the second century. The pictorial representations of the Lord's Supper, where the disciples are represented in a sitting, not a recumbent posture, we believe equally to prove the exact position of the apostles when first attending to this institution. We know not that there is either proof or probability that any existing carved or painted representation of the Lord's Supper or of baptism was made in the second or third century. We would not, however, adopt a practice, or recommend the adoption of a practice, in opposition to God's Word, even if it originated as early as the second century. Yet C. Taylor is so deeply moved by evidence of John's practice from this "art of the painter" that, after admitting that the descent of the Holy Ghost is improperly represented as taking place whilst Christ was IN the Jordan; and after teaching that the "pouring is distinct from the prior immersion"-the pouring being done by John, and the immersion by the candidate himself---he says: "I am not aware that a more forcible appeal can be made to the heart and judgment by means of the senses. Every man not stone-blind, or worse still, so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE, must feel the force of this appeal" (Facts, &c., p. 34). The italics and capitals are his. We do not now remember a more contemptible display of learning and bigotry, or a greater outrage of fact and common sense by hypothesis.

8.-On the practice of the first thirteen hundred years, as coming down to us through a Popish channel.

Dr. L. WOODS.-"Make the Bible the only standard of moral and religious truth." "In all your inquiries after truth, seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit."-Works, vol. i., pp. 6, 10.

DR. WILLIAMS tauntingly says: "It is urged, that dipping was in use for thirteen hundred years; that is, through the darkest times of Popery! What a mighty recommendation!" That Popery so long hesitated to pronounce sprinkling valid in other than the exceptional cases of illness or weakness is thus sneeringly referred to. Would there have been such language if sprinkling had had such an existence for the first thirteen hundred years? It is also overlooked that apostolic times are included in these thirteen hundred years. But even those who admit that the apostles sometimes immersed, can vilify such a practice. Suppose it were said that reading the Scriptures, public prayer, and homiletic instruction, were practised in the church for thirteen centuries, what should we think of the scornful reply: "That is, through the darkest times of Popery! What a mighty recommendation!" Perhaps it is not materially different from what many do in substance assert, that "even if immersion was in fact the original mode of baptizing in the name of Christ," the practice is so repulsive to the feelings, so dangerous to the health, and so offensive to delicacy, as to "make it improbable that no accommodation of the form should take place without vitiating the ordinance" (R. Watson). We have written in defence of God's ordinance, not of Popery; nor even of the Baptists, except in relation to the practice of immersion. We have not eulogized the delay of baptism after the credible profession of faith, or the publicity which is sometimes given to baptism by its previous announcement, and by its invariable practice with some before a public congregation; nor have we lauded

insufficient regard to the purity of the water, or to the doing of all things decently and in order. We have not advocated the appearance of candidates before the church, and the requiring of an oral confession before the church previous to any administration of baptism by the pastor of the church. That which we have advocated is obedience to God's command, which certainly none should neglect, even though it could be proved that the Pope or the devil did likewise.

9. On the silence of Scripture respecting the sprinkling of infants, and on the burden of proof for positive and negative assertions and practice.

Dr. L. WOODS.-"Make truth itself the object of your inquiries." "Pursue this object with candour and impartiality; with liberality and independence; with laborious and thorough investigation; and with patience and perseverance."—Works, vol. i., pp. 1, 2.

