13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither be-received up into heaven, and 'sat on the right hand of God. lieved they them.

Observations on the nature

CHAPTER XVI.

When Mohammed in the seventh year of the Hejra, A. D. 628, had taken the city of Rheebar from the Arab Jews, he took up his lodgings at the house of Hareth, the father of Marhab, the Jewish general, who had been slain at the taking of the city by Alee, the son-in-law of Mohammed. Zeenab, the daughter of Hareth, who was appointed to dress the prophet's dinner, to avenge the fall of her people, and the death of her brother, put poison in a roasted lamb which was provided for the occasion. Bashar, one of his companions, falling on too hastily, fell dead on the spot. Mohammed had only chewed one mouthful, but had not swallowed it: though on perceiving that it was poisoned, he immediately spat it out, yet he had swallowed a sufficiency of the juice to lay the foundation of Lis death, though this did not take place till about three years after; but that it was the cause of his death then, his dying words related by Al Janabi, and others, sufficiently testify. When the mother of Bashar came to see him in his dying agonies, he thus addressed her: "O mother of Bashar, I now feel the veins of my heart bursting through the poison of that morsel, which I ate with thy son at Kheebar."

Abral Feda, Ebnol Athir, and Ebn Phares, say, that the prophet acknowledged on his death-bed, that the poison which he had taken at Kheebar, had tormented him from that time until then, notwithstanding blisters were applied to his shoulders, and every thing done in the beginning to prevent its effects. Al Kodai, and Al Janabi relate, that when Zeenab was questioned why she did this, she answered to this effect: "I said in my heart, if he be a king, we shall hereby be freed from his tyranny; and if he be a prophet, he will easily perceive it, and consequently receive no injury." To support his credit, he pretended that the lamb spoke to him, and said that it was infected with poison! fore policy in him not to put Zeenab See Elmakin, p. God that this fact should be acknowledged by the dying breath 8. It was thereto death. It has pleased of this scourge of the earth; and that several of even the most partial Mohammedan historians should relate it! And thus attested, it stands for the complete and everlasting refutation of his pretensions to the prophetic spirit and mission. Vide Specimen list. Arabum, a Poсоско, р. 189, 190. Le Coran traduit par SAVARY, vol. i. p. 135, and 212. See also, The Life of Mohammed by PRIDEAUX, 93, 101.

by the others, and thus in the mouths of FOUR witnesses, all these glorious and interesting facts are established.

and importance of baptism.

more by the carelessness and inaccuracy of transcribers, than any of the others; and hence the various readings in the MSS. are much more numerous in proportion, than in the One thing may be observed, that this Gospel has suffered other evangelists. Every thing of this description, which I judged to be of real importance, I have carefully noted.

spiration of the Holy Spirit, yet the language seems to be entirely his own: it is very plain, simple, and unadorned: and Though the matter of St. Mark's work came from the insometimes appears to approach to a degree of rusticity or inelegance. Whoever reads the original, must be struck with the very frequent, and often pleonastic occurrence of ευθεως, immediately, and παλιε, again, and such like; but these detract nothing from the accuracy and fidelity of the work. The Hebraisms which abound in it, may be naturally expected from a native of Palestine, writing in Greek. The Latinisms which frequently occur, are accounted for on the ground of for the Roman people; this, it must be confessed, is only theory, but it is a theory which stands supported by many arguthis Gospel being written for the Gentiles; and particularly ments, and highly presumptive facts. However this may be, the Gospel according to Mark is a very important portion of divine revelation, which God has preserved by a chain of providences, from the time of its promulgation until now: and for which no truly pious reader will hesitate to render due praise to that God, whose work is ever perfect. Amen.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE NATURE AND IMPOR

20. The Lord working with them] This co-operation was two-fold, internal and external. Internal, illuminating their minds, convincing them of the truth, and establishing them in it. External, conveying their word to the souls that heard 4 by the demonstration of the Holy Ghost; convincing them of sin, righteousness, and judgment; justifying them by his blood, and sanctifying them by his spirit. Though miracu-tism? lous powers are not now requisite, because the truth of the Gospel has been sufficiently confirmed; yet this co-operation of God is indispensably necessary, without which no man can be a successful preacher; and without which no soul can be saved.

With signs following.] Επακολουθωύντων σημείων, the accompanying signs: viz. those mentioned in the 17th and 18th verses, and those others just now spoken of, which still continue to be produced by the energy of God, accompanying the faithful preaching of his unadulterated word.

