« ПредишнаНапред »
tiation, by which we are engrafted into Christ, retains its name; for we say, to Baptize, and those who have ventured to say, to Wash, or to Wash
instead of to Baptize, and in like manner, Ablution or Washing instead of Baptism, have been very justly condemned. Cyprian, however, as in other parts of his writings, so particularly in one of his Epistles to Cæcilius, on purpose, as I think, translated Butti LOVTEG by Tingentes; for he translated Matth. xxviii. 19. • Teach all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' But in this interpretation he followed Tertullian, “his Master,' who rendered the word by not only tingere but intingere. Some however preferred interpreting the Greek word applied to this subject by the Latin word Mergere. And, what is more, the same Tertullian (de Cor. Mil.) more particularly translates it Mergitare, preserving (for the sake of the doctrine of the trine immersion in Baptism) the form which grammarians call the frequentative; as Bantilu, derived from Bártw, seems to have it.”
Dr. C. refers to Tertullian's translation of Barril, as that of the oldest of the Latin fathers. By this form of expression, the reader is led to believe that Tertullian
may be justly classed with the other Latin fathers, without any particular mark of distinction; and that his rendering of the word in question, may be considered as a specimen of the general interpretation of it, in that age. But it is well known, that Tertullian, though celebrated for learning, was inclined to 'singularity in his opinions, and fell into
many of an erroneous nature. Among others, as he was the first advocate for Immersion in baptism, so he was the first who wrote against infant baptism. Instead, therefore, of referring to his rendering of Barriţw, as the testimony of a neutral witness, or evidence of the opinion that was prevalent at the time; instead of calling him the oldest of the Latin fathers, Dr. C. should have called him the oldest of the Antipædobaptists; and the reader would then have seen, that his rendering was not the general voice, but (for aught that appears) the singular exception.
Although it would be premature to enter, at present, on the defence of infant baptism, it may be remarked that the fact of Tertullian writing against it, is a proof that it was already a practice in his day. He could not have written against a custom, unless it existed and prevailed. Now, so far as I have seen, his reasonings against it appear to have been of a general nature. He is represented as saying—"Give to them who ask thee,”—but children cannot 'ask“ Do not forbid them to come”-therefore let them stay till they can come - let them come when they are grown up--when they understand
when they are instructed whither it is they are about to come-let them be made christians when they can know Christ.”. Whatever weight these considerations may have with some, it must be allowed that Tertullian had a much more decisive argument, which he might, and would have used and which in his day would have been irresistible, had Infant baptism been then known to have been introduced at a recent period.--He might,
in that case, have said—“This practice is a NOVELTY: it dates but of yesterday: it was unknown to christians fifty years ago: it was UNKNOWN to the first churches : it was unknown to the Apostles.”* His silence on this topic is the more remarkable, that it was at that time, a favourite method of opposing heretics, and one which he himself used with much complacency, when he found it was in his favour. Addressing the Marcionites, and other heretics, he says, “Let them demonstrate the original of their ehurches; let them turn over the orders of their Bishops, and see whether they have had a succession of Bishops from any one who was constituted by the Apostles or Apostolic mèn : Thus the truly Apostolic churches have, as the church of Smyrna has Polycarp there placed by John, and the church of Rome Clement, ordained by Peter, and other churches can tell, who were ordained Bishops over them by the Apostles, and who have been their successors to this very day.” So also says Irenæus, “We challenge the heretics to that Tradition, which was handed down from the Apostles by the suceession of Bishops.”+
So much for Dr. C.'s appeal to Tertullian. For the character of that oldest of the Latin fathers, the reader is referred to Mosheim and Lardner, or any other writer on ecclesiastical antiquity. In giving testimony to a fact, his language might have had some
• See Letters to a Deacon of a Baptist church. + See King's Constitution, Discipline, &c. of the Primitive church, Chap. I. §. 5.
weight; but his description of an ordinance, insulated as it is, and unheard of before, is not only altogether worthless, but presumptive evidence of the spurious and corrupt character of the mode which he recommends. If the reader pleases to consult Chancellor King's Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, he will find not only immersion, but chrismation or unction, signation, or the sign of the cross, and imposition of hands or confirmation, all connected with Baptism, and first mentioned by Tertullian. In his writings also and Cyprian's, and other writers of the much boasted Cyprianic age, have we all the noble improvements of sponsors, exorcism, consecration of sacramental water, copious pouring, clinic Baptism, that is, the Baptism of persons confined to bed and nigh death, a case which often happened, as Baptism being thought to be an effectual cleanser of all former sins, it was deemed wise to defer it to the end of life, that little or none might be afterwards committed.*
Dr. C. acknowledges that the preposition év, which answers to the Hebrew 3, may denote with as well as
* In his zeal for baptizing, Tertullian could recommend ANY MODE which the case might require. In the 5th chapter of his treatise on Baptism, he says, “ Villas, domos, templa, totasque urbes ASPERGINE circumlatæ aquæ expiant passim.'
6. Let them everywhere consecrate villas, houses, temples, and whole cities, with the SPRINKLING of water carried about for the purpose.” This is, no doubt, a genuine instance of Baptism by sprinkling. It had its origin among the rites of paganism, and it has its counterpart in some of the applications of the Holy water of the church of Rome.
in. This concession is worthy of more attention than the Doctor calls us to give to it. It ought also to be more strongly expressed. There are many instances in which 3 and šv, not only may but must signify with, and cannot signify in. Thus Num. XX. 20. " And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And
v ,כעס כבר וביד חזקה ,Edom_came out against him
il ,בתפים ובמחלות daughter came out to meet him
ובכירין ,בחרב ובחנית
özhw Bagai, xai fu ysigi loxugą, with much people, and with a strong hand.” Judges xi. 34. “ And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his
TULTávois xai xogois, WITH timbrels, and with dances.” 1 Sam. xvii. 43. « And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me nubpos, és gáßow, WITH staves.” Verse 45. “ Then said David to the Philistine, thou comest to me εν ρομφαία και εν δόρατα και εν ασπίδι, WITH a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield.” 1 Kings X. 2. " And she came to Jerusalem, 933 bonis, šv duvánsı Bugsią, with a very great train." &c. &c. The Doctor
he should not lay much stress on śv, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to Baptism, concur in evincing that it must signify in. What the whole phraseology in regard to the act of baptizing evinces, we have already remarked. See page 75. That the phraseology to which the Dr. refers does not restrict the sense to in, but absolutely recommends the sense of with, appears from the occasional omission of the preposition, (the use of it in such phrases being entirely a Hebraism, corresponding with the Hebrew ), which as the Doctor