so on. 'And not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed.' So, they reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember, that fonts to baptize in, had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries,) in times of Popery. And that accordingly, ALL THOSE COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE USURPED POWER OF THE POPE IS, OR HAS FORMERLY BEEN OWNED, HAVE LEFT OFF DIPPING OF CHILDREN IN THE FONT: BUT THAT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, WHICH HAD NEVER REGARDED HIS AUTHORITY, DO STILL USE IT; AND THAT BASINS, EXCEPT IN CASE OF NECESSITY, WERE NEVER USED BY PAPISTS, OR ANY OTHER CHRISTIANS WHATSOEVER, TILL BY THEMSELVES...What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to these western parts of Europe; for it is used ordinarily no where else. The Greek church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion; and they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptized without it: and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. That which I hinted before, is a rule that does not fail in any particular that I know of; viz. All the nations of Christians, that do now, or formerly did submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their infants by pouring, or sprinkling. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of Popery, yet they have since received it from such neighbour nations as had begun it in the time of the Pope's power. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, DO, AND EVER did, DIP THEIR INFANTS IN THE ORDINARY USE." Hist. of Inf. Bap. part ii. chap. ix. p. 463, 467, 470, 471, 472, 477. 24. Anonymous." The custom of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them in the font, which at first was allowed in case of the weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed, that immersion is at length quite excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling was, that several of our Protestant divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of queen Mary, and returning home when queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond sea, where they had been sheltered and received; and having observed that, at Geneva, and some other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the church of England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, together with the coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish entirely the practice of dipping infants in the font." Encyclopæd. Britan. article, Baptism, vol. ii. p. 996. REFLECTIONS. Reflect. I. By the quotations here produced from eminent Pædobaptists, we are taught, that the most ancient instance on ecclesiastical record, which is yet adduced, of pouring or sprinkling, is that of Novatian, in the year two hundred and fifty-one, No. 23;-that the reason of it, both then and afterwards, was not any real, nor even pretended command or example, in the New Testament; but a supposed necessity, arising, either from bodily disease, a want of water for immersion, or some other similar circumstance, No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 16, 20;-that even then, the water was applied by pouring upon or sprinkling, not the face, but the whole body, No. 2;-that it was considered as an imperfect administration of the ordinance; so imperfect, as rendered the subject of it ineligible to the ministerial office, and was denominated sprinkling, not baptizing, No. 2, 23;— that pouring, or sprinkling, as a common practice, originated in the apostate church of Rome, and that the Protestant churches thence derived it, No. 21, 23;— that this mode of proceeding commenced among the English in the time of Queen Elizabeth, but that immersion was the prevailing practice till the reign of James I., No. 21, 23;-that the reasons of this alteration in England were, the love of novelty, niceness of parents, pretence of modesty, and a high regard for the character of Calvin, No. 21, 23, 24;-that Calvin's form of administering the sacraments was probably the first in the world, that prescribed pouring absolutely, No. 23;-that sprinkling, strictly so called, did not commence in England, till the year sixteen hundred and forty-five, and was then used by very few, ibid. ;-that the assembly of divines at Westminster, converted the font into a basin; and that basins, unless in case of necessity, had never been used by Papists, or any other Christians whatever, till by the members of that assembly, ibid. ;—that Roman Catholics ridicule some of the Protestant ministers, for using only a few drops of water, No. 22;—that the reasons assigned for this novel mode of proceeding are, coldness of climate, No. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18;-tenderness of infants, No. 5, 8, 13;-Christianity's not consisting in ceremonies, No. 6;-that sacred maxim, “God will have mercy and not sacrifice," No. 11, 12; the authority of the church to alter ceremonial appointments, No. 22; and (most delicately to crown the whole) because, in the very act of baptizing, it was observed that natura cursum suum tenet, No. 13;finally, that ALL the Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, now do, and ever did, dip their children in the common course of their prac tice, No. 23. Such is the information which these learned authors give. ** Reflect. II. According to this representation, the practice of pouring and sprinkling makes but a poor figure in the eyes of a consistent Protestant; for, if this be a just account, it had no existence till many corrup tions had taken deep root in the church; it originated in dangerous error; was fostered by the mother of abominations; and under the powerful influence of her authority and her example, it became the general custom in all those parts of the world to which her tyranny ever extended; BUT NO WHERE ELSE. It seems to have been under the combined operation of different errors that the practice took its rise. For though, as Mr. Henry justly observes, "Many in the primitive times, upon a mistaken apprehension of the unpardonableness of sin committed after baptism, deferred it long, some even till the dying moment;' yet they imagined the ordinance necessary to their salvation. When, therefore, they were seized with affliction, confined to their beds, and apprehensive of death, the expedient of pouring, or of sprinkling, was devised in the pressing emergency, as a happy succedaneum for immersion. That laborious and learned enquirer, Dr. Wall, could find no instance, of the kind, prior to the case of Novatian; which case is thus described in Eusebius: "He fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism." On which passage Valesius observes: "This word, Tepixubeis, Rufinus very well renders perfusus, besprinkled. For people which were sick and baptized in their beds, could not be dipped in water by the priest, but were sprinkled with water by him. This baptism was thought imperfect, and not solemn, for several rea * Treatise on Baptism, p. 27. † Eccles. Hist. b. vi. chap. xliii. Cambridge, 1683. sons. Also they who were thus baptized, were called ever afterwards, CLINICI; and, by the twelfth canon of the Council of Neocæsarea, these clinici were prohibited priesthood." Yea, so imperfect was this baptism esteemed, that Bp. Taylor tells us: "It was a formal and solemn question, made by Magnus to Cyprian, Whether they are to be esteemed right Christians who were only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped? He [Cyprian] answers, that the baptism was good, when it was done in the case of necessity; God pardoning, and necessity compelling. And this," adds the bishop, "is the sense and law of the church of England: not that it be indifferent, but that all infants be dipped, except in cases of sickness, and then sprinkling is permitted."*Now, that this clinical baptism had no existence in the apostolic times, we are led to conclude, not only by considering the erroneous foundation on which it rests, and the total silence of the New Testament concerning it, but also by the testimony of some learned Pædobaptists. Witness Altmannus, who says, "It has not yet been proved, that the baptism of clinics was used in the time of the apostles; nor, certainly, can any passages be produced from the apostolic writings, nor from those of the first fathers, from which it may be concluded that it is a rite of such great antiquity."† See Chap. IV. No. 84. It is worthy to be remarked, that a gross mistake about the necessity of baptism, not only introduced sprinkling instead of immersion; but, in some instances, has operated so far as entirely to exclude water from any concern in the ordinance. The following examples have occurred to observation, in the course of my reading. Nicephorus informs us, that a certain Jew, performing a journey in company with Christians, and being suddenly seized with a dangerous illness, earnestly * Ductor Dubitantium, b. iii. chap. iv. rule 15. |