difficult, even with the assistance of a copious italicising, SECT. to catch the idea, and still more difficult to perceive the III. force, of the following extracts : TOLGUTOV. "There is then an obvious difference between the two passages. In one, the attention is fixed upon the character of a Christian, as the principal subject. In consequence of the method which was taken to illustrate his character, it became perfectly natural to call him a child, a little child. Paidion toiouton, thus introduced, must aidov have been understood to signify a disciple of Christ. But, in the other passage, the subject presented before the mind was, the little children themselves. They were brought to Christ for his blessing. Upon them the attention of all was fixed. To them the objection of the disciples related. And surely what Christ said in the way of reply to that objection, must also have related to them. We rest then on a general principle; namely, that words are to be taken in their literal sense, unless there is a plain and satisfactory reason for taking them in a metaphorical sense. In Matt. xviii. 5, there is such sage contains no allusion to baptism. Is it not apparent that had Christ commanded the This pas apostles to baptize these children into the church, the apostles would never have objected to Christ's blessing them? As the evangelist has not said one word about the baptism of these children, why should we? Dr. Whitby, in reply to the suggestion that Christ did not baptize them, nor commanded the apostles to do it, admits that infant baptism was not yet practised, but adds by way of defence ; by Dr. "That is not to be wondered at, if we consider that Admitted Christian baptism was not yet instituted; and that the Whitby. baptism then used by John and Christ's disciples, was only the baptism of repentance and faith in the Messiah CHAP. which was for to come, Acts xix. 4; of both which, inV. fants were incapable." Also by tors. Conse quence of adding to It is curious indeed that the doctor should imagine that Christ's disciples, who clearly did not baptize till after Christ had been manifested to the world by baptism, should have baptized in the faith of " the Messiah yet to come;" and I presume, now baptism is a sign of faith in a risen Saviour, infants are no more competent to believe that Christ has come, than that he would come. Poole's Continuators observe:— "We must take heed we do not found infant baptism upon the example of Christ in this text; for it is certain that he did not baptize these children. Mark only saith, he took them in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. The argument for infant baptism from this text, is founded upon his words, uttered on this occasion, and not upon his practice." May we all be careful neither to add to the statements of the divine word or to take from them. Want of due Scripture. attention to the former deprives our podobaptist brethren of the blessings associated with the ordinance of baptism. I rejoice, indeed, that however much it deprives them of happiness, and Christ of his honour, now, it will not, unless it be a case of known and wilful disobedience, deprive them of a place in heaven, although they can never have the joy and glory of having either fulfilled this great command themselves, or of having led others thus to follow their Lord. Mistranslation of Isa. lii. 14. There are yet other passages which some of our podobaptist friends endeavour to lay hold of; but they are so utterly irrelevant to the subject as not to require notice in a volume devoted mainly to historical investigation. One however, I will mention, as it has often been quoted with a kind of triumph in favour of sprink III. ling; "So shall he sprinkle many nations." This is SECT. entirely a mistranslation, the Hebrew word signifying to astonish, startle, or surprise, as when a man has water Isa. lii. 15. suddenly dashed in his face. e Christian p. 111. Of all the recent attempts to uphold sprinkling, that Judaising which seeks to find authority for a Christian ordinance practices the plague in the writings of the Jewish prophets is perhaps the of the most singular. This is in keeping with the idea adopted church. by many podobaptists, (and, it would seem, by Dr. Woods,) that the arrangements of the Jewish economy Lectures, may be copied into the Christian, UNLESS THEY ARE FORBIDDEN. Where is it forbidden to Christian ministers to dress like Aaron? This is the very door which, once opened, admits all the Judaising practices of the church of Rome. "Judaising teachers" began to plague the church of Christ before the apostles had terminated their career; and the church is not yet freed from the baneful influence of notions whose anti-apostolical descent may clearly be traced through the reformed churches to that of Rome, with her councils, up to the Fathers, who laid the foundation of her splendour and her tyranny by propagating the "mystery of iniquity" which had “already began to work." That many of the Fathers are subject to this grave charge will be made apparent in a subsequent chapter. c Professor Conant, of Hamilton Theological Seminary, one of the ablest Hebrew critics of the age, sustains this as the proper translation. Dr. Woods, and podobaptists generally, have drank deep enough of this cup of poison to maintain that "in regard to the general end sought, we consider the ministry of the gospel as substituted for the Levitical priesthood!"-Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 142. This is another extract from the mystery of iniquity which laid the foundation of the tyrannical priestcraft of Rome. СНАР. VI. THE study of uninspired ecclesiastical history is the study of the progress of error; but it is not on this acImportance count the less important or instructive. Nothing can be astical his more interesting or improving to the intelligent mind, of ecclesi tory. Confirmatory testimony. than to contemplate the effects of erroneous doctrines and forms upon large masses of mind in various ages of the world. The beacon-blaze that warns of danger, is sometimes as needful as the light that guides to the desired haven. The necessity of investigating the history of the church on the subject of baptism, arises, however, from no deficiency of evidence respecting it in the Inspired Writings, but from the extent to which ecclesiastical history has been perverted by the opponents of the truth. Let none imagine therefore, that the unwavering testimony of the ancient church to immersion as the apostolic mode of baptism, is valued otherwise than simply as confirmatory of a truth already clearly established from the sacred oracles; or that this investigation is entered upon for any other purpose than to rescue it from the misrepresentations which are still extensively circulated, under the authority of divines sustaining elevated posi It is true indeed that not tions in ecclesiastical society. SECT. evidence. The sources of evidence on this point are the writings Sources of of the Fathers; ancient baptisteries;-the "ordines," or The Faritual regulations for the administration of baptism;-the thers. continued practice of the Greek and eastern churches ;the circumstances in which pouring and sprinkling originated; and the admissions of modern ecclesiastical historians, all of them podobaptists. On each of these points we shall place before the reader an ample supply of facts, from which he can form his own conclusions. a "From the days of the apostles down to the Reformation, affusion, and sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in constant use; that some of the gravest and most sober-minded writers, have firmly defended the two former, as well as the latter; that the strong arguments in favour of affusion or sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, distinctly appreciated; and that it has ever been considered as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be conscientiously preferred."-Dr. Miller's Treatise on Infant Baptism, p. 98; published under the sanction of the Presbyterian Board of Publication. 14* |