controversy, to consider that we could not know the patience and kindness of God in teaching, unless we knew the slowness of men in learning. Of course it cannot be his own slowness to learn, but that of Dr. Halley and all who have not yet learned believers' baptism, which illustrates the forbearance of God, and so relieves and enriches this controversy.* This forbearance, we are informed shortly afterwards, exceeds Mr. Stovel's comprehension. † His treatment of his opponents, both as individuals and communities, appears to us in the highest degree supercilious and uncharitable. Dr. Halley had said, that to him it was not plain that baptism meant immersion; immersion therefore could not be obligatory upon him, and this he considered consolatory. On this Mr. Stovel remarks, The commandments of the Lord are plain to them that fear him.' But the Doctor says that this commandment of the Lord is not plain to him: it would follow, therefore, that he did not fear the Lord, and that the want of this fear had already obscured to him the Lord's commandment. This may be true; but how can it be consoling? We feel that all comment here must be superfluous. We cannot tell of what superiority over others in literature, intelligence, and piety, Mr. Stovel may be conscious; but we believe the public are quite unprepared to acknowledge his claims to that pre-eminence which would justify such a style, and which, if it existed, we are inclined to think, would manifest itself in every other way, rather than this. From the present lectures, as well as from those before published, it appears that the evidence on which the writer chiefly depends, for the proof of believers' baptism, is contained in the four texts so often quoted from the epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, the Romans, the Colossians, and from the first epistle of St. Peter.§ From these passages we learn that there is a baptism for Christ, (or, if it be preferred, into Christ,) of such a nature, that all who receive it put on Christ; by, or in, this baptism they are buried with the Lord; they rise with him to a new life; and they are saved. Now since the New Testament does certainly refer to the baptism of the soul, as well as to that of the body--to one received from the truth and Spirit of Christ, and to another obtained by the use of water, we cannot see why it should be supposed that the latter must be here referred to, either alone, or in connexion with the former. The context and the scope of all these passages, as well as the general tenor of the New Testament, seem to us adverse to this supposition. The assumption that they have this reference gives to the doctrine of sacramental efficacy a more plausible support than anything besides can furnish. The baptism here spoken * p. 1. + p. 485. † p. 5. § Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 21. of is not represented as following the moral and spiritual changes associated with it; but rather as preceding and producing them. We are far from identifying the doctrines of Papists and Puseyites with those of our Baptist brethren; we know that they are contrary; but they alike rest on the assumption that this baptism must be water-baptism. Mr. Stovel repeats the assertion, so often made before, with much vehemence and many iterations, but without proof. In the first lecture he refers, as we might expect, to the meaning of the word disciple; but the manner in which he disposes of this subject few could anticipate. As the accurate determination of its meaning was necessary to show that Dr. Halley was wrong in styling those disciples who were merely initiated into the school and kingdom of Christ, we thought some pains would have been bestowed on the proof, that the word was only used in the higher sense for which Mr. Stovel contends. But of this no evidence is presented to us. We are simply informed that the Greek word for a disciple has as synonymes four other words, which denote a hearer, a companion, an attendant, one recognised. There is no examination either of the classic, or the Scripture usage of the term. That a disciple might receive all these appellations we admit; but that any of them are synonymous, we beg to deny. A person might be a disciple and not a hearer, or a hearer and not a disciple; so he might be a disciple and not be recognised, or be recognised and yet not be a disciple. Our Lord on one occasion said to the Jews who believed, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. We presume Mr. S. would allow that these believers were disciples, in some sense, when this declaration was made; though it was necessary that they should continue in the faith, in order to be worthy of this title in a still higher sense. That our Lord required of all disciples entire devotedness to him, is very evident; but that none were permitted to bear the name who had not given proof of such devotedness, is not evident. This was the point which Mr. Stovel should have established; but this he has not even attempted; and a concordance will show that the term disciple is used by the evangelists in a much more general and indiscriminate manner than Mr. Stovel thinks proper. After this investigation of the meaning of the word disciple, we come to a sketch of the history of the Baptists. It begins with Tertullian, a writer whom we most readily resign to Mr. Stovel's fellowship. When about A.D. 200 he wrote against the baptism of young people, and persons not duly prepared for that rite and its engagements, he rebuked the practice as a novelty, unauthorised * John viii. 31. by Scripture, or the practice of the early churches.'* Now Tertullian does not rebuke the practice as a novelty, nor as unsupported by Scripture, nor as contrary to the practice of the early churches; his objections are founded on very different grounds, which Mr. Stovel has omitted to mention. He rebuked infant baptism, because the sponsors might incur danger, by dying before they could fulfil their engagements, because it was uncertain what the children would become when their nature was developed, because they had no sins to need the forgiveness secured by baptism,because its grace was too precious to be entrusted to the care of children. For similar reasons he also rebuked the baptism of all unmarried persons, widowers, and widows. We may be excused for not regarding such an authority with much deference; and, after this specimen of Mr. Stovel's accuracy, we must be allowed to distrust his statements concerning the reformers. He informs us that at the Reformation it was not only proved that justification by faith only came from God; but that the use of baptism is justified by God in believers only.'