the conforming of them to the doctrine of Christ our Saviour, as the term regeneration itself, when applied

this practice that gave occasion to the well known verses of Lactantius,

Candidus egreditur nitidis exercitus undis,

Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo.

Moreover, all lexicographers affirm that Barriε properly signifies immergere, to immerse or dip; but principally, Henry Stephens, who is himself a host, demonstrates this at large, and adds the following remarkable words-Qui lavare seu abluere, pro baptizare, itidemque ablutionem seu lotionem, pro baptismo, seu baptismate, dicere ausi sunt, explosi jure optimo fuerunt. Thes. Linguæ Græcæ. They who presume to write lavare, or abluere, To WASH, for TO BAPTIZE, and ablutionem or lotionem, WASHING, for BAPTISM, are with the greatest justice rejected.

That the ancients administered baptism in this manner, their own writings everywhere declare. In proof of this may be consulted Coccius, who in his Thes. Cath. tom. ii. lib. v. art. 16, demonstrates, that the mode of baptizing for which we contend was in use in every age among Christians.

The observations we have produced from Grotius, and which we have thus far advanced, are substantiated by many learned men, although not otherwise agreeing with us in opinion: as Luther, tom. vi. Sermo de sacr. bapt. John Pomeranus on the xxixth Psalm. Bellarmine, tom. iii. lib. I, de Baptism. cap. 1; Calvin, Institut. lib. iv. cap. 15, § 19, and on Acts viii. 38,and John iii. 23: also Osiander and Piscator on this place. Flacclus Illyricus in his Clavis Sacræ Scripturæ; CenturiatoresTM Magd. cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6; Pamelius, in Tertullianum de Bupt. and in 76 Ep. Cypriani. Valesius, in Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43. Camero, Camerarius, and Casaubon on Matth. iii. 6. Lightfoot on John iii. 23. Beza on Gal. iii. 27, and Coloss. iii. 9, and in his second epistle. Estius, Aretius, and Menochius on Rom. vi. 4; Coloss. ii. 12. Also Davenant on these places. Marloratus on John iii. 23. Ravanellus in Bibl. Sac. tit. Baptismus-num. iii. dist. 2. Danhawerus in Mysterio Sophia. Dietericus Inst. Catech. Art. de Cœna Dom. § 1. Salmasius in Appar. de Prim. et de Cæs. et Coma. Vossius in Etym. Ling. Lat. et in Disp. de Bapt. Altingiųs in Dissert. Acad. Bren

plied to the mind, imports. But a change of this kind cannot take place in infants, who are ignorant of

ius on Matth. ii. 6. Curcellæus Inst. lib. v. c. 2, et Diat. de Esu Sang. c. 13. But I should want time and room, were I to attempt to insert here all the testimonies which favour our opinion. B. WISSOWATIUS.

[On the subject of baptism, the Unitarians in this country are divided into four parties. A considerable number of them concur with the editors of this Catechism and the learned author of the preceding note, in regarding adult baptism by immersion as alone the ordinance of divine institution, sanctioned by the precepts and the practice of Christ and his apostles. These comprise at present a large proportion of that very respectable body denominated GENERAL Baptists, in contradistinction to the PARTICULAR, or Calvinistic, Baptists. Others adopt the practice of infant baptism by sprinkling, as of apostolical, and therefore of divine, authority and obligation. Under this class may be ranked the major part of those who, from among the members of the established church, and the Pædo-baptist dissenters, have embraced Unitarianism. A third party look upon baptism as a rite intended only for proselytes, and to be applied, under the Christian dispensation, as it was under the Jewish, to such persons alone as are converts from other religions. They consider it, therefore, as having no reference to the descendants of Christian parents, either infants or adults. A fourth class have adopted the opinion of Faustus Socinus and some of the earlier Socinians,-rejecting baptism altogether, as an ordinance never intended to be perpetual, and of no further obligation upon Christians. The writings of Unitarians on this subject have not of late years been very numerous. Early in the last century Mr. Emlyn published his "Previous Question," in which he contended against the application of baptism to the posterity of baptized Christians. The late Mr. Gilbert Wakefield also, in his "Short and plain Account of the Nature of Baptism according to the New Testament," espoused the same hypothesis. The late Dr. Toulmin, who was a zealous antipædo-baptist, published two tracts on the perpetuity of the ordinance and Mr. Belsham has this year stood forward as the champion of Pædo-baptism, in a work of great learning