Amen. This is added here by many MSS. and Versions; but it is supposed not to have made a part of the text originally. Griesbach, Bengel, and others, leave it out.

Et Jerom mentions certain Greek copies, which have the

was then expected, the weeks of Daniel being now spent to
the last four years: and therefore the people were stirred up
"I. The reason is, because the manifestation of the Messias
to prepare for his appearing.

for an evangelical sacrament, was first in the hand of the Bap-
tist; who, the word of the Lord coming to him, (Luke iii. 11.)
II. Another reason of it was this. The institution of baptism
went forth, backed with the same authority, as the chiefest
prophets had in time past. But yet the first use of baptism
turies back, had been both known and received in most fre-
quent use among the Jews; and for the very same end as it
was not exhibited at that time. For baptism, very many cen-
might be admitted into the church and hence it was called
now obtains among Christians, namely, that by it proselytes

following remarkable addition to ver. 14. after these words- טבילת גרזה baptism for proselytism; and was distinct from

and reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of leart, because they did not believe those who had seen him after he was raised up; Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: seculemistud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia, est, que nsa sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virIstem. Idcirco, jam nunc revela justitiam tuam. "And they confessed the charge, saying: This age is the substance of iniquity and unbelief, which through the influence of im

pure spirits, does not permit the true influence of God to be porebended. Therefore, even now reveal thy righteousness." There are various subscriptions to this book in the MSS. and Versions; the principal are the following. "The holy Gospel setording to Mark is ended-written by him in EGYPTRoxy-in the Latin tongue-directed by Peter-the 10th th year after the ascension of Christ-preached in Alexan. dria and all its coasts." Dr. Lardner supposes this Gospel to have been composed A. D. 64 or 65, and published before

the end of the last mentioned year. See the Preface.

The Gospel according to St. Mark, if not an abridgment of the Gospel according to Matthew, contains a neat perspicuous ridgment of the history of our Lord; and taken in this point of view, is very satisfactory; and is the most proper of all the Iar Gospels to be put into the hands of young persons in order to bring them to an acquaintance with the great facts of evanlical history. But as a substitute for the Gospel by Matthew, onld never be used. It is very likely that it was written enginally for the use of the Gentiles, and probably for those Home. Of this there seem to be several evidences in the wwk itself. Of the other Gospels it is not only a grand cor

joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the
wings of the Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon
him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation are re
"IV. Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be
quired: but if it be a woman, baptism and oblation. ibid. That

shorating evidence, but contains many valuable hints for was a common axiom, אין גר ער שימול ויטבול No man is a pro

campleting the history of our Lord, which have been omitted, selyte until he be circumcised. JEVAMOTH, fol. 46

169

Observations on the nature

CHAPTER XVI.

"You sce baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes There was indeed some little distance of time; for they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound: but certainly baptism ever followed. We acknowledge indeed, that circumcision was plainly of divine institution; but by whom baptism, which was inseparable from it was instituted, is doubtful. And yet it is worthy of observation, our Saviour rejected circumcision, and retained the appendix baptism; and when all the Gentiles were now to be introduced into the true religion, he preferred this proselytical introductory, (pardon the expression) unto the sacrament of entrance into the Gospel. One might observe the same almost in the Eucharist. The lamb in the pass-over was of divine institution, and so indeed was the bread; but whence was the wine? But yet, rejecting the lamb, Christ instituted the sacrament in the bread and wine. Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy, why the sanhedrim by their messengers inquired not of John concerning the reason of baptism, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant, but whence he had a license so to baptize: John i. 25. Thirdly, Hence also the reason appears, why the New Testament does not prescribe by some more accurate rule, who the persons are to be baptized.

and importance of baptism.

over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too, inte another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us, who are born Christians; the condition therefore being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly varied also. Our baptism argues defilement indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally, that we being polluted, have need of washing; but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain indeed they were defiled, who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient, as the dipping into water, when in truth this argues washing and purification, as well as that.

"2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation, and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither ne. cessary to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away; because it was accompanied with so much severity. In the days of R. Joshua ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because by reason of the cold they became barren. Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon all nations, which seemed too rough for the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them-men too mich given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water ? It is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and

"It appears clear enough by what has been already said, in what sense this is to be taken in the New Testament, which we sometimes meet with, namely, that the master of the fa. mily was baptized with his whole family, Acts xvi. 15, 33, &c. Nor is it of any strength what some contend for, 'that it cannot be proved there were infants in those families: for the in-not less agreeable to the thing itself.

quiry is not so proper, whether there were infants in those families, as it is concluded truly and deservedly, that if there were they had all been to be baptized. Nor do I believe this people that flocked to John's baptism, were so forgetful of the manner and custom of the nation, that they brought not their little children also with them to be baptized.

