more.

never to throw off any part of the ceremony, but to add To immersion they soon added a trine immersion; exorcisms (or expelling the devil from the candidate); putting salt on the tongue; anointing the eyes, ears, and mouth, with spittle; marking with the sign of the cross, clothing in a white robe, and anointing with oil. They went further. Not content with being literally buried in the waters, they imbibed another notion. from "putting off the old man," and also from the nakedness of Christ on the cross (for the same passage which speaks of being buried with Christ speaks of the old man being crucified with Christ): and they baptized all naked: men, women, youths, children, all alike actually naked, divested of all clothing! Truly, "Baptisteries" were necessary at that period: and he would not be wide from the mark who should see here a reason for their invention, to remedy the indecencies of the scene; but from the beginning it was not so. For authority as to this fact I refer to Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and to Dr. Miller on Baptism, p. 105. Wall says, "The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked, whether they were men, women, or children." Dr. Miller adds, "We have the same evidence (to wit, from history) in favor of immersing divested of all clothing, that we have for immersion at all," and that " so far as the history of the Church subsequent to the Apostolic age informs us, these must stand or fall together."

The argument from history, therefore, proves nothing pertinent to the determining of the question, or it proves altogether too much. It cannot weigh against the word

of God, and the suitable exposition of the law of baptism as instituted by Christ.

But here justice requires that I go a little further. A tract entitled "A Familiar Dialogue between Peter and Benjamin on the subject of Communion," has been extensively circulated here, and all around in the region, and, as appears, extensively through the country. On the first page of this tract we have the following sentence : "As late as 1643, in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, sprinkling was substituted for immersion by a majority of ONE-25 voted for sprinkling, 24 for immersion. This small majority was obtained by the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that Assembly."

Now all this is told for truth. It is told most circumstantially:-" in 1643"-" the Assembly of Divines," 66 majority of one,"--" 24 for immersion,"-" 25 for sprinkling,"—" by the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot.” Like other fictions, this fiction is founded on fact, but it is not the truth.

From the journal of Lightfoot it appears,

1. That the matter in dispute was, "sprinkling being granted, whether dipping SHOULD BE TOLERATED WITH IT.” This was the form, and the reality, of the question whether to dip or sprinkle. The proposition, " It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed and was ready to vote. But Dr. Lightfoot "spoke against it as being very unfit to vote that it is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it." Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here, says Lightfoot, "we fell upon a large and long discourse whe

ther dipping was essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom."

2. It was not true that 24 voted for immersion, as opposed to sprinkling; but, as Dr. Lightfoot says, many were unwilling to have dipping EXCLUDED, that the votes came to an equality within one." It was not that they wished immersion to be adopted, or even recommended in the Directory; but simply that the Directory might not prohibit immersion to those who should prefer it. When the proposition was put in such a shape as not to make dipping unlawful, the Assembly, with great unanimity, declared in their Directory that for the mode of baptizing, it is "not only lawful but ALSO SUFFIcient, and MOST EXPEDIENT, to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony."

3. Nothing at all was finally determined on that vote of 24 to 25. "After that vote," Lightfoot says, "when we had done all, we concluded nothing about it, but the business was recommitted."

On the following points, then, the statement of the tract in question is not true:

1. It is not true, that sprinkling was substituted for immersion by the Assembly of Divines.

2. It is not true, that 24 voted for immersion and 25 for sprinkling, as opposing or preferring sprinkling to immersion. All they wanted was, not to exclude dipping as unlawful; and as soon as this point was yielded them, they "with great unanimity" concurred in the vote declaring sprinkling to be "lawful," "sufficient and most expedient."

3. It is not true, that the assembly finally determined anything as touching this matter by a majority of one.

From this is vamped up the statement in the tract; and the statement is made in such a connection as to lead people to understand, that "immersion" had been the common mode, and the Assembly substituted sprinkling for it. There was no such substitution, either in fact, or even so much as a substitution of the word sprinkling for the word immersion in the Directory. Dr. Miller appears to be amply justified when he says,"The common statement of this matter by our Baptist brethren is an entire misrepresentation."

That those who print and circulate this tract know its statements to be false, I cannot affirm. That its statements are grossly untrue, may be seen by a bare reference to dates, which every schoolboy ought to know.

The time when the sprinkling was said to be substituted for immersion was the year 1643. Twenty-three years before this, our Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth; and if immersion had been the common practice in England they would have brought it with them. But the fact was so far from this, that sixteen years after, Roger Williams removed from Massachusetts to Providence, and continued a Pædo-baptist for three years longer. When at length he turned Baptist, as Mr. Hague, the present minister of the original Roger Williams Church in Providence, says, in his "Historical Discourse" (and as is narrated in the "Life of Roger Williams')-"The difficulty that arose was the want of a proper administrator: for at that time, no ordained minister could be found in America who had been immersed on

a profession of faith."* And yet there were many aged ministers in America, who had long been ministers in Old England before they came across the waters! A Mr. Ezekiel Hariman, a layman, first immersed Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Williams immersed the rest. This was the beginning of the Baptists in America.†

So again, Richard Blount, in the reign of King Charles II., went from England to the Netherlands to be immersed, because he deemed it could not suitably be done in England; and when he returned, he immersed the Rev. Samuel Blackstock, and these two immersed the rest of a number who wished to become a Baptist Church, on what they deemed the proper foundation; to wit, an authorized ministry and an authorized baptism. Could this have happened had sprinkling been substituted for immersion only a few years before, and that by a majority of only one in an Assembly of the leading Divines of England ?

* Hague's Historical Discourse, 1840, p. 27.

† Mr. Williams soon after left the Baptists and turned Seeker, ‡ There were at this time some few Baptists in England, but it does not appear that any were in the Assembly of Divines.

Dr. Murdock (on Mosheim, vol. iii) says, "The first regular congregation of English Baptists appears to have originated from certain English Puritans, who returned from Holland after the death of their pastor, Rev. John Smith, who died in 1610."—" From this time onward, churches of General Baptists were formed here and there in different parts of England. But, in general, they made no great figure, and do not appear to have had much connection, or to have professed one uniform faith." "The Particular Baptists (Calvinistic) trace their origin to a congregation of Independents, established in London in 1616. This congregation having become very large, and some of them differing from the others on the subject of infant baptism, they agreed to divide.