were not to give one or two passages from writers of high reputation in confirmation of the character which I have given of Tertullian from Mosheim.

Dupin, whose diligence and accuracy have never been questioned, says, that Tertullian's error respecting Infant Baptism is peculiar to himself, and that we find no other of the ancient writers who has spoken in the same way. After having noticed several gross errors of Tertullian, especially that of Montanism, this learned author gives the following exposition of the opinions of this Father respecting Infant Baptism: "What necessity is there to expose godfathers to the hazard of answering for those whom they hold at the fonts; since they may be prevented by death from being able to perform those promises which they have made for the children, or else may be disappointed by their evil inclinations? Jesus Christ says, indeed, Hinder not little children from coming to me;' but that is that they should come to him as soon as they are advanced in years, as soon as they have learnt their religion, when they may be taught whither they are going, when they are become Christians, when they begin to be able to know Jesus Christ."

the

Can any thing more completely expose ignorance of Tertullian than the above passage? Children may come to Christ, when they are advanced in years, that is, when they cease to be

children! This is the very thing which our Lord blamed in his disciples; they would prevent the children from coming to him, because they were young and uninstructed: but they were rebuked for it by Him who knew the nature of his own kingdom, and who has declared that children are subjects of it. But Tertullian adds another reason why infants should not be baptized, which places his notions in a still more ridiculous point of view. He says, "What is there that should compel that innocent age to be baptized? And since they are not allowed the disposal of temporal goods, is it reasonable that they should be entrusted with the concerns of Heaven ?" So that Christian parents are to take care not to instruct their children in the truths of the Gospel, or make them partakers of the means of grace, until they are able to manage an estate!

The judicious Hooker, whose opinion on such a subject, is entitled to the utmost respect, thus speaks of Tertullian :

"He was a Montanist, and an enemy unto the Church for condemning that prophetical spirit, which Montanus and his followers did boast they had received; as if in them Christ had performed his last promise; as if to them he had sent the Spirit that should be their perfector and final instructor in the mysteries of Christian truth.

Which exulceration of mind made him take all occasions of contradiction."*

Mos

[I ought to state here, that Dr. Kaye, the learned Bishop of Lincoln, differs from Moshiem, in his opinion of the tenets of Montanus. heim supposed that that heresiarch represented himself to be the Paraclete whom our Lord promised to his Apostles, and that he made a distinction between the Paraclete, and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost: the office of the former being, as Montanus supposed, (according to Mosheim) to perfect the Gospel by the addition of some doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast a full light upon others which were expressed in an obscure and imperfect manner. Dr. Kaye's opinion, formed after a careful perusal of the works of Tertullian, is, that Montanus conceived himself to be inspired by the same Spirit as the Apostles; and not that he himself pretended to be the Paraclete.+]

* Eccles. Polity. book ii. sec. 5.

+ Eccles. History, illustrated from the writings of Tertullian. p. 27.

CHAPTER V.

On the meaning of the word βαπτίζω.

OUR opponents maintain that our Lord's commission not only implies that none are to be baptized but such as have faith and repentance, but also expressly provides that the person who is baptized shall be plunged under water; for such, they say, is the precise and only meaning of the expression to baptize. I must not close this volume without making a few remarks upon this opinion, because the Baptists lay so much stress upon it as to hold, that, if the rite be not administered according to their notion of the mode, the baptism is a nullity; inasmuch as a positive institution must be strictly observed in all its circumstances, and we are not at liberty to deviate in the slightest degree from the original practice. But, indeed, their statement of the case is unfounded and delusive; for, instead of determining the meaning of the word by the admitted practice

of the disciples, they, preposterously, determine the practice by the meaning of the word! And how, will the reader say, do they settle the meaning of the word? Why, chiefly, by ascertaining in what sense it is used by heathen writers: they consult the writings of Pagan antiquity for the purpose of finding out in what sense the Jews understood a word, which was long in use in their religious services! This is absurd: Would a Baptist consult Plato, or Aristotle, or Xenophon, for the purpose of discovering in what sense St. Paul used the word law (vouos)? Yet their conduct in the case of Baptize is equally ridiculous and unreasonable. The word SETVov means a supper, a feast, or common meal; it is used in the New Testament for the Lord's Supper, which is certainly as positive an institution as baptism. Now, I ask the Baptists whether they, when they celebrate that solemn rite, take a supper, a feast, a common meal? is a small piece of bread and a drop of wine, a supper? According to their own principles in determining the sense of the word Baptism they ought to make the Lord's Supper a meal, for that is undoubtedly the meaning of the word Savov in Classic writers.

The true question is, in what sense do the writers of the New Testament use the word Baptize? If they use it to signify only immersion of the whole body, then are the Baptists right.