next brought forward to sustain the meaning to wash, ascribed to baptizo: 'But the Pharisee, seeing him, wondered that he had not first washed himself (baptisthe) before dinner.' [397] Common version, 'And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner;' that he had not first immersed, that is, himself, or his hands. By the preceding part of the chapter, it appears that our Lord and his host had been exposed to a great mixture of company; and, therefore, needed, in the judgment of the Pharisee, the more formal and thorough sort of washing. On this passage, too, Lightfoot observes, 'There is a washing of the hands, and there is a dipping of the hands.' This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washed his hands; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the water, when he was newly come from the people that were gathered thick together."

      The laborious and numerous attempts from this passage to make out a case where, in the judgment of the authors of the common version, the verb baptize means to wash, as a primary meaning, demands a particular and full exposure of this bewilderment of some men of learning in their zeal for affusion. I have, therefore, gone into these details. I wonder no little, indeed, to see a man of Professor Stuart's learning and candour do so little honour to his own learning and critical acumen, as in this case is most apparent. His own party--I mean the more profound scholars of his own party--are themselves here arrayed against him. Here stand Drs. Campbell, Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Spencer, and Lightfoot, in evidence against his reasonings and conclusions.

      There are, in the common version, some two or three other occurrences of this erroneous translation, which are disposed of by these investigations. To quote still farther from Professor Ripley:

      "To sustain the meaning to wash, three other passages are produced by Professor Stuart, which contain the substantive derived from the verb baptizo:--

      "Mark vii. 4: The washings (baptismous) of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches, (klinoon.)

      "Mark vii. 8: The washings (baptismous) of pots and cups.

      "Heb. ix. 10: Only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, (baptismous.)

      "That the word rendered washings in these passages ought, so far as philology is concerned, to be rendered immersions, would be a plain inference from the preceding investigations. And even though a difficulty should seem to arise from the nature of some of the things mentioned by Mark, we ought, before we decide that the word must have another meaning, to [398] inquire whether the supposed difficulties really existed in practice among the Jews. It is by no means satisfactory to refer to customs among ourselves, as suggesting difficulties in respect to what the Jews are said to have done; and especially what they are said to have done by the influence of a misguided religious scrupulosity; for it was from religious, though mistaken considerations, that they practised these observances. Nor were such observances entirely without foundation in the statutes of Moses. In Lev. xi. 32, it is directed that any vessel upon which the dead body of an unclean animal had fallen, 'whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water,' in order to be cleansed. The only exception was in respect to earthen vessels, which, being thus polluted, were to be broken in pieces, (ver. 33.) Now, how credible it is, and how accordant with the language of Mark, that the superstitious spirit of the Jews, in subsequent times, extended this requisition to other cases besides that of pollution by the touch of the dead; so that even on ordinary occasions, when they thought religion required the articles to be cleansed, the cleansing must be performed by immersing them in water.

      "And who can wonder, if this same spirit led them, carefully to cleanse by immersion even the couches on which they reclined at meals? for it is these, probably, which are meant by the word translated tables in our version. It would certainly accord well with their superstitious disposition. And so far as the writings of distinguished men among the Jews enable us to form a judgment, those writings contribute altogether to the belief that there was usually performed an immersion of these articles, when they needed special purifying. The Jewish rules which Dr. Gill quotes in his commentary on Mark, vii:. 4, are precise in requiring such articles to be cleansed by being covered in water; and the regulations are exceedingly strict in regard to this washing, so that should there be any thug adhering to these articles, such as pitch, which might prevent the water from touching the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not be duly performed. The same Jewish authority requires even beds to be cleansed by immersion, when they had become defiled.

      "And what should hinder us from employing the word immersions in Heb. x. 9? Immersions were practised by the Jews in accordance with the Mosaic ritual; and why may we not consider the Apostle, when naming the immersions, as taking a part for the whole of the legal purifications, and consequently as not departing from the specific original meaning of the word he has employed?"

      These matters of private or sectarian interpretation being disposed of, there remains scarcely the semblance of any other excuse for the practice of sprinkling, as derived from any word or [399] circumstances named in the whole New Testament. True, indeed, there are words and circumstances seized by some adult babes or babe adults, and dwelt on with a zeal and perseverance worthy of a martyr; but in this case, they only prove how strong in prejudice and how weak in reason some men of high pretensions may be; when they have unfortunately identified their fortune and their fame with the maintenance of a tenet for which there is neither reason nor faith.