WE have already adduced Dr. Carson, approved by Dr. Halley, on the burden of proof. Yet Mr. Stacey styles his own observations "a defence of baptism by sprinkling, of which no answer can be deemed a sufficient refutation, short of a proof from the Word of God that immersion is set forth with such distinctness, and enjoined with such authority as to be the only mode in which the rite can truly and acceptably be administered" (p. 177). We know of no higher authority than Christ, and no more solemn injunction than that given by Him, which was immediately preceded by the declaration of having all power in heaven and in earth, and followed by a command to universal obedience, and by the promise of His abiding presence. And we know no word in the Greek more explicitly teaching to immerse-we do not say teaching the mode of immersion-than the word given by the Spirit of inspiration as Christ's command. Yet the language of Mr. S. and of others seems to demand from Christ that He should have told us that we are not to adopt a substitute for this immersion. Elsewhere he says: "Now, to establish the doctrine that baptism is valid only as immersion is the mode, it must be shown that the word baptize has no other meaning in classic, or, if in classic, in sacred literature" (pp. 198, 199). We deny that Mr. Stacey's assertions fairly represent the burden of proof. We produce overwhelming testimony to the import of immersion. If the word has any other meaning it devolves on our opponents to prove it.* But Dr. Williams says: "Nothing can be admissible in evidence against Pædobaptist principles, which does not reject and excommunicate infants in the most express and unequivocal manner." It has been said, We want no new command for tithes in the Gospel, if they are not forbidden and abrogated by Christ. This is more plausible than the demand for an express and unequivocal prohibition of sprinkling, yet it has been replied to in a manner that would secure the approval of our Nonconformist Pædobaptists. We object not to Bp. Taylor, when he says, "He that affirms must prove. To him that denies, a negative argument is sufficient. For to a man's belief a positive cause is required; but for his not believing, it is suffi

A Baptist writer says: "The Congregational reviewer said of Dr. Carson's famous work on baptism, 'If his axioms be axioms, the question is settled for ever, and we must become Baptists.' The Presbyterian reviewer said, 'We have no fault to find with his axioms,"

cient that he hath no cause." If from the silence of Scripture, or from its not speaking expressly against the peculiarities of the Papal system, we were to admit that such peculiarities were believed or practised in apostolic churches and with apostolic sanction, a great part of the haughty claims and abominable superstitions of Popery must be approved. It is not expressly affirmed in Scripture that there is no such place as purgatory; that Mahomet is not a true prophet; that the moon is not a millstone; or, adopting the negatives of Mr. V. Alsop when writing against a Protestant Episcopalian, we have not the express prohibition in Scripture, "Thou shalt not stand upon thy head; thou shalt not wear a fool's coat; thou shalt not play at dice or cards in the worship of God." "Thou shalt not use the cross in baptism; thou shalt not use cream, oil, spittle" (Sober Inquiry, pp. 345, 346). We have repeatedly in this work

beyond what could be legitimately demanded from us-adduced negative evidence to expose the perfect nullity of the strongest objections brought against immersion.

10. On the fewness of those who oppose the idea that any application of water is baptism.

8. MARTIN.-"You know some persons decide everything by numbers; and they say that the voice of the multitude is the voice of God." "We say that, as a rule, the history of the world will show that majorities are in the wrong."-Westm. Ch. Pul. First Se., pp. 152, 153.

I. R. PITMAN.-"Religious truth is not necessarily degraded by the paucity of its adherents." "The many may be right, but not because they are the many.' "When Christ was manacled and buffeted; when all His disciples forsook Him and fled; when Christ was writhing upon the cross; where was then the Christian church? Was it in the multitude of those who exclaimed, 'Not this man, but Barabbas'?"-Lec. on the First Six Chs. of John, pp. 324, 325.

H. W. BEECHER.—“ A man in the right, with God on his side, is in the majority, though he be alone; for God is multitudinous above all the populations of the earth."-Life Thoughts, p. 24. J. G. MANLY.-"The inquiry is not what is old, but what is true; not what is customary, but what is canonical; not what churches say, but what Christ himself says."-Eccle., pp. 273, 274. W. RHODES.-"The fear of transgressing the boundaries of received opinions in religion is the greatest impediment in the way of gaining satisfactory knowledge of Divine truth."-Memoirs, by C. Stanford, p. 37.

PEOPLE'S FRIEND.-"The true course of historical development . . . is sometimes with the minority, and that a very small one, while the great body is corrupt. In the church of Sardis, Christ had a few names which had not defiled their garments,' while the church in general ‘had a name that it lived and was dead.' Truth must not be put on the issue of a popular vote. If we cannot acknowledge her except in a majority, we must inevitably have gone with the world of the ungodly,' and pronounced Noah a wrong-headed agitator. We must have decided the idolatrous nations to be in the right, and the solitary emigrants from Ur in the wrong. .. How could we have espoused the cause of the Baptist, or of the Redeemer himself, against all the dignitaries of the ancient church, or have taken part with early Christianity when the Jews called it heresy, and the Greeks despised it as foolishness, and the Romans denounced and drove out its professors as atheists and enemies of the human race, and it was everywhere spoken against, and its most illustrious teachers were accounted as 'the filth of the earth, and the offscouring of all things'?”Oct. 2nd, 1858.