"I. If you compare the washing of polluted persons prescribed by the law, with the baptism of proselytes, both that and this implies uncleanness, however something different; that implies legal uncleanness, this heathen, but both pollut ing. But a proselyte was baptized not only into the washing away of that Gentile pollution, nor only thereby to be transplanted into the religion of the Jews; but that, by the most accurate rite of translation that could possibly be, he might so pass into an Israelite, that being married to an Israelite woman, he might produce a free and legitimate seed, and an undefiled offspring. Hence, servants that were taken into a family were baptized, and servants also that were to be made free: not so much because they were defiled with heathen uncleanness, as that by that rite בישראל לכל רבר becoming Israelites in all respects, they might be more fit to match with Israelites, and their children be accounted as Israelites. And hence the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized. They were cir cumcised that they might take upon themselves the obligations of the law, but they needed not baptism, because they were already Israelites.

"II. Te baptism of proselytes was the bringing over of Gentiles into the Jewish religion: the baptism of John, was the bringing over of Jews into another religion and hence it is the more to be wondered at, that the people so readily Mocked to him when he introduced a baptism so different from the known proselytical baptism. The reason of which is to be fetched from hence, that at the coming of the Messias, they thought, not without cause, that the state of things was plainly to be changed; and that from the oracles of the prophets, who with one mouth described the times of the Messias for a new world.

"III. The baptism of proselytes, was an obligation to per form the law; that of John, was an obligation to repentance: for although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends, and circumcision of others, yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time, had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates; Gal. v. 3. I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the wkele law. But the baptism of John was a baptism of repent ance, Mark i. 4. which being undertaken, they who were baptized, professed to renounce their own legal righteousness, and on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come.

"IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body, (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes, was) seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he bap lized in Jordan, that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there; and that Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water: to which that seems to be parallel, Acts viii. 38. Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, &c. Some complain that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging.

"1. That the notion of washing in John's baptism differs from ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought

"3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John and therefore it was less to differ in a less inatter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word, was of the nature of the sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to be threefold in the history of the New Testament.

"Further, In reference to the form of John's baptism, which thing we have proposed to consider in the second place; it is not at all to be doubted that he baptized in the name of the Messias now ready to come; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias, when he should manifest himself. The apostles baptizing the Jews, baptized them in the name of Jesus; (because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias;) and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So you must understand that which is spoken, John iii. 23. and iv. 2. concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts ii. 38. Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and that Acts viii. 16. They were baptized in the name of Jesus.

"But the apostles baptized the Gentiles according to the precept of our Lord, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii. 19. For since it was very much controverted among the Jews, about the true Messias, it was not without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus; that by that seal inight be confirmed this most principal truth in the Gospel, and that those that were baptized, unight profess it that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. But among the Gentiles the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, but concerning the true God. Among them, therefore, it was need. ful that baptisin should be conferred in the name of the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

"We suppose, therefore, that men, women, and children, came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes; namely, that they, standing in Jordan, were taught by John, that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, who was now immediately to come and into the profession of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning faith and repentance; that THEY plunged themselves into the river, and so came out. And that which is said of them, that they were baptized by him, confessing their sins, is to be understood according to the tenor of the Bap tist's preaching; not that they did this man by man, or by some particular confession made to John, or by openly declar ing some particular sins; but when the doctrine of John exhorted them to repentance and faith in the Messias, they renounced and disowned the doctrine and opinion of justification by their own works, wherewith they had been beforetime leavened; and acknowledged and confessed themselves sinners."

It is worthy of remark, that neither priest nor Levite dipped the persons who were baptized: the persons stood in the wa ter; three persons ordinarily stood to instruct then, and witness the fact; when the instruction was ended, the person himself who was to be baptized, put himself under the water, and then came out. In the case of a woman, the disciples o Observations on the nature

ST. MARK.

the wise men turned their backs, while she plunged herself and came out of the water for I suppose the whole Jewish practice will not afford a single instance, where a priest or any other man put the woman under the water when she was baptized. From this we learn that the act of baptism was performed by the person himself; but the instruction relative to its end, obligation, &c. came from another.