      Such, for example, is the frequent appeal to the case of Paul's baptism, as reported by Luke, Acts xxii. 16: "Arise and be baptized;" and again, chap. ix. 18: "He arose and was baptized." Now, say they, as Paul was baptized standing, he must have been sprinkled, and not immersed. But does it say he was baptized standing?--! No, indeed; but "Arise, and be baptized." What is this but the usual style--"Arise, let us go hence!" Could he not have been sprinkled sitting, or on his knees, as well as standing up! In the same chapter, 10th verse, the Lord said to Saul, "Arise, and go into Damascus." Why not infer that rising and going into Damascus are one and the same thing, or inseparably connected, as that rising up and being baptized are one and the same act, because connected in the same message or precept. When candidates present themselves for baptism, we are all wont to say, "Arise, let us go to the water," &c. This, then, if there be any argument in it, is doubtless in favour of immersion. For Ananias would rather have called for water to be brought, than to have commanded Paul to rise up and be baptized, if he intended sprinkling or pouring. In truth, this is an idiomatic expression, common to the East and the West. On a thousand occasions, we all say, "Rise, and let us go to work"--"Arise, and act like men"--not meaning that we are about to engage in something that must be done in a standing position; but that we must change our position in reference to some object, whether mental or corporeal.

      Next to the passage in Mark, there is one in Ezekiel, that has been quoted a thousand times by a few writers and speakers on the subject of "sprinkling water" on infants and adults. It is chapter xxxvi, and verse 25: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." This promise alludes to the separation of the Jews, through faith in Christ, from pagan idols and from pagan nations, to be fulfilled in their conversion. [400] So the context indicates. The words preceding are: "For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," &c. &c. One would think, from the frequency and, emphasis with which these words are quoted by a certain class of ultra sprinklers, that Ezekiel was foretelling and developing the ordinance of Christian baptism as practised by some modern communities. But a more irrational play upon a word from grave men, or from those who ought to be grave men, is not, in my opinion, to be found in modern literature.

      Let no one be startled by the boldness I assume when I challenge the whole world of sprinklers to show that water alone was, by divine authority, ever sprinkled upon person, place, or thing, in any religious, moral, political, or physical sense whatever. I deny that ever water alone was sprinkled on any person or thing, by divine authority, for any sort of purification, legal or evangelical, under any dispensation of religion, Patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian. It is an assumption superlatively gratuitous and unprecedented.

      Blood, and oil, and water mixed with the ashes of a blood-red heifer, have been sprinkled for legal and ceremonial purposes. Blood alone, oil alone; but never water alone, was divinely ordained for such purposes. The water of cleansing, or the water of purification, sometimes called "the water of separation," was, indeed, in certain cases, of legal uncleanness, divinely appointed. Hence a prescription for the manufacture of it is delivered by Moses, engrossing the 19th chapter of the book of Numbers. Yet even this "clean water," or "water of cleansing," to which Ezekiel alludes, when sprinkled upon a person pronounced legally unclean, did not, without baptism, or a "bathing himself in water," effect any legal purification. So ignorant are they of the Law and the Prophets, who substitute the Roman Catholic notion of "holy water" and a hair sprinkler, for either Jewish or Christian cleansing of person, place, or thing. Bathing the whole person after this sprinkling of water and ashes, was in every case essential to any legal benefit.

      This abuse of reason, of authority, and of Holy Scriptures, needs only to be clearly propounded to any one that reveres Bible authority, to appear, as it is in truth, a superstitious and unwarranted custom. But to quote a Jewish Prophet, of the times of the captivity, addressing his countrymen on the subject [401] of their restoration to their own land, as though he had been teaching Christian ordinances with respect to admission into the church, has no parallel in sophistry on this side the assumptions of Roman Catholic manufacturers of "holy water," to be dashed on every one that comes within the sweep of a hyssop or hair sprinkler in the hand of a priest, neither of the tribe nor sense of a son of Levi.

      I trust the candid reader will excuse me for adverting to customs so unfounded in Christianity, and so revolting to an educated and intelligent community. I find my own justification, and I hope my readers will find my pardon, in the fact that some ministers of our own day have been dubbed Doctors of Divinity for no other or better reason, that I can see, than their quoting, with an air of glorious triumph on their brow, Ezekiel xxvi. 25, in proof of their own dear custom of baptizing the tip of their fingers in a bason of water, that they may sprinkle a few drops of it on the brow of a babe, in the name of the Lord, to sanctify and cleanse it for some end or purpose which no one can define, much less defend.

      I must conclude this essay on punctilios, consecrated by great names, with an extract from Dr. Wall, the most learned and candid of Pedobaptist Episcopalian ministers. The advocates of sprinkling will hear their brother Pedobaptist with more pleasure than myself. I will, therefore, courteously dismiss the topic with a few words from Dr. Wall. He says:--

      "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 [402] 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 this quarreller has no ground in his assuming way to demand, 'Why do they continue,' &c.

      "The difficulty of breaking any custom which has got possession among the body of the people (though that custom be but two or three generations) is known and obvious. And there being a necessity of leaving it to the parents' judgment whether their child may well endure dipping or not; they are ver 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, beside this general, two particular obstacles, which it may be fit to mention:--

      "1st. 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 into ordinary use, which before was used only to weak children. [403] 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 any thing 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 to 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 in a bedchamber, hardly persuaded to bring them to church; much farther from having them dipped, though never so able to endure it.

      "2d. 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:--A 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 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 the 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."

      We will also hear Dr. Wall reprove his brethren for their quibbles about sprinkling:--

      "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 scoffs 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 [404] 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."

      He might have said always, rather than "ordinarily."

[CBAC 392-405]