as well as St. Cyprian, till lately, have had the ingenuity to waive those other topics, and defend affusion, &c., alone by the hope of God's indulgence toward them, in altering that circumstance only in a case of necessity; and never dared attempt to justify it from Scripture, or the practice of Christ and his apostles, as now for some time has been done. For Mr. Wall cannot find an ancient writer who will pretend, with him, that baptism may be administered indifferently in any manner; much less any who argues from the signification of the Greek word, or any passage in the Christian canon, that affusion, or the like, is good or regular baptism: on the contrary, it appears they always insisted much upon immersion; and in a very ancient council, held here in England, under Kenwulf king of the Mercians, anno 816, it is expressly ordered, that baptism shall not be administered by sprinkling, but by dipping. But what need is there to urge this, since our author allows that the opinion of the necessity of immersion, at least in ordinary cases, continued in most parts of the world, especially in England, for a long time; and still prevails in the Greek church, and, as he observes, wherever the pope has had no power; seeming to attribute the alteration to the liberty which he took and taught?

By this, sir, I would satisfy you, that the church, even when it had admitted affusion, which it did only in necessity, never pretended, as Mr. Wall does, to ground it on the words of Christ, or on ecclesiastical practice: and this implies that they do in effect deny, against our author, that it could be

y [See Synodus Calcuthensis, cap. xi. apud Wilkins Concilia Mag. Brit. tom. i. p. 171.]

defended from thence. So that we have the reason of the thing, and the testimony of all antiquity, as Petavius says, with the concurring authority of the whole church for many ages, against our author in this point.

Thus I have made it plain, from the constant use of the word ẞaTTiw in the Greek authors, the βαπτίζω Seventy, and the New Testament, and from the authority of the best critics and most learned men, that it always signifies only to dip, or plunge, &c., and likewise that St. John, our Saviour, the apostles, and the whole primitive church, constantly taught and practised accordingly; and that afterwards, when the church took the liberty to admit sprinkling or affusion, it was thought imperfect and irregular, and allowed in cases of necessity only, on a bare presumption of God's indulgence. To which I added, that the church never went about, till lately, to justify affusion, &c., by the doctrine, or by the practice of Christ, the apostles, and primitive times. From all this therefore it strongly follows, that baptism ought constantly to be administered by immersion or dipping only; and that affusion, sprinkling, or the like, are groundless, unwarrantable, and very dangerous corruptions: and that it is as good sense to say a man is dipped, when only a drop or two of water falls on him, as to say he is baptized, when he is only sprinkled.

Suffer me to put the question here: since the clergy allow, in general, dipping was the ancient manner, universally practised by St. John, by Christ, his apostles, and the whole church, for a long time

together, and insisted on as the lawful and regular way, necessary in all common cases at least; and that the primary sense of the Greek word is to dip: nay, since they have wished this custom might be again restored among us here in England, as it continued till about queen Elizabeth's time; why, after all these concessions, &c., do they pretend it is indifferent, and that baptism may be rightly administered any way; presuming, with Casaubon, the force and energy of this sacrament is not 'placed in the manner a' of its administration? and why do they continue in the constant use and practice of aspersion, &c., and defend it, in opposition to immersion?

6

Here I am necessitated humbly to take notice of the excuse which the most judicious and learned bishop of Sarum has thought fit to make, for changing the manner of baptizing by dipping into that of sprinkling. His lordship is pleased to observe on the twenty-seventh article, that the primitive way of administering baptism, was to lead them ' into the water,' &c., and first lay them down in the water,' &c. 'then they raised them up again,' &c., which is a most express acknowledgment, that immersion was the true primitive manner; but yet afterwards, on the thirtieth article, page 346, he says, 'The danger of dipping in cold climates may 'be a very good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling. This excuse is now become very common, and however insufficient it may seem in itself, has gathered considerable force by

6

a In Matt. iii. 6. Cum non in eo posita sit Mysterii hujus vis et Ενέργεια.

being used by men of his lordship's good sense and learning. But however great and honourable the patrons of a mistake may be, they are but men; and the authority of Christ, and the respect and obedience we owe to his commands, should counterbalance all other considerations and his lordship's own words a little after, against communicating in one kind only, had been much more suitably applied to the sacrament of baptism, than those above cited, and are a full answer to them. It is with abundance of pleasure I learn from his lordship, that An institution of Christ's must not be altered or violated, upon the account of an inference that is drawn to conclude it needless. He who instituted it, knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose ' rather to acquiesce in his commands, than in our ' own reasoningsb.' Thus does his lordship admirably argue, with that force and solidity that eminently appears in all his lordship's writings.

6

6

It is pretended the clergy would gladly revive the ancient practice, and desire, according to the direction of the rubric, to baptize by dipping all that are willing to receive it in that manner, and able to bear it. But if this pretence be real, why do not they take proper methods (unless they think it a trifle not worth their care) to recover it, and put down sprinkling; to reform an error, which will but grow stronger, and increase by continuance? for when no other argument can be found, antiquity and custom will be pleaded. If the clergy would, according to their declared judgment in the case,

b Page 347.

heartily endeavour to recover the true primitive practice, I am well assured they could not possibly fail of success: for I know that many, and I believe the greatest part of the Church of England, take their opinion of aspersion from the authority and practice of the reverend clergy; it being observable, this is the main thing they urge in its defence. So that notwithstanding their pretences, it is to be feared the clergy are a great cause of the corruption, and its continuance. And how they will ever be able to answer this to God or their own consciences, I know not, but heartily wish they would take it timely into consideration.

I do not know, sir, whether you will except against my taking the words βάπτω and βαπτίζω for synonymous. Some have formerly made a wide difference between them, allowing the first indeed to signify what we contend for, but maintaining that BaTTiw, being a derivative with a termination which they call a diminutive, does not signify so much as BάTT; but I think it is plain from the instances already mentioned, that they are ioodúvaμoi, exactly the same as to their signification; though some (as Tertullian seems to have done when he rendered it by mergitare, and Vossius and Stephens) take it for a frequentative, which signifies more than the derivative, and not less; as in English, to dip over and over again. Besides, Mr. Wall seems to allow them to be synonymous, because he argues promiscuously from both. But I need not enlarge upon this; for all who are any thing acquainted with the Greek tongue, know the common criticism to be nothing but a ridiculous piece of pedantry. I will however