withstanding the difference of faith and names into which. they were baptized? Let candour judge, and I will abide the decision.

Therefore, until you, or fome other perfon, fhall prove that John's miniftry belonged to the Jewish difpenfation, we fhall confide in the judgment of the Evangelift, that it was the beginning of the gospel difpenfation. And confequently the manner of John's baptizing may be confiftently urged to establish the mode of Chriftian baptifm.

SECTION IV.

The Mode of Baptifm, and its Connexion with the Subject in Difpute, particularly confidered.

BAPTISM, like man in his primeval state, when it first came out of the hand of its inftitutor, was pure. But it has been bafely contaminated, and perverted from its original defign, to very different purposes. It is no longer dependent on original inftitution; but can be come all things to all men, as circumftances may require.

It is evident, Sir, that you and I differ, both in opinion and practice, refpecting the mode of baptifm. I have ventured to fay in my other Piece, that "baptifm is to be administered only in one mode," and that "immerfion is effential to the ordinance." You have given, it as your opinion, (p. 10) That the effence of baptism, does not confift in any one particular mode whatever;' and that it may be acceptably performed either by Sprinkling, by pouring on water, or by immerfion. In the following page you add, It may be fcrupled whether you, or any other man, can ascertain precifely the apoftolic mode of baptifm.' If this be indeed the cafe, then we may undoubtedly do as the children of Ifrael did when they had no king, every man what is right in his own eyes.

But, whether the fubject be involved in fo much uncertainty as you fuggeft, is worthy of ferious inquiry. We cannot fuppofe you to be confident with regard to your own mode, nor that you will attempt to prove it to be apoftolic; unless you mean to emphasize the adverb precisely,' and include in it all thofe trival circumftances you have mentioned (p. 10.): Such as, whether the fubjects were put into the water backward or forward, or what length of time they kept them under water, or at what time they called the name of the Trinity over them,' &c. But fuppofing it should be difficult to determine upon fome of the circumstances you have mentioned, and we fhould poffibly mistake one or more of them, would any reasonable person conclude, that fuch an omiffion would affect the validity of the ordinance, as much as to change it from immerfion to sprinkling?

But, Sir, you fay the effence of baptifm does not confist in any one particular mode whatever.' What you mean by effence' without, or independent of mode, or of any particular mode, appears unintelligible. For, if the effence of baptism can exist without the inftituted mode, it can undoubtedly in any mode, or without any. But by what chymical art you extract the effence of baptifin from the mode, you have not yet told us. We cannot fuppose by effence, that you mean the holy defires or gracious difpofitions of the fubjects of baptifm; for, from the infant condition of the greater part of those whom you baptize, it is prefumed there can be no evidence of their being poffeffed of fuch holy tempers. If by the effence of baptifm, you mean the form of words used in the adminiftration of it, then undoubtedly that must be confidered valid where the due form of words is ufed, although water be wholly left out; which if we may credit hiftory, has been the cafe in feveral inftances

In the dark ages of fuperftition, when new-born infants dying unbaptized were doomed to eternal death, a prieft was obliged to attend at the call of a midwife and fometimes, when the infant was likely immediate

ly to expire, they not having water prepared, made use of wine.*

An instance is mentioned by Nicephorus, a Greek historian of the 14th century, of " a certain Jew, who, performing a journey in company with Chriftians, and being fuddenly feized with a dangerous illness, earneftly defired baptifm at the hands of his fellow travellers. They not having a priest in their company, and being deftitute of water, were at first reluctant; but he conjuring them not to deny him the favour, they yielded to his request. On which, taking off his clothes, they sprinkled him thrice with fand, instead of water; adding that they baptized him in the name of the Father, and fo on." The fame author informs us, both from Deylingius and Seckendorf, that a little before the reformation, there were, in Upper Saxony, and in fome other places, thofe who taught and practifed baptifm, upon fickly new-born infants, with only ufing the baptifmal form of words, without the application of water, in any form whatever! "To BAPTIZE, by fprinkling a few drops of water; to BAPTIZE, by fprinkling of fand without any water; to BAPTIZE, by merely pronouncing a form of words; what an improvement upon the inftitution of Christ!"