THIS, as an argument against immersion, is not expressly adduced by any whom we have read. And if the representation of this as given by several writers were literally correct, it would not follow, as a matter of course, that the great bulk of professing Christians must needs hold sentiments and pursue a conduct accordant with the Oracles of God. Of Scotch Christians we presume that Presbyterians constitute the great majority. In England, we doubt not, they constitute a small minority. Neither fact proves anything with regard to the scriptural or unscriptural character of their church government. We may express our regret that the representation in regard to numbers is not by some given more fairly; and that the inquiry is not more earnest and extensive, "What is written in the law?" We do not advocate deviation from the conduct of others

without being able to assign a rational cause; but we deem it a pitiful reason to be assigned for sentiments and practice: My fathers before me thought and acted thus; my neighbours around me think and act in this way; that is all I know about its propriety or impropriety. Can it be otherwise than commendable for persons to be able to assign a sufficient reason why they deem Christianity to be of God, and not a cunninglydevised fable; why they deem a certain ceremony to be a doctrine of Christianity, and not an invention of man?

If our conduct must be regulated by numbers and previous customs, we must give to Wycliff, Huss, Luther, and others, a different place from that which we have been accustomed to assign them. The commendation bestowed on the Bereans we must reverse. The sect everywhere spoken against we must unite to condemn. The Romans, who wished to hear from his own lips what Paul, who belonged to this sect, had to say in self-defence, we must consider as foolishly and dangerously wasting their time. The law of heathen Rome, which forbade the condemning of a criminal until he had had the opportunity of vindicating himself, if possible, from the charge brought against him, we must regard as ridiculously needless. And the perusal of tracts and volumes in opposition to the customs of our forefathers, and to "the common, though not universal judgment of the church," we may encourage as much as Popery encourages a reading of the Bible. Dr. A. P. Stanley says: "The solitary protest is always to be honoured: the lonely martyr is avenged at last. Churches and nations, and whole generations, often seem to lose their reason (Gr. Church, p. lxx.). Our appeal is not, however, to numbers, many or few, but "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY." The Hon. and Rev. H. M. Villiers says: "Cultivate the Christian grace of courage. Courage to be singular for the Lord's sake.”—Ex. Hall Lec., p. 283. 1851.

§ 38.-FUTILITY OF OBJECTIONS WHICH RELATE LESS TO THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO,

THAN TO THE PRACTICE OF IMMERSION.

1.-On not being an Anabaptist.

GREGORY. "That is not said to be iterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done.”—In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38.

MANY of our opponents admit that the evidence in favour of immersion as the import of baptism greatly preponderates over that in favour of pouring or sprinkling; but they express their inability to deny that pouring or sprinkling may be baptism, and they do not wish to be re-baptized. We do not wish them to be immersed, if they regard that which they have received, or that which they have been told has been done to them, as scriptural baptism. We repudiate anabaptism as much as our opponents, however much by some of them we may be stigmatized with the name; but we regard Christian baptism as the voluntary act of a disciple of Jesus. "Doubtless," says Buddeus, "if baptism was not rightly administered with reference to those things which belong to the substance of it, it is all one as if the person had not been baptized; and, therefore, he is to be baptized, and not re-baptized" (Theol. Dog., 1. v., c. i., § 10). We do not regard sprinkling or immersion, administered to

an unconscious babe, or forced upon any subject, as the baptism enjoined by Christ; but rather as a substitute, good for nothing, and worse than nothing, causing in so many instances a neglect of Christ's solemn and significant institution. Does a person put on Christ when he cannot put on the least part of his own clothes? Is a person buried with Christ by infant sprinkling, and does he ever then rise again to newness of life? Mr. Thorn may not have the same views and feelings as his brethren in regard to anabaptism, as he considers the Saviour himself, and the first disciples of John and of Jesus, to have been Anabaptists. He says: "From the prevalence, and even universality, of baptism among the Hebrews, we may safely conclude that John himself had been baptized in his childhood or youth; that our beloved Lord had undergone this ceremony in His early years; and that all the disciples both of John and of Christ had received this ordinance while they were young."—Inf. Bap., p. 411.

