VII. ble in the "We ask, could all these remarkable circumstances SECT. have existed, if the whole church regarded sprinkling as apostolical in its origin, and consequently of equal au- Incompati thority with immersion? Could Magnus have proposed apostolic such a question; could Cyprian have given such an for sprink authority answer? Why did not the practice and tradition of the ling. church satisfy Magnus? Why did not Cyprian bring it up in reply? Why, in his long argument to show the validity of sprinkling, did he not attempt to prove it from the practice of the primitive church, or from the New Testament, either directly or indirectly? The case required such a defence, and Cyprian felt it, and not being able to demonstrate any thing, he left every one to his own views, and yet, wishing to find some support, resorted to the Old Testament, and to the nature of purification. To these, these alone, and nothing else, did he appeal. Besides, if sprinkling was a divine ordinance, what need of any urgent necessity,' or (what is still more strange) divine indulgence,' in order to make it pass? What does he mean by that antithesis of an abridged form, but a total result? his time, antiquity had not thrown sufficient obscurity around primitive usages, to have it ever enter his thoughts, that the apostles must have sprinkled for want of water in some cases, and of time in others. Let it be observed, too, that even in clinic baptism, an effort was made to imitate, as far as possible, the act of immersion. It was not the aspersion of a few drops of water on the face, but pouring water all around the body, as the words perikutheis and perfusus show. In "Our readers can now perceive some of the reasons which have induced almost the entire body of modern German critics, our teachers and guides in biblical VI. CHAP. learning and antiquities, to decide, though against their own practice, in our favour. The reasoning adopted in this country by the abettors of sprinkling, is ridiculed openly in the German universities.” z In American literary institutions the state of the case is far better; such "reasoning," if not ridiculed, is in many cases abandoned; as the instance of Professor Jewett, and others, happily proves. The number both of intelligent private Christians, and of able and devoted ministers of the gospel, who have, though at great sacrifice of personal feeling, avowed their convictions on this subject, is a pleasing testimony to the power of truth, and I doubt not may be regarded as the first fruits of a universal and glorious harvest. 2 Christian Review, vol. iii. pp. 107, 8. CHAPTER VII. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.-SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. SECTION I. IMPORTANCE OF FIDELITY IN HISTORICAL RESEARCH- "FORASMUCH," says Dr. Wall," "as the commission SECT. I. deems in tism not given by our Saviour to his disciples in the time of his mortal life, to baptize in the country of Judea, is not at Dr. Wall all set down in Scripture, only it is said that they bap- fant baptized a great many; and the enlargement of that comproved from mission given them afterwards, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) to per- Scripture. form the same office among all the heathen nations, is set down in such brief words, that there is no particular direction given them what they were to do in reference to the children of those who received the faith; and among all the persons recorded as baptized by the apostles there is no express mention of any infant; nor is there, on the other side, any account of any Christian's child whose baptism was put off till he was grown up, or who was baptized at man's age, (for all the persons who are mentioned in Scripture to have been baptized were the children of heathens, or else of Jews, who did not believe in Christ at that time, when those their children were born ;) VII. CHAP. and since the proofs drawn by consequences, from some places of Scripture, for any one side of this question, are not so plain as to hinder the argument drawn from other places for the other side, from seeming still considerable, to those that have no help but the history of Scripture times for a better understanding of the rules of Scripture; it is no wonder that the readers of Scripture at this distance from the apostles' time, have fallen into contrary sentiments about the meaning of our Saviour's command, and the practice of the apostles in reference to the baptizing of infants." Podobaptists rely on tradition. Importance of fidelity in historical research. This important admission, in which all divines of both candour and learning, among pœdobaptists, concur with the learned doctor, renders it necessary for them to place their main reliance upon the early history of the Christian church. Their position is, (and it is certainly the most plausible argument that can be brought in favour of infant baptism, would the facts sustain it,) that the baptism of infants can be traced back in the writings and practice of eminent ministers and martyrs who lived in the times of the apostles. I concur with Dr. Wall, in his remarks on the necessity of fidelity in quoting the facts of history; and that such fidelity should extend to the presentation of every fact bearing upon the point, whether it may appear favourable or adverse. I say "appear," for it is not possible that any fact-which is of course necessarily a truth-can be opposed to the whole truth, of which it is a part; for truth is an infinite whole, of which every thing true constitutes a harmonious section, however small. It is as unwise as it is dishonest to withold any fact which appears adverse to our apprehension of truth; because the simple statement of it by an opponent inevitably impairs the public confidence, and deprives argument of its effi ciency, where that efficiency might be most valuable to SECT. the cause of truth. I. -observa In allusion to the misrepresentation of facts, Dr. Wall Dr. Wall's justly observes: "Such a thing done by mistake, or for tions. want of skill, is bad enough; but, if it be done wilfully, it is hard to think of any thing that is a greater wickedness; for it goes the way to destroy the common faith of mankind, by which we are apt to rely upon a writer, that, how zealous soever he may be of his opinion, he will not forge matters of fact, nor speak wickedly, though it be for God, as Job says, (Job xiii. 7.). . . Some other accounts also are very partial, mentioning only that which makes for their side, and leaving out parts of the clauses which they cite. The inconvenience of this is the worse, because it is a matter which would have a great influence to settle and determine this unlucky controversy, provided that the accounts of the eldest times were given fairly and impartially, and so that the reader may be satisfied with the truth and impartiality of them." My readers may place the most entire confidence in these pages, that no fact is withheld from them that is necessary to transfer the responsibility of the correctness of their conclusions wholly from myself to them. I shall place the facts before them, and such explanations as I may deem subservient to the truth; the latter they can b How many facts, of a character unfavourable to their views, Dr. Woods and Dr. Miller have omitted, after having been placed plainly before them by the author they have made so much use of, (Dr. Wall,) the reader cannot fail to perceive, and "duly appreciate," if he will make the comparison. c It would have extended this volume beyond the capacity of the generality of Christians to procure, to have inserted all the passages quoted by Dr. Wall; I am not aware, however, of having omitted any of the least consequence to the object of our investigation, in the estimation even of Dr. Miller or Dr. Woods. |