Christianity;"" that is," he adds, "of the course which hath more obscurely been taken by God the Father under the Old Testament, and more clearly now by God in Christ under the New, to bring sinners to salvation. Verse 3. In which course is wrapt up all the depth of wisdom imaginable." Dr Whitby's opinion is, that it refers to the person of Christ, and in support of this interpretation he quotes Philip. iii. 8. compared with verses 11, 12. and also Col. ii. 8, 9. Yet he allows, "that there seemeth to be no great difference between referring this to his person, and referring it to his doctrine." Calvin, too, in his Commentary on the passage, while in common with the most of writers, he prefers applying it to the person of our Lord, admits that there is little difference betwixt the two applications. Compare Dissert. xii. Sect. i. NOTE XXXIII. Page 133. To entertain the reader with minute and acrimonious discussions relative to those minor points with regard to which a diversity of sentiment and practice prevails among serious and intelligent Christians, is by no means the design of these Notes. A decided persuasion in one's own mind, regarding such matters, is not at all inconsistent with candour towards them who embrace a different view of the subject; or with admitting that the arguments employed in defence of the contrary tenet, though not conclusive, do possess such a degree of weight or of speciousness, that, in this imperfect state, it is not wonderful men of integrity should acquiesce in them as fully satisfactory. When Christians shall have learned to avoid irritating expressions, and to manifest towards each other the true spirit of forbearance and charity, and, at the same time, calmly and impartially to investigate the truth, determined, with the docility of children, to acquiesce in the will of Christ,-a much greater unity of sentiment will assuredly be attained. "It must be confessed on all sides," says Mr Bradbury, “that good people have been intemperate with one another, and argued with a warmth that has done little service to the cause; first, about the subject of baptism, whether it may be administered to infants or no; and secondly, about the manner of performing it, whether by sprinkling or plunging. I dare say there are many of both opinions, who bewail the excesses that have come into the controversy, and could wish that the disputants were Christians as well as orthodox; that in maintaining the truth they would not grieve the good Spirit of God, but that all bitterness and wrath, partiality, noise, clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away, with all malice; that "the arguments may be as gentle as the cause it maintains." The reign of bitterness and wrath, it may be hoped, is rapidly hastening to an end. Every man ought, meanwhile, in the spirit of Christianity, to embrace proper opportunities of stating those sentiments which appear to him to be consonant to Scripture. On this principle, and in order to prevent misapprehensions of our Author's meaning, it seems right to observe, that although, when discoursing on the doctrine of the Trinity, he quotes with approbation a passage from Ambrose, in which that venerable writer speaks of Christians having been immersed at their baptism, we ought not to conclude that immersion or plunging is essential to the ordinance, or that Witsius looked upon it in this light. His views on this topic appear to have coincided with those which the compilers of the Westminster Confession of Faith have very cautiously and judiciously expressed in the following terms-" Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person ;"t-and agreeably to which, also, the definitions of Baptism in the Larger and in the Shorter Catechism, represent this Christian rite under the general notion of "a washing with water." Without entering further into this contested point, or adverting to the numerous publications in which it is discussed, it may suffice to cite a passage from our Author's work on the Covenants, where he states his views of the subject at large.‡ Having proposed the question, "Whether baptism is rightly administered only by immersion, or whether it may be done also by pouring water from a vessel, or by sprinkling?"-he admits, in reply, that both John the Baptist and our Lord's disciples usually baptized by immersion, and that the native signification of the Greek terms Bar and Barriguy is mergere, tingere, to plunge, to dip. Yet, after having made these and some other concessions, in which the advocates for sprinkling are far from being universally inclined to acquiesce, he thus proceeds. "It must not, however, be supposed, that immersion is so necessary to baptism, that it cannot be rightly performed by pouring or sprinkling. The following arguments in favour of pouring and sprinkling, are of considerable force. 1. If we find that the Apostles did baptize by immersion, it doth not follow that they uniformly observed this method. It is more probable that the three thousand who were baptized in one day (Acts ii. 41.) had • The Duty and Doctrine of Baptism, in thirteen Sermons, p. 4. Book iv. ch. 16. sect. 13, 14. water poured or sprinkled upon them, than that they were immersed. It is not likely, that the Apostles, being completely occupied in preaching the Gospel, could have found leisure to accomplish a work which must have required so much time and labour, as immersing so many thousands. Nor is it probable that Cornelius, and Lydia, and the Jailor, who were baptized in private houses together with those of their household, had baptisteries at hand, in which they could be entirely immersed. Vossius has produced instances of sprinkling from antiquity, which Josua Arndius + has related in the same order, without acknowledging his obligations to Vossius. 2. Although Baru properly signifies mergere, to immerse, it is used more generally to denote any kind of washing, as Luke xi. 38. Dominicus a Solo has well observed, That in baptism there is something essential, as washing, agreeably to the expression Ephes. v. 26. where the Apostle calls baptism a washing with water; and something accidental, namely, whether the washing be done in this way or that.' 3. The thing signified by baptism is expressed by pouring and sprinkling, both in the Old and New Testament. On pouring, or affusion, see Isaiah xliv. 3.; on sprinkling, see Isaiah lii. 15. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Heb. xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. In these places of Scripture, there is an allusion, I admit, to the Levitical sprinkling; yet from this it is evident, that the application of the blood and Spirit of Christ, which believers under the New Testament'experience, was properly represented by the rite of sprinkling. This is expressly suggested by the Apostle, Heb. ix. 13, 14. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works?' 4. Add to this, that the whole genius of the New Testament dispensation, being distinguished by liberality and gentleness, seems to preclude the necessity of stripping and immersing feeble infants when baptized, particularly in northern climates."-After some further remarks, the Author observes, that, from what he had said, it follows," that those Greeks, who in the council of Florence pronounced the Latin Christians unbaptized, because they had not been immersed in water, acted an exceedingly rigorous, and, at the same time, an unreasonable part." Ambrose, in the quotation from him to which this Note refers, alludes, the reader will observe, to a three-fold immersion, which seemis + Lexic. Antiq. Eccles. p. 66. • Disput. i. De Baptism. Th. 9. Distinct. iii. Quæst, un. Art. 7. VOL. I. 3 N 17. to have been customary in his age. It is proper, therefore, to add, that our Author adverts to this practice in the same chapter of the Economy of the Covenants, from which we have just quoted these remarks in favour of sprinkling. It is of small moment, in his opinion, whether immersion or sprinkling be done once or thrice. Amongst the early Christians, he concedes, from the idea that a three-fold immersion or sprinkling implied a marked confession of the adorable Trinity, and also of our Saviour's rising from the dead on the third day, the rite was generally performed three times. About the beginning of the seventh century, however, the Arians in Spain, having begun to pervert this practice, for the support of their own errors in dividing the godhead, it was determined, as our Author states, at the fourth Council of Toledo, that both forms are irreprehensible in the Church of God, and the application of water once only was pronounced the more eligible mode. NOTE XXXIV. Page 138, line 15. Although the Author affirms, that "the economy of the Three Persons manifested itself no less" in the first creation, than in the new creation, or work of redemption, his meaning must have been, that the discovery of the Three Persons in the former was equally certain as in the latter, not that it was equally ample and bright. If the wisdom, power, goodness, and other attributes of the Deity as one God possessing infinite perfection, are more illustriously displayed in the new creation than in the old, and if angels, in consequence, sing "Glory to God in the highest," it is at the same time evident, that redemption exhibits the clearest and most impressive manifestation of Jehovah as Three in one. The distinct characters sustained by the Father, Son, and Spirit, and the distinct parts which they respectively fulfil in the plan of our recovery, most assuredly place this glorious mystery in a new point of light, inexpressibly more conspicuous and interesting than that in which it appeared at the original creation of man. The whole passage in this Dissertation, relative to Adam's knowledge of the Trinity, has its parallel in the Author's Treatise on the Covenants, where the same topic is discussed with some varieties of thought and expression. Amyrald's assertion, that the doctrine of the Trinity so peculiarly respects the redemption of mankind, * Sect. 15. nomia." + His expression is," In qua non minus se manifestavit Trinitatis ecoBook i. ch. 2. sect. 5-8. "that the knowledge of it cannot pertain to the state of innocence," was unquestionably rash; and the arguments brought forward by Witsius in opposition to that sentiment, it must be allowed, are at once ingenious and considerably satisfactory. To suppose that a revelation of the Three persons in the godhead was made to our first parents in Paradise involves, at least, nothing absurd or incongruous; and it is of great importance to maintain, that the personal distinctions in the Divine nature are not voluntary but necessary, and that these distinctions existed from all eternity. NOTE XXXV. Page 138, line 23. The venerable Author affirms, that "the same eternal life, which we obtain through Christ," was promised to Adam on condition of his perseverance in holy obedience; and refers his reader to another work, in which he has proved his assertion at large. He intends, no doubt, his Economy of the Covenants, where he treats particularly of the promises and seals of the covenant of works, and shows that everlasting happiness in the enjoyment of God was promised to Adam as the reward of perfect obedience. No one, however, can reasonably question, that Witsius, while he held that the life thus promised to Adam was in substance the same as that which we receive through Christ, would have cheerfully admitted, that the one falls short of the other in various respects. The very circumstance that the eternal life conferred upon fallen man is strictly an eternal salvation, creates a wonderful difference. Past experience of misery gives a double zest to happiness. The redeemed of the human race, having tasted the wormwood and the gall, their "soul hath them still in remembrance;" and the constant recollection of former guilt and wo cannot fail to make them, through eternity, drink, with a lively additional relish, of " the pure river of the water of life." The brighter the demonstrations, too, we receive of the love of God, and the stronger the motives we have to love him in return, and to repose an unsuspecting confidence in him, our felicity must be proportionally the greater; and redemption certainly exhibits at once more glorious demonstrations of the love of God to us, and more powerful motives to love him and trust in him, than any that were presented to Adam before the fall; or that could have been expected, although he had preserved his integrity, and been confirmed in bliss. By Christ's assuming our nature, in fine, a foundation was laid for a more intimate union and fellowship with the Supreme Being, than Book i. ch. iv. 6, 7. |