+ Worldly motives, we are told, withheld many of the reformers from confessing the second of these great truths; it was, however, received by those to whom, the author says, 'the word of God became so sweet that they would learn it all.' It may be some consolation to those who now fall under Mr. Stovel's censures, that they suffer in the society of Luther and Melancthon, Zuingle and Calvin, and many of the most honoured servants of Christ. We really have no pity for them; but think this sentiment more fitly bestowed on him who is so slow to discern Christian integrity, and love for truth, beyond the narrow limits of his own party. Dr. Halley having had occasion to notice the terms μvorýρlov and sacramentum, applied by the fathers to baptism and the Lord's supper, Mr. Stovel follows him to this subject; we see not why. On the remark of Dr. H., 'It would be vain to consult the New Testament for any exposition of a sacrament,' Mr. S. says, 'This is strange. The word sacrament or mystery occurs in those writings about twenty-seven times, and in the Septuagint not less than twenty-five; out of these fifty-two cases it might at least be possible to verify its meaning.' We should have thought it exceedingly strange, if Dr. H. had adopted the course Mr. S. recommends. The meaning of the word in the New Testament is evidently different from its meaning in the Greek fathers. The mysteries there mentioned are not the sacraments, as any one may see by turning to the various passages. They are things to be known, and not things to be done. To find the sense in which a word was used as * p. 17. VOL. 11. † p. 18... C † p. 32. a designation for Christian rites, it would be vain to look to passages where it is never used in any similar application. Mr. Stovel admits that, in the Bible, baptism is never called a mystery: yet because it is there said that there are mysteries, and in following ages baptism was called a mystery, Mr. S. infers that it was one of the mysteries of the kingdom' mentioned by Christ, one of the "mysteries of God' entrusted to the apostles. He states that Tertullian spoke of a hundred sacraments or mysteries, "and that little less than fourteen sacraments or mysteries are named in holy Scripture.' We should have thought their number might readily be ascertained; and that it would have been worth while to set forth distinctly the characteristics of the class to which he is so anxious to refer baptism. He informs us that it is a mystery; but in what sense it is so, we are left to conjecture. He The second lecture is on Jewish baptism. Here the opinion, that any knowledge of Jewish customs is ever necessary to the right understanding of our Lord's words, is denounced with much violence. This principle is described as a precipice to which Dr. H., with great composure, leads the student of Divine law,—as conducting to a ruinous conclusion,--to evils which can hardly be exaggerated, as discreditable to our Lord,-as placing his precepts beyond the reach of those who have to observe them, and so on, Now this principle is one acknowledged by all critics; and common sense, without learning, may justify it. If customs have any influence on modes of speech, some knowledge of these customs must be requisite. It is surely as easy to become acquainted with the customs, as with the language of the Jews. Mr. Stovel might as well demand that he should be allowed to explain Scripture without the knowledge of the one, as of the other. however admits, as at least probable, the existence of proselyte baptism among the Jews, a subject to which Dr. H. had referred as immaterial to his argument. But Mr. S. contends that this was a discriminating baptism, given only to those whose religious character had been examined and approved. Now the society to which the proselytes were admitted was certainly an indiscriminate society: it does not, therefore, seem very reasonable that there should have been a discriminating initiation. Moreover baptism was, as Mr. S. observes, but one of the rites introductory to Judaism; and the laws for the admission of foreigners to all Jewish privileges were given by Moses, and require their reception without any reference to their personal piety. The only evidence which Mr. S. adduces in support of his strange opinion, is an irrelevant quotation from Maimonides, borrowed from Dr. H., where the heathen is described as 'coming to be joined to the covenant of Israel, and to place himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty,'-phrases which appear to us descriptive of future privileges, but which he regards as discriminating present character. If the testimony of Jews a thousand years after the time were of any value, much more satisfactory evidence than this might easily be obtained. Let it be allowed that all the children who were to be brought up under the Jewish dispensation received Jewish baptism, and it becomes probable that all who are to be brought up under the Christian dispensation should receive Christian baptism. This, we presume, is the indiscriminate baptism which Dr. H. maintains, and which Mr. S. condemns. Some of Mr. Stovel's expositions of Scripture are exceedingly curious. We are quite incompetent to explain how they are obtained from the text, or can be reconciled with it. Take for example the words of the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews: 'not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.'* We have thought that repentance and faith were mentioned together as the first duties inculcated, and that the four subjects of instruction here associated were among the elements of Christian doctrine. Mr. S., by means of a few interpolations, makes the passage much more significant. He informs us that the writer mentions a doctrine of baptisms' as it existed in the Christian church, requiring repentance from dead works and reliance upon God,' followed by the laying on of hands,' and united with a hope of the 'resurrection' and the future judgment.'† This appears to us an exposition, not of the words of Scripture, but of the opinions of Mr. Stovel. There is another passage in this epistle subjected to the same treatment. The apostle mentions, in connexion with several external services, various baptisms, and declares that all these things were unable to make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.' Mr. S. states that to make a worshipper perfect is to complete his initiation,' and that what are termed carnal ordinances, are terms of justification of the flesh.' He adds, "The meaning of the passage through its whole reasoning is, that Jesus initiates those who are sanctified, on a ground which reaches the vital solicitude of conscience, and renders their relation to himself perfect for ever.' So the declaration of the apostle, that no Jewish ceremonies could make perfect, proves that the Christian rite of water baptism does make perfect. We can hardly conceive of anything more illogical and unscriptural. Yet Mr. S., triumphing in this conclusion as decisive, turns to Dr. H. and asks if he will affirm that children, when baptized, are 'perfect as to the conscience, and perfect for ever? We may venture to reply for *Heb. vi. 1. † p. 64. Heb. ix. 9. § p. 76. |