"They baptized also YOUNG CHILDREN (for the most part with their parents.) They baptize a little proselyte according to the judgment of the sanhedrim; that is, as the gloss renders it, If he be deprived of his father, and his mother brings him to be made a proselyte, they baptize him (because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism) according to the judgment, or rite, of the sanhedrim; that is, that three men be present at the baptism, who are now instead of a father to him. And the Gemura, a little after says, If with a proselyte, his sons and his daughters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good. "R. Joseph saith, When they grow into years, they may retract: where the gloss writes thus, This is to be understood of LITTLE CHILDREN, who are made proselytes together with their father. BAB. CHERUR. fol. 11.

"A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytess when she is now big with child, the child needs not baptism: for the baptism of his mother serves him for baptism. Otherwise he were to be baptized. JEVAM. fol. 78.

"If an Israelite take a Gentile CHILD, or find a Gentile INFANT, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold, he is a proselyte. MAIM. in Avadim, c. 8.

"We cannot pass over that which is indeed worthy to be remembered. Any one's servant is to be circumcised, though he be unwilling; but any one's son is not to be circumcised, if he be unwilling. R. Hezekiah saith, Behold, a man finds an infant cast out, and he baptizeth him in the name of a servant: in the name of a freeman, do you also circumcise him in the name of a freeman. HIEROS. JEVAM. fol. 8.

"Ourord says to his disciples, Matt. xxviii. 19. Go therefore ana reach all nations, baptizing them, &c. μαθητευσατε -that is, Make disciples:-bring them in by baptism, that they may be taught. They are very much out, who, from these words, cry down infant baptism: and assert that it is necessary for those that are to be baptized to be taught before they are baptized. 1. Observe the words here: μαθητεύσατε, make disciples and then after, διδασκοντες, teaching, in the 20th verse. 2. Among the Jews, and also with us, and in all nations, those are made disciples that they may be taught. A certain heathen came to the great Hillel, and said, Make me a proselyte that thou mayest teach me; BAB. Shab. fol. 31. He was first to be proselyted, and then taught. Thus, first, Make them disciples (μαθητεύσατε) by baptism; and then, Teach them to observe all things, &c. Διδάσκετε αὐτὸς τηρειν πάντα. κ. τ. λ.

* Βαπτίζοντες, baptizing. There are various ends of baptism: 1. According to the nature of a sacrament, it visibly teaches invisible things that is, the washing us from all our pollutions by the blood of Christ, and by the cleansing of grace: Ezek. xxxvi. 25. 2. According to the nature of a sa crament, it is a seal of divine truth. So circumcision is called, Rom. iv. IL And he received the sign of circumcision, the SEAL of the righteousness of faith, &c. So the Jews, when they circumcised their children, gave this very title to circumcision. The words used when a child was circumcised you have in their Talmud. Among other things, he who is to bless the action, says thus: 'Blessed be he, who sanctified him that was beloved from the womb, and set a sign in his flesh, and scaled his children with the sign of the Holy Cove nant, &c. Hieros. Berac. fol. 13. But in what sense are sacraments to be called seals? Not that they seal (or confirm) to the receiver his righteousness; but that they seal the divine truth of the covenant and promise. Thus the apostle calls circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith; that is, it is the seal of this truth and doctrine, that justification is by faith, which justice Abraham had, when he was yet uncircumcised. And this is the way whereby sacraments confirm faith; namely, because they doctrinally exhibit the invisible things of the covenant; and like seals, so by divine appoint ment, sign the doctrine and truth of the covenant. 3. Ac cording to the nature of a sacrament, it obliges the receivers to the terms of the covenant; for as the covenant itself is of mutual obligation between God and man, so the sacraments, the seals of the covenant, are of like obligation. 4. According to its nature, it is introductory to the visible church. 5. It is a distinguishing sign between a Christian and no Christian, namely, between those who acknowledge and profess Christ, and Jews, Turks, and Pagans, who do not acknowledge him. Μαθητεύσατε πάντα τα έθνη βαπτιζοντες. Disciple all nations, baptizing, &c. When they are under baptism, they are no longer under heathenism; and this sacrament puts a difference between those who are under the discipleship of Christ, and those who are not. And, 6. Baptism also brings its privileges along with it, while it opens the way to a par taking of holy things in the church, and places the baptized within the church, over which God exercises a more singu lar providence, than over those who are out of the church. "And now, from what has been said, let us argue a little further in behalf of infant baptism.

"To the objection, It is not commanded to baptize infants,

and importance of baptism.

therefore they are not to be baptized:-I answer, It is not for. bidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized. And the reason is plain: for when pado-baptism in the Jean ish church was so known, usual, and frequent in the admis. sion of proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual, and frequent: there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical use, as he found it; this only added, that he might promote it to a worthier end, and a larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that lit!'e children used to be baptized: there was no need of a precert for that, which had ever by common use prevailed. If a royal proclamation should now issue forth in these words-Let every one resort on the Lord's day to the public assembly in the church; certainly he would be mad who in times to come should argue hence, that prayers, sermons, and singing of psalms, were not to be celebrated on the Lord's day in the public assem. blies, because there is no mention of them in the proclamation. For the proclamation provided for the celebration of the Lord's day in the public assemblies in general; but there was no need to make mention of the particular kinds of the divine worship to be celebrated there, when they were always and every where well known, and in daily use, before the publishing of the proclamation, and when it was published. The case is the very same in baptism. On the other hand, therefore, there was need of a plain and open prohibition that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Lord would not have had thein baptized. For since it was most common in all preceding ages, that little children should be baptized; if Christ had minded to have that custom abolished, he would have openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence, and the silence of the Scripture, in this matter, confirms pædo-baptism, and continues it to all ages.

"I. BAPTISM, as a sacrament, is a seal of the covenant. And why, I pray, may not this seal be set on infants? The seal of divine truth has sometimes been set upon inanimate things, and that by God's appointment. The bow in the cloud, is a seal of the covenant. The law engraven on the altar, Josh. viii. was a seal of the covenant. The blood sprinkled on the twelve pillars, which were set up to represent the twelve tribes, was a seal and bond of the covenant, Exod. χχίν. And now teli me, Why are not infants capable in like manner of such a sealing? They were capable heretofore of circumcision, and our infants have an equal capacity. The sacrament does not lose this its end, through the indisposition of the receiver: Peter and Paul, apostles, were baptized.Their baptism, according to its nature, sealed to them the truth of God in his promises, concerning the washing away of sins, &c. and they, from this doctrinal virtue of the sacrament, received confirmation of their faith. So also Judas and Simon Magus, hypocrites, wicked men, were baptized. Did not their baptisin, according to the nature of it, seal this doctrine and truth, that there was a washing away of sins? It did not, indeed, seal the thing itself to them, nor was it at all a sign to them of the washing away of their sins: but baptism does of itself seal this doctrine. You will grant that thís axiom is most true-Abraham received the sign of cir. cumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith. And is not this equally true-Esau, Ahab, Ahaz, received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith? Is not circumcision the same to all? Did not circumcision, to whomsoever it was administered, sign and seal this truth, that there was a righteousness of faith? The sacrament has a sealing virtue in itself, which does not depend on the disposition of the receiver.

"II. BAPTISM, as a sacrament, is an obligation. But now, infants are capable of being obliged. Heirs are sometimes obliged by their parents, though they are not yet born: see Deut. xxix. 11, 15. For that to which any one is obliged, obtains a right to oblige: ex equitate rei, from the equity of the thing, and not ex captu obligati, from the apprehension of the person obliged. The law is imposed upon all: under this penalty, 'Cursed be every one that doth not continue in all,' &c. It is ill arguing from hence, that a man has power to perform the law; but the equity of the thing itself is very well argued hence. Our duty obliges us to do every thing which the law commands, but we cannot (without divine help) perform the least tittle of it.

"III. An infant is capable of privileges, as well as an old man, (and baptism is privilegial.) An infant has been crowned king in his cradle-an infant may be made free, who is born a slave. The Gemarists speak very well in this matter. Rab. Honna says, They baptize an infant proselyte by the command of the bench. Upon what is this grounded? On this, that baptism becomes a privilege to him. And they may endow an absent person with a privilege; or they may bestow a privilege upon one, though he be ignorant of it. Bab. Chetub. fol. 11. Tell me then, why an infant is not capable of being brought into the visible church, and receiving the distinguishing sign between a Christian and a heathen, as well as a grown person?" See Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ, in Matt. iii. and xxviii.

While this sheet was at press, I received the following ob. servations on the subject, from a highly intelligent and learn. ed friend, whose name would do my work honour, were 1 permitted to make it public. He says:

Observations on the nature

ST. LUKE.