"In the twelfth century, a council in Ireland ordained, that children fhould be baptized in pure water by trine immerfion; but, as a hiftory of facts cannot be collected from mere laws, it may be obferved, that fome of the Irith baptized by plunging their children into milk, and were fuperftitious enough to imagine, that every part fo plunged became invulnerable."

I might go on to multiply inftances of this kind, but the preceding are fufficient to fhow the abfurdity of placing the effence of baptifm in a mere form of words.

Although we would not attempt, or even wish to dictate to our Pædobaptift brethren with regard to their

* Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 442.

† Apud Centur. Magdeburg. Cent. ii. c, vi. p. 82, in Booth's Pædo. Exam. p. 144.

Ibid. p. 145.

$ Godolphin's Repertorium, in Robinson's Hiftory.

practice; yet we claim it as a privilege, to judge for ourfelves what is effential. Chriftians in different periods have had their different opinions of it. Tertullian in the beginning of the third century, and Agrippinus, and Cyprian after him, with many more, rebaptized those who came to them, not merely becaufe they had been. baptized by heretics, (as they were pleafed to call them) but because they lacked what they confidered effential to the ordinance for they "confidered the probity and good faith of the perfon baptized the very effence of baptifm; and if a profeffor of Christianity were an unholy man, they adjudged his baptifin like his profeffion, vain and invalid, and himfelf not a weak believer of Chriftianity, but a mere unprincipled pagan.'

The Council of Nice, in the 4th century, feemed to confider the effence of baptifin as confifting in the form of words ufed in the adminiftration; and accordingly directed, that fuch as came to them from the Paulianifts, both men and women, thould be re-baptized, because the ordinance had not been adminiftered in the name of the Trinity while they admitted the Novatians with only laying on of hands.

The Bohemians confidered the effence of baptifm as confifting in the virtue or competency of the adminiftrator; and confequently re-baptized those who had every other requifite of baptifm, only a corrupt administrator. The Greeks place the effence of baptifm in dipping in water; and had a perfon been sprinkled ever fo decently in any period of life, they would not therefore think him baptized; becaufe, in their opinion, to baptize is to dip, and nothing else.+

The Baptift churches in America, and thofe of Great Britain, Poland, Lithuania, Tranfylvania, and many more, all hold that immersion in water, and a perfonal profeffion of faith and repentance, are effential to baptifm.

But, Sir, whatever you are pleafed to confider as effential to baptifm, that being omitted, would undoubt

* Ibid 461.

+ Vide Robinson's History of Baptifm, p. 463, 464. '

edly invalidate the ordinance in your view; at leaft this is the cafe with us. And why we should think fome circumstances effential to baptifm which you do not, will more fully appear in the fequel.

Many writers on your fide of the question, have endeavoured to prove Chriftian baptifm to have had its origin in the washing of Jewish profelytes; which may reasonably be confidered as a Jewish fable, unknown in the ritual of Mofes, or any part of the Old Teftament. A practice not to be found in the writings of Jofephus and Philo, those two great historians, but is principally taken from writers of a much later date, and particularly from the Yad Chazaka of Maimonides.*

It is worthy of obfervation, that the Pædobaptist writers in this controverfy, rarely, if ever, mention the baptifm adminiftered by John, unless in fome negative fenfe, or to anfwer fome arguments drawn from it against their fentiments. But the washing of Jewish profelytes is frequently mentioned, as an indifputable auxiliary to infant baptifm, by many noted writers on that fide.+

A queftion here naturally fuggefts itself to the mind; Why do Pedobaptifts go back to Jewish tradition, or forward to the death of the Saviour, in order to afcertain the origin of gospel baptifm, and cautioufly omit the first accounts given of it in the facred hiftory? Perhaps the moft natural anfwer is, because that appears incongruous with their practice. It will require a large ftock of art and ingenuity, to perfuade a candid inquirer that John baptized any befide adults, or adminiftered the ordinance in any other way than by immerfion. The particular places which he chofe for the conveniency of baptizing must afford a ftrong argument in favour of immerfion; nor can there be a very rational account given of his conduct upon any other footing. Had John administered in the present popu

* A celebrated Jewish writer, who was the head of a famous school in Egypt, in the beginning of the twelfth century.

+ Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Wall, Dr. Lathrop of Weft Springfield, and others; but fcrupled by the learned Dr. Benfon, and pofitively denied by others.