2. On the reflection which would be cast by present immersion on previous sentiments and practice.

LUKE, THE EVANGELIST.-"Rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name."-Acts v. 41. PAUL, THE APOSTLE.-"After ye were illuminated ye endured a great fight of afflictions" (Heb. X. 32). "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin."-Heb. xii. 4. BUNSEN.-"A severe trial, therefore, awaits any one who looks primitive Christianity in the face."-Hipp., vol. ii., p. viii.

Mrs. H. JUDSON.-"I now, also, began reading on the subject, with all my prejudices on the Pædobaptist side. After close examination for several weeks, we were both constrained to acknowledge that the truth appeared to be with the Baptists. It was extremely trying to reflect on the consequences of our becoming Baptists. We knew that it would wound and grieve our dear Christian friends at home, that we should lose their approbation and esteem. We thought it probable our support would be withdrawn, and, what was more distressing, we knew that we must be separated from our missionary associates, and go alone to some heathen land. These things were very trying to us, and caused our hearts to bleed for anguish." "I have been much distressed for the week past, in view of the possible separation between our missionary brethren and ourselves. Mr. J. feels convinced, from Scripture, that he has never been baptized, and that he cannot conscientiously administer baptism to infants. As we are perfectly united with our brethren in every other respect, and are much attached to them, it is inexpressibly painful to leave them, and go alone to a separate station. But every sacrifice that duty requires must be made. It is painfully mortifying to my natural feelings to think seriously of renouncing a system which I have been taught from infancy to believe and respect, and embrace one which I have been taught to despise; but while, if ever I sought to know the truth,-if ever I looked up to the Father of Lights; if ever I gave up myself to the inspired Word,-I have done so during this investigation. The result is, that, laying aside my former prejudices, and fairly appealing to the Scriptures, I feel convinced that nothing really can be said in favour of infant baptism or sprinkling.' "We are confirmed Baptists, not because we wish to be, but because truth compelled us to be. We have endeavoured to count the cost, and be prepared for the many severe trials resulting from this change of sentiment. We anticipate the loss of reputation, and of the affection and esteem of many of our American friends."

Dr. S. DAVIDSON.-"It is better to comply with the suggestions of conscience than to please men. The favour of others, gained at the expense of conceding what conscience disallows, is too dearly purchased."-Cong. Lec., pp. viii., ix.

Prof. WALTER SCOTT.-"We care not what may be the number or the nature of the preconceived opinions which we may have to reject, or however strange and contrary to our former belief may be the dogmas which we are required to receive, provided sufficient proof be afforded that the former are prejudices, and that the latter are the doctrines of the Word of God. We wish to be prepared to follow truth wherever it may lead, or whatever the sacrifices of long-cherished opinions which it may require us to make." "We have often felt ""what painful sacrifices of feelings and wishes must be made to the authority of Scripture, in order to embrace some tenets of a contrary system;-sacrifices so painful that nothing but deference to the testimony and command of God could induce us to make them."-Cong. Lec., p. 13.

Dr. J. MORISON.-"Those who are Christ's disciples must take up their cross and follow Him; and then only are His commandments not grievous when obedience is animated by love to himself." -Hom. for the Times, p. 268.

R. MIMPRISS.-"We must not allow the opinions of even those we recognize in office under God to prevent us from doing what we know to be His will."-Treas. Har., p. 91.

J. A. HALDANE.-"Upon the whole, it seems evident that it highly becomes us to attend to every part of the Word of God. Everything we there meet with is important. Were Scripture more studied under this impression, there would be a rapid progress ainong Christians, both in knowledge, in uniformity of sentiment and religious observances, and in the practice of holiness.