"I presume the substance of the argument respecting in- | Cant baptism, pro and con. is fairly epitomised by Doddridge 'n his lectures, cliii. iv. v. Doubtless, much can be said for 't on the principles he has laid down: and he has, of course, given all which had been adduced on the subject. Yet after all, he himself seems scarcely satisfied. His corollary is remarkable: 'Since there is so great an obscurity on the ques tion, and so many considerable things may be advanced on both sides, it is certainly very reasonable that Christians, whose persuasions relating to infant baptism are different, should maintain mutual candour towards each other, and avoid all severe and unkind censures on account of such dif ference.'

"This was, at all events, good advice; and worthy of the amiable man who gave it. But it would be most desirable, that this long agitated question could be brought to a more certain issue. Constituted as man is, dissonance of mind will ever, more or less, obstruct coalescence of affection. To investigate truth, therefore, even in its most speculative forms, provided it be done soberly and dispassionately, is at least to subserve the cause of charity.

"In addition to the arguments which Doddridge has enumerated on the side of infant baptism, I would put this question: If infant baptism had not been in use in those churches over which Timothy and Titus presided: must there not have existed, by the time at which the epistles to those two pastors were written, a considerable class of persons, neither wholly out of, nor yet properly in the church-a class, whose very peculiar and very important circumstances and characters would have demanded distinct recognition? They would have been eminently the spes gregis, and by necessary consequence, would have needed to be watched over with special superintendence.

"When, therefore, amid the recognitions of old men, old women, young women, young men, children, parents, ser vants, masters; the rich, the friendly, the unfriendly, the heretical; there is not the most shadowy intimation of such a class, as deferred baptism necessarily supposes, (that is, of young aspirants, already bound to the church in affection, and entitled to more tender care than even the actually initiated,) what stronger evidence could we have, that no such class existed? If it had existed, self-evidently it must have been adverted to it is not adverted to; therefore it did not exist.

"But this is not all. They who must have composed this class, had it existed, are expressly and repeatedly mentioned. But where? In the actual survey of the church. As the vi gilant eye of the apostle of the Gentiles passes along the line of the faithful, both at Ephesus and Colosse, he finds and addresses the infant members of the body. There is no shade of difference indicated. They come in as complete compeers, with the classes which precede and follow. Included thus in the church, without the slightest note of distinction, what can be more evident, than that they made a part of the church in the mind of the includer?

"Once more. Let the address of St. Paul to the Ephesian children be specially noted. Children, says he, obey your parents, εν Κυρίω. How could they ohey εν Κυρίω, if they themselves were not εν Κυρίω ? In every instance, this expres sion marks incorporation into the Christian body. For example, when St. Paul distinguishes those of the family of Narcissus, who were Christians, his language is: τους όντας EN ΚΥΡΙΩ. In like manner, Onesimus, the reconciled servant of Philemon, was, in consequence of his conversion, to be doubly dear to his master, εν σαρκι και ΕΝ ΚΥΡΙΩ: εν σαρκι, from having been formerly domesticated with Philemon; εν Κυρίω,

and importance of baptism.

subjects of discipline and mental instruction-παιδεια και νουθεσία. But it must not escape attention, how exactly the sequel of the apostle's address accords with the commencement; the injunction being given as to those in express covenant. Honour thy father and thy mother-for this is the first commandment with promise. Had those addressed been out of the Christian pale, this language would have been inapplicable. In that case, they would have been απηλλοτριωμε και της πολιτειας του Ισραελ-therefore not within the range of the divine commandment; and ξενοι των διαθήκων της ευαγ γελιας-consequently not warranted to assume an interest in the promise. As then, even the pressing of the sacred injunetion, supposes the persons on whom it is urged to be συμπολε ται των αγίων, fellow citizens with the saints, their acknowledged interest in the promise proves them οικείοι του Θεού, of the household of God. I cannot therefore but conclude, that this single passage, if even it stood alone, ought to set the tedious and troublesome controversy, respecting infant bap tism, for ever at est.

"There is another point relative to this long agitated question, which also I think the Scripture has anticipated and settled-I mean IMMERSION. Some think baptism by SPRINKLING a contradiction, St. Paul, however, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. did not think so. After telling us, that οι πατέρες-παντες υπό την νεφέλην ησαν και παντες δια της θαλάσσης διήλθον, all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; he adds, with equal reference to the foriner as to the latter, και παντες εις τον Μωσεν εβαπτισαντο εν τη νεφέγη και εν τη θα λασση, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The question then is, How were they baptized in the cloud? Not, surely, by immersion for they were ΥΠΟ την νεφελην, UNDER the cloud. It could therefore be only by aspersion; this, and this alone, being the natural action of a cloud. All clouds are condensations of vapour; and that the mysterious cloud here referred to, had the natural properties of a common cloud, appears from the specified purpose to which it was applied; He spread a cloud for a covering, ab æstu sive ardore solis, says Pool. St. Paul therefore clearly spoke of 'being baptized in the cloud, with a direct eye to the moisture which it contained. In this view, the thought is strictly just: in any other view it would be unintelligible. It follows then, that St. Paul being the judge, to be sprinkled is to be baptized, no less than to be immersed is to be baptized.

"Why should we doubt, that this was said by St. Paul, for the express purpose of providing means for terminating, in its proper time, a vexatious dispute? I am persuaded that when the apostle was taken to the third heaven, he saw from that elevation, the whole series of the church's progress, from his own time until the glorious ανακεφαλαίωσις, οἱ which he himself speaks, (Ephes. i. 10.) and that unless we take this extension of view into the account, we cannot fully, perhaps not at all, fathom the depth of his writings."

It is easy to carry things into extremes on the right hand and on the left. In the controversy, to which there is a very gentie reference in the preceding observations, there has been much asperity on all sides. It is high time this were ended. To say that water baptism is nothing, because a baptism of the Spirit is promised, is not correct. Baptism, how soever administered, is a most important rite in the church of Christ. To say that sprinkling or aspersion is no Gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say, immersion is none. Such assertions are as unchristian as they are uncharitable; and should be carefully avoided, by all those who wish to promote the great design of the Gospel-glory to God, and peace and good will among men. Lastly, to assert that infant haptism

as being now his fellow Christian. The equivalent expres is unscriptural, is as rush and reprehensible as any of the

sion, εν Χριστώ, occurs in the same sense, in St. Paul's salutation of Andronicus and Ireneus, (Rom. xνί. 7.) Οι και προ έμου γεγόνασιν ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ, who also were IN CHRIST before me. "Respecting the age of the persons designated (Ephes. vi. 1.) by the term τα τέκνα, there can be no question; as a subsequent verse distinctly states them to be such children as were

rest. Myriads of conscientious people choose to dedicate their
infants to God by public baptism. They are in the RIGHT!
and by acting thus, follow the general practice both of the
Jewish and Christian church-a practice, from which it is as
needless as it is dangerous to depart.
London, Nov. 22, 1812.

END OF THE NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK.

PREFACE TO ST. LUKE.

tire whom our Lord met on the way to Emmaus on the day of his resurrection, as related Luke xxiv. 13-35. one of these was called Cleopus, ver. 18. the other is not mentioned, the evangelist himself being the person and the relator.

There is little certain known of this evangelist: from what is spoken in the Scriptures, and by the best informed of the Primitive Fathers, the following probable account is collected. Luke was, according to Dr. Lardner, a Jew by birth, and an early convert to Christianity, but Michaelis thinks he was a Gentile, and brings Colos. iv. 10, 11, 14. in proof, where St. Paul distinguished Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus, who was called Justus, from Epaphras, Lucas, and Demas, who were of the circumcision, i. e. Jews. Some think he was one of Our Lord's seventy disciples. It is worthy of remark, that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, chap. x. 1-20. It is likely he is the Lucius mentioned Rom. xvi. 21. and if so, he was related to the apostle Paul, and that it is the saine Lucius of Cyrene, | This is justly esteemed fabulous; nor is this science attri

St. Paul styles him his fellow-labourer, Philem. ver. 24. It is barely probable that he is the person mentioned Colos. iv. 14. Luke, the beloved Physician. All the ancients of repute, such as Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerom, Paulinus, Euthalius, Enthymius, and others, agree that he was a physician, but where he was born, and where he exercised the duties of his profession, are not known. Many moderns have attributed to him the most profound skill in the science of painting, and that he made some pictures of the Virgin Mary.

who is mentioned Acts xiii. 1. and in general with others, Acts xi. 20. Some of the ancients, and some of the most learned and judicious among the moderns, think he was one of the

buted to him by any writer, previously to Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, an author who scarcely deserves any credit, especially in relations not confirmed by others.