propriety in them? Really this would appear to me downright nonsense and absurdity, if I imagined, that he had done no more for their salvation than any other good man might have been commissioned to do. But how is this mystery increased, if I should suppose that he expressed himself more incautiously, or, at least, has been more misunderstood, than ever any messenger was, whom God sent to make known his will to mankind! No other prophet ever became the rival of God, the object of most extensive and long continued idolatrous worship, but Jesus. Either, he is truly the only-begotten Son of God, in such a sense as imports a participation of divinity, or he is an idol. If he be the latter, how ill does he deserve the appellation of a light to lighten the Gentiles, who has actually, even if it could be unintentionally, led almost all Christendom astray, from the only living and true God?

If the Socinians are right, all that worship Christ are idolaters; all that trust in him, trust only in an arm of flesh, and are exposed to the curse for so doing. If he be only the son of man, in him there is no help. Was Paul of this mind, when he told the Corinthians, that he "determined not to know any thing among them, save Jesus Christ and him crucified?" When he said, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus?" When he said, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ?" When he said, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not 1, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me?" Finally, when he said, "If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Ma

Bristol.

J. R.

Mr. Cox's Reply to the Review of his Work on Baptism, in the Congregational Magazine for October last.

(Concluded from Page 16.)

The Reviewer writes again "Ter tullian, according to Mr. Cox's statement, condemns infant baptism in the third century: to complete this sentence, Mr. C. should add, in his second edition, and, in doing so, became an undeniable witness to its existence and prevalence." Triumphing in his brilliant amendment, he proceeds, "This confession cannot be recalled; Tertullian condemns infant baptism-not as a thing that was to be, but as a thing that was !" This is really, applying his own language to me in another case, a "pithy passage," and deserves serious attention. I feel obliged to my kind Reviewer for suggesting any thing which he deems a beneficial alteration in my second edition, and I have only one objection to adopt it; namely, that, great logician as he is, in this instance he is not quite logical. That Tertullian, in condemning infant baptism, was an evidence to its existence, and really meant to say it was "a thing that was!" is sufficiently plain, and to my obtuