terest accufations and the feverest invectives, that the warmeft imagination could invent. They have not only been reprefented as delirious, mad, fanatical, illiterate, factious, and ignorant both of natural and revealed. religion; but also abandoned to all kinds of wickedness and fedition, and as the only authors of the odious parricide committed on the perfon of Charles I."* We do not pretend to vouch for the truth of these things, nor do we believe them generally to be true; but only mention them to fhew that other fects have been as feverely cenfured as the Anabaptifts. If we compare the accounts given by the enemies of the two fects, this will be about the refult-The fanatics of one, in their wild zeal, set up a king; and the fanatics of the other pulled down theirs. But even admitting all that has been faid of the German Anabaptists to be true, and we can fee no more propriety in reproaching the prefent Baptifts with it, than there would be in reproaching the prefent. Pædobaptifts with all the errors, debaucheries, and enormous cruelties committed by the Pædobaptifts of Rome. The fact is, though we agree effentially with the German Baptifts in the article of baptifm, yet we totally difapprove of their diforderly, feditious fanaticifm. So we understand our brethren, that while they agree with the church of Rome in their infant baptifm, they difagree. with their fentiments and practice generally. The only inquiry which a candid mind would here make would be this; Is there any thing in immersion which has a natural tendency to fanaticifm and fedition? Our object in this fection was not particularly to exhibit all the proofs in favour of immersion of which the fubject is fufceptible, (as that, we conceive, has been fufficiently done, Part II. fect. iv. and v.) but more especially to remove fome of the objections which have been raifed against the practice by its oppofers. We have endeavoured candidly to meet the most weighty and popular objections, and the public will judge whether we have refuted them or not. A few additional obfer vations fhall clofe the fection. Eccl. Hift. vol. v. p. 181, 182. "The Greek word baptizo," fays Mr. Worcester, "determines nothing in refpect to the particular mode in which water is to be applied." (P. 69.) This is certainly an unpleasant circumftance, if true, that a word is made ufe of to defcribe a particular action, and yet that it has no definite meaning, fo that we can poffibly determine from it what is to be done. "Every perfon," fays Dr. Ofgood, "who hath the like acquaintance with them (that is, with the original languages as himself) well knows, that the Greek word for baptifm fignifies any kind of washing, by sprinkling or affufion, as often, if not much oftener, than by dipping." The object with both thefe writers is evidently the fame: it is to throw the word into a ftate of complete uncertainty, and in this way to fecure the validity of fprinkling. It means, according to them, any kind of washing, either by dipping, pouring on water, or fprinkling. Nor is there any direction to what part the water is to be applied; whether to the head, the hands, or the feet. We know of nothing but custom, which has determined the application of it to the forehead. We with here to state a cafe, and fhould be much gratified in a fair answer. Suppofing a family of the defcendants of Abraham were to embrace Christianity under the miniftry of the Pædobaptifts, and fhould receive their doctrine of baptifm, as coming in the room of circumcifion; and should hence infift, that in order to render it analogous to that rite, the water must be applied to the fame part; would thefe gentlemen, in their great "condefcenfion to the confciences" of their Jewith converts, apply water in this way ? Could they make any fair objection, and ftill fupport their baptifm on the ground of circumcifion? We fhould fuppofe not. If the manner of applying water is to be determined by the confciences, or rather fancies of the candidates for the ordinance, then any way, and to any part which they may choose, muft be confidered as valid baptifm. But let us for a moment inquire if the word baptizo, which is rendered baptize, has not a primary meaning, fufficiently definite to direct our practice. "The word," fays a very fenfible writer, "is confeffedly Greek. Native Greeks understand their own language better than foreigners; and they have always understood the word to mean dipping; therefore from their firft embracing Christianity to this day, they have always baptized, and do yet baptize by immerfion."* We appeal to our learned opponents to fay, whether the Greek church in all its branches, even the cold regions of Ruffia not excepted, has not to the present time practifed immerfion? We hence reason in this way :-The New Teftam.ent was originally written in Greek; that native Greeks underftood the word baptizo as we do, to mean immerfion, and confequently they always practifed immersion: this alone, we should fuppofe, would be allowed to be decifive evidence of the meaning of the word.-The beft critics of all the Chriftian fects have agreed with Leigh,t" that the native and proper fignification of it (baptizo) is to dip into water, or to plunge under water."When the action is described in the New Testament, it is defcribed by their going down into the water, and coming up out of it; which would be abfurd upon any other principle but immerfion.-That it was understood in the fame sense by the Chriftian church generally during the first centuries; this is evident from every ecclefiaftical writer of any note whose works have come to our knowledge. These things confidered, can there a doubt remain as to its proper meaning? As we have quoted largely from the above clafs of writers in a preceding part of this work, we shall here only add two or three quotations from Dr. Motheim. In defcribing the rites and ceremonies of the first century, he fays, "The facrament of baptifm was adminiftered in this century, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose; and was performed by immerfion of the whole body in the baptifmal font." In this author, there is not a word to be found in the history of this century, of pouring or fprinkling, as “a fcriptural and valid mode of baptifm." But what may be done by "fair implication," we pretend not to fay. Let us now follow this learned hiftorian into the next century, and fee how the ordinance was then administered. "The perfons," faith he, "to be baptized, after Robinson's Hift. Bapt. p. 5. E e 2 Eccl. Hift. vol. i P. 126. + Crit. Sacra. they had repeated the creed, confeffed and renounced their fins, and particularly the devil in his pompous allurements, were IMMERSED under water, and received into Chrift's kingdom, by a folemn invocation of Father, Son" &c. (Ibid. p. 206) Thus, according to Dr. Mofheim, (and it must not be forgotten that he was a Pædobaptift) the apoftolic mode of baptifm was preferved through this century. Had either fprinkling or affufion been practised in these centuries, is it not perfectly unaccountable that not a hint fhould be given of it by this author? What could induce him to keep fuch a fullen filence about it? Had he not the advantage of examining the writings of Clemens, Hermes, Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, and all the other ancient writers mentioned by Mr. Worcester? He undoubtedly had, for he has quoted from many if not all of them. If the fulleft evidence could be exhibited of the exiftence of infant baptifm, in the third and fucceeding centuries, and that it were then practifed by pouring or fprinkling, it would afford no decifive evidence that either were practised by the apoftles. Any one who has taken the pains to trace the progrefs of innovation, will be fully convinced of this: he will find fuch an increase of rites and ceremonies from century to century, as ́in a little time to change the vifible afpect of almost the whole Chriftian church. But notwithstanding this general departure from apoftolic purity both in doctrine and manners, immersion held its indifputable claim, of being the divinely appointed mode of baptifm. We fay mode, becaufe fprinkling in fome instances was admitted, in cafes of danger of death, as a substitute. And we verily believe, that after all the laborious and oftentatious criticifm" upon baptizo, to make it mean pouring or Sprinkling and upon en, apo, and eis,* there could not be found among the 'ædobaptifts themselves, one perfon in ten who had ever thought on the fubject, but would freely acknowledge that he believed Jefus Chrift was immersed by John in Jordan Nor do we think our brethren who plead for the validity of sprinkling, disbe ; Vid. Dr. Crane's Sermons.. lieve it themfelves. If this be indeed an error, we can think of but one complete remedy for it; and that is, to alter the Bible! Whilft the prefent tranflation is received, and people are permitted to read and think for. themselves, it may be expected that there will be a general conviction, that Jefus was plunged in Jordan. And all attempts to prove, that this was to anfwer to the washing of the priests at the tabernacle door, in order to introduce him into his prieftly office, will help to ftrengthen this conviction; for it will be feen that the Pædobaptifts themfelves feel the difficulty, and try to get rid of it in this way We have no where in the course of these animadverfions attempted to vindicate Mr. Merrill, as we think. him able, and believe him determined, to do it himself;" but with here to notice a criticifin made by Mr. Auftin. on John xii. 10, in his Letters addreffed to the above author. (P. 39.) "You mention," faith Mr. Austin, "louo, as fignifying the fame with baptizo, &c. If you will (continues he) turn to John xiii. 10, juft adverted to, a place which you have not mentioned, and probably not confidered, you will find evidence directly and conclufively against this idea. Jefus faith unto him, lle that is washed (ò leloumenos) needeth not fave to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." On this Mr. Austin obferves" Here the fubject spoken of is not the feet, or hands, or face; but the man, he, in Greek, d He is wathed when his feet only are wathed; and nipfafthai is ufed, to exprefs this wathing of the feet." But has not Mr. Austin after all miffed the force of our Saviour's obfervation? Did not Jefus intend to exprefs two distinct acts, one a general, and the other a partial washing? one a bathing of the whole body, and the other a wathing of the feet, and therefore made ufe of two different words? In the first, Christ uses the past * Pædobaptifts, who write or fpeak of Mr Merrill, affect to treat him with much contempt, as though he were a man of inferior learning and talents. If they believe it, is it not aftonishing that fo many pens hould be employed against hint, and these wielded too by men of the first literary eminence? If their reprefentations be true, they would gain but little honour should they beat him; but would it not be infi nitely difgraceful to be beaten by him, after thus defpifing him? |