and

of right and wrong, and much more that a thing of such importance concerns them. And that adult persons, who are capable of such a change of mind and will, can be regenerated by water, or by an external rite which reaches the body only, is so far from the truth, that it seems somewhat like idolatry; since that effect is ascribed to water and the external rite, or connected with them without the declared permission of God, which ought to be ascribed to God. himself, and to his holy word made intelligible to the minds of those who are regenerated. For it is God "who of his own will begat us with the word of truth," James i. 18; and that seed, “not corruptible, but incorruptible," whereby we ought to be regenerated, formerly spoken of by the apostle (1 Peter i. 23), is "the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Why then does Christ say (John iii. 5) that we must be born again of water and of the spirit?

Christ does not thus speak because he intended by water, the water of baptism :—but he meant spiritual water, or water which is spirit; just as elsewhere (Matth. iii. 11; Luke iii. 16), to baptize with the spirit and with fire, is to baptize with spiritual fire, or with the spirit, which is a kind of divine fire. This is evident from hence, that Christ, in the continuation of this discourse with Nicodemus, makes no further mention of water, but speaks of spirit alone.

and ability, intituled " A Plea for Infant Baptism,” wherein he may be said to have exhausted his subject, and set it forth to the utmost advantage. TRANSL.]

But

But he asserts that we must be born again of water, with the view of intimating that our regeneration consists in a certain ablution and cleansing of the filth of our minds: and he adds the term spirit, in order to point out that not a terrestrial but a spiritual and celestial water is requisite for this purpose, since the filth of the mind can be washed away by the latter only, and not by the former. Nor is it a new thing to designate the Holy Spirit by the term water. You have examples of this further on in the same evangelist (John iv. 10, 14, and vii. 38), on which account it is frequently said to be poured out. Paul also explains to us these words of Christ, when he says (Titus iii. 5, 6) that God had saved us "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." For he asserts that this washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, was effected as it were by water from heaven poured upon us by Christ.

But the apostle, in this very passage, seems to attribute regeneration to the baptism of water, since he speaks of washing?

He does indeed mention washing: but does not assert that that washing of regeneration is the baptism of water itself, as they also who mostly urge this passage against us are themselves forced to confess; because they contend that infants alone are regenerated by baptism, and that in adults, regeneration, having been made by faith before baptism, is only in

dicated

dicated by baptism. But in this passage, and in others of a similar kind, adults are intended: since, therefore, the apostle speaks here of the washing of regeneration of adult persons, it is evident that he does not treat of the baptism of water, but of a certain spiritual ablution. Nor is it unusual in the Scriptures to call that purgation of our minds, that is, that act of God and Christ whereby our minds are cleansed from the filth of our vices, which is effected by the word or doctrine of the Gospel, figuratively by the name of washing. For Paul writes to the Ephesians (ch. v. ver. 26) that Christ cleansed the Church "by the washing of water by the Word," that is through the Word, namely, of the Gospel ;-wherein he alludes to the custom of washing new-married women; to which God also refers, in part, in Ezekiel (ch. xvi. ver. 9), where, speaking to the people of Jerusalem, he says, "then washed I thee with water;" which, the passage itself most clearly shows, is to be understood figuratively. The writer to the Hebrews also (ch. x. ver. 22, 23) exhorts those who had long before given their name to Christ, and no further stood in need of the baptism of water, to have their "hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with. pure water;"-alluding to the legal ablutions, which persons who had become accidentally unclean were obliged to use before they could approach sacred things or places. Lastly, the apostle himself, in the very passage under our consideration, explains what he means by the washing of regeneration, subjoining

these