it is full as likely that those children whose parents were among the three thousand should be baptized at the same time, as that the jailor's infants, if he had any, should have their sweet repose disturbed by being baptized at midnight. Yet this their argument, from the latter of these facts, implies.—I will add a remark of Mr. Ditton's: "If the evidence be good," says he, "by all the laws of human nature, I do not care for ten thousand difficulties, if they were ever so insuperable, provided they are not such as infer simple impossibility, or palpable absurdity." Once more: Supposing it appeared with indisputable evidence, that the three thousand were baptized by pouring or sprinkling; yet, according to Protestant Pædobaptists, it would not prove the lawfulness of such an administration in common practice, except it appeared to agree with divine law, or to have been the appointment of Christ. For this was undoubtedly an extraordinary case; and learned Pædobaptists assure us, when disputing with Roman Catholics about the sacred supper, That a scriptural example in an extraordinary instance, must not be considered as the rule of general conduct. Thus Mr. Steele: "The relation of an example in an extraordinary case, [is not] sufficient to cancel a direct precept and clear example with it."† --Chemnitius thus: "A general rule must not be taken from extraordinary examples;-for that should be derived from the institution of the sacraments."-Mr. Payne, in answer to an argument of the Papists for communion in one kind, which is drawn from supposed instances of such a practice in the ancient church, thus reasons: "What will this signify, [could it be proved] to the justifying the constant and public communions in one kind, when there are no such particular or extraordinary * Discourse on the Resurrection of Christ, part iii. sect. Ixix. + Morning Exercise against Popery, p. 774. Exam. Concil. Trident. p. 216. Vid. p. 327. reasons for it?....The doing this, is as if the Jews, because whilst they were in the wilderness they could not so well observe the precept of circumcision, and so were at that time, for a particular reason, excused from it, should ever after have omitted it as unnecessary. This, sure, had been making too bold with a positive precept, although there might be a particular case, or instance, wherein it was not so exactly to be observed.... David's eating the show-bread, which it was not lawful but for the priests ordinarily to eat, is approved by our Saviour; not upon the account of tradition, or the judgment of the high-priest, but the extreme hunger which he and his companions were then pressed with, and which made it lawful for them to eat of the hallowed bread, when there was no other to be procured. But did this make it lawful afterwards for the high-priest, or the Sanhedrim, to have made the holy bread always common to others when there was no such necessity?"* Reflection VII. If the numerous and learned authors, in the beginning of this chapter, be not under a gross mistake, with regard to apostolic practice, my reader has reason to be surprised, offended, shocked, at the following reflection which is cast on immersion; because he cannot but perceive it to fall on some of the most venerable and excellent persons that ever appeared in the world. "To baptize naked, or next to naked, (which is SUPPOSED, and GENERALLY practised in immersion) is against the law of modesty; and to do such a thing in public solemn assemblies, is so far from being tolerable, that it is abominable, to every chaste soul: and especially to baptize women in this manner."†-When, in perusing the treatise, I came to these words, I paused, I was astonished, I was almost confounded. What, thought I, is this the language of the amiable and * Preserv. against Popery, title vii. p. 124, 149. excellent Mr. Henry? Does immersion SUPPOSE the subject of the ordinance NAKED, or NEXT to naked? Is this PRACTISED, GENERALLY practised, practised in PUBLIC SOLEMN ASSEMBLIES, and that upon WOMEN too? Where have you been, ye sons of sensuality! that you have not crowded around our baptisteries, when we have immersed any of the fair sex? How many fine opportunities have you missed, of feasting your lascivious eyes, and exulting in the wonderful sight! And what are you about, ye infidels; ye who laugh at every thing sacred, and take a malignant pleasure in exposing Christianity to ridicule! what, I again ask, are ye about, that you have not published our praise for gratifying your enmity to the religion of Jesus Christ! For on the word of an author, who has long been held in a high degree of esteem by the religious public, we have often committed the most enormous outrage-I will not say, on the solemnities of religion, because you do not regard them-but, on the laws of decorum, and on the modest feelings of the tender sex; even while professing to act by the authority and example of Christ. What, are ye silent, all silent on such an interesting occasion; while the pen of a Christian. minister, of a sacred expositor, and of a Protestant Dissenting BROTHER, is thus officiously employed? This, ah! this but I forbear; and shall only add a salutary prohibition, a gentle reprehension, and a candid extenuation. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR; is the prohibition of JEHOVAH, the God of Israel. "We ought to DISOWN and show a DISLIKE of the PROFANE SCOFFS which some people give to the English Antipædobaptists, merely for their use of DIPPING;" is the reprehension of Dr. Wall, the Episcopalian. See No. 96.-I wot that THROUGH IGNORANCE ye did it; is the extenuation of Peter the apostle, when the most unjustifiable conduct was under his notice. It has, I will now subjoin the remark of a Pædobaptist writer upon this passage of Mr. Henry. "This calumny against immersion," says one of the Monthly Reviewers, "might possibly have had some grounds in the practice of a few enthusiasts in the last age. Mr. Baxter uses almost the same words, when speaking of the indecency, as well as the danger, of administering baptism by immersion, as Mr. Henry; and indeed the latter appears to have copied from him. The reflection, however, should by no means be extended to the general practice of the Antipædobaptists, especially those of modern times. We almost question if it ever had a foundation : we are certain it hath none at present. indeed, been supposed by many of the learned, and there seems to be some evidence of it, that the ancients did sometimes administer the ordinance to persons of both sexes, in puris naturalibus: against this, however, the famous Voetius has entered his protest, as a mistake of the moderns, and a misrepresentation of ancient practice. But, admitting the fact, all whom I have observed agree, that a becoming decorum was constantly observed, as far as the nature of the case would permit. Thus, for instance, Dr. Wall: "They took great care for preserving the modesty of any woman that was to be baptized. There was none but women came near, or in sight, till she was undressed, and her body in the water: then the priest came, and putting her head also under water, used the form of words. Then he departed, and the women took her out of the water, and clothed her again in white garments.‡ Those who have read the writings of Dr. Featley, and of Messrs. Baxter, Wills, Russen, Burkitt, and * Monthly Review, for Sep. 1784, p. 237. † Apud. Witsium, Econ. 1. iv. c. xvi. § 14. Hist. Inf. Bap. part ii. chap. ix. § 3. Vid. Vossium, Disputat. de Bap. disput. i. thes. vi. vii. viii., and Mr. Bingham's Origines Ecclesiast. b. xi. chap. xi. § 1, 2, 3. various others, in vindication of Pædobaptism, cannot be ignorant, that the Baptists have been frequently treated in the most illiberal manner. I will here present the reader with an extract from the famous Mr. Baxter, and leave the impartial to judge, whether it be the language of calm reason, of authenticated fact, and of Christian charity; or the clamour of prejudice, the distortion of misrepresentation, and the raving of a persecuting temper. Thus, then, Mr. Baxter: "My sixth argument shall be against the usual manner of their baptizing, as it is by dipping over head in a river, or other cold water....That which is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is no ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin. But the ordinary practice of baptizing over head in cold water, as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth commandment. Therefore it is no ordinance of God, but an heinous sin. And as Mr. Cradock in his book of Gospel Liberty shows, the magistrate ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his subjects....That this is flat murder, and no better, being ordinarily and generally used, is undeniable to any understanding man....And I know not what trick a covetous landlord can find out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new fines and heriots, likelier than to encourage such preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists. I wish that this device be not it that countenanceth these men. And covetous physicians, methinks, should not be much against them. Catarrhs and obstructions, which are the two great fountains of most mortal diseases in man's body, could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, or to increase them where they are. Apoplexies, lethargies, palsies, and all comatous diseases, would be promoted by it. So would cephalalgies, hemicranies, phthises, debility of the stomach, crudities, and almost all fevers, dysenteries, diarrhoeas, colics, iliac passions, convulsions, spasms, |