immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, and have been used, in the church; that this variety does not alter the nature of baptism! and that a man would do ill to break the custom of the church for either of them. But they add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring on of water. "For suppose," say they, "the priest be old and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands; or the weather be very cold; or the child be very infirm; or too big to be dipped in the font; then it is much fitter to use affusion of the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles baptizing three thousand at a time; and the instance of Laurentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of—and add, "That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick, and another for the healthy; one for children, and another for bigger persons; it is better that the administrator of this sacrament do observe the safest way, which is, to pour water thrice; unless the custom be to the contrary." (Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 360, 361.)

One more historical record, which though apparently inconsiderable in itself, is, in my view, decisive, shall close the present list of testimonies. It is one referred to in a former discourse, when speaking of Infant baptism. I mean the undoubted fact, that the Waldenses, those far-famed and devoted witnesses of the truth, who maintained, during the darkness and desolation of the Papacy, "the testimony of Jesus," very soon after the Reformation opened, approached with the most cordial friendliness, the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; recognised them as sisters in the Lord; received ministers from them; and maintained with them the most affectionate communion. Now it is certain that, at that time, in the churches of both Geneva and France, the baptism of infants, and the administration of the ordi nance by sprinkling, were in constant use. On such an incontestable fact, the argument is this: The Waldenses either baptized by sprinkling or by immersion. If by sprinkling, an important testimony is gained in favour of that mode, from ecclesiastical history. If by immersion, they plainly laid no such stress upon the mode as our Baptist brethren now do; since they were willing to commune with, and to receive ministers from, churches which were in the habit of using sprinkling only. In my view, as I said, this argument is decisive. We know that the Waldenses habitually baptized infants; but in what mode they administered the ordinance is not quite so certain. But one thing is unquestionable; and that is, that those pious witnesses

for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreserved communion with those who practised aspersion.

These testimonies, and many more to the same purpose, which might be presented if it were necessary, must, it appears to me, satisfy every impartial mind, that, from the days of the apostles down to the Reformation, affusion, and sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in constant use; that some of the gravest and most soberminded writers, have firmly defended the two former, as well as the latter; that the strong arguments in favour of affusion or sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, distinctly appreciated; and that it has ever been considered as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be conscientiously preferred.

Suffer me now to close this discussion by presenting two or three practical inferences from the view which has been given of this latter part of the subject. And,

1. If our statement of evidence as to the mode of baptism be correct, then the conduct of our Baptist brethren, in not only denying to the infant seed of believers all right to membership in the church, but also making immersion indispensable to a valid baptism, are chargeable with taking ground which is plainly unscriptural, and with dividing the body of Christ, for a mere uncommanded circumstance; a circumstance in regard to which all reasoning, and all history are, on the whole against them. We do not deny that the baptisms of these brethren are valid; but we do deny that they rest upon any more solid ground than ours; and we are persuaded that, without the least authority, they lay on the recipients of baptism" a yoke of bondage," which has no warrant from the word of God; and which the whole genius of the Gospel forbids. Surely, if the inspired writers had regarded immersion in the same light with our Baptist brethren, we should have had some explicit statements on this subject in the instructions given to the churches in the infancy of their New Testament course. And, surely, the attempt to lay burdens which the Spirit of God has no where authorized, is to incur the guilt imputed to those who "add to" the things which are contained in the book of life. On this subject I feel that it is no longer our duty to content ourselves with standing on the defensive. Our opponents in this controversy, I verily believe, are chargeable with "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;" and, of course, 1 consider them as equally sinning against the Head of the Church, and against "the generation of the righteous."

2. These things being so, we may see how the conduct of some of our Baptist brethren, in particular states of the church, ought to be regarded by the friends of Zion. The conduct to which I refer is, their having so often intruded into churches in which some religious attention has existed, and in which scarcely a family of their own denomination was to be found; and when the minds of many individuals were anxious respecting their eternal interests, immediately broaching the controversy respecting infant baptism, and immersion, and distressing the consciences of serious inquirers not with the great and momentous question, “what they shall do to be saved?" but-before their minds are at all settled as to their personal hope in Christ, or their fitness for any sacramental seal; perplexing them with the controversy about an external rite, which they themselves grant is not essential to salvation. I have personally known such proceedings to occur with a frequency as wonderful as it was revolting; and with an obtrusive zeal worthy of a better cause. Young and timid consciences have been distressed, if not with the direct assertion, at least by the artful insinuation, that their particular mode of baptism was all in all, that there could be no safe Christianity without it. The river, the river, really seemed, by some, to be placed in the room of the Saviour!

There is something in all this so deeply offensive to every enlightened and judicious Christian: which involves so much meanness; and which manifests so much more concern for the enlargement of a sect, than the salvation of souls, that it is difficult to speak of it in terms of as strong reprobation as it deserves, without infringing on the limits of Christian decorum and respectfulness. It is conduct of which no candid and generous mind, actuated by the Spirit of Christ, will ever be guilty. And, I am happy to add, it is conduct in which many belonging to the denomination to which I allude, have souls too enlarged and elevated to allow themselves to indulge.

66

3. Once more; let us all be careful, my Christian friends, as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ecclesiastical controversy. However other denominations may treat us, let us never be chargeable with treating them in an unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in error; in important and highly mischievous error. But what then? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us,

therefore, love them, and, however they may treat us, treat them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare. Let us never indulge a spirit of unhallowed proselytism. Let us never employ any other weapons against them than those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Instead of "doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputing3;" let us follow after patience, forbearance and charity; ever remembering that all who really belong to Christ, however they may differ in externals, are "one body in Him, and members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued with the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth; and may all that we do be done with charity! Amen!

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

(NOTE A.)

GIVING A NAME IN BAPTISM.

In administering the rite of circumcision, it was customary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the circumstances attending the circumcision of John the Baptist, as related in the gospel according to Luke, i. 59-64; and also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Saviour, as found recorded in the next chapter of the same gospel. The same practice probably existed, from the earliest period of the New Testament church, in the administration of baptism. It makes, however, no necessary, or even important part of the rite. A baptism administered without a name, would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced; and there is nothing in the essential nature of the case, which would forbid a name given to a child in baptism being reconsidered and altered afterwards. Yet, inasmuch as a child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in common, for obvious reasons, to be introduced and known under some name, so that each child may be distinguished, and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a

nameless member into any society, would be both unreasonable and inconvenient. Moreover, it is of great consequence, both to civil and religious society, that the birth and baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books. The formation of this record requires, it is evident, the use of a name; and after the name is adopted and recorded in this public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of the name, and tampering in a corresponding manner, with the public register would lead to endless confusion and mischief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train of reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced in baptism ought, in general, to be carefully retained, without subtraction or addition. Sometimes, indeed, the civil law requires such registers to be made and preserved, in regard to every birth and baptism. Where this is the case, there is, evidently, an additional reason for adhering strictly to the name announced in baptism, recorded in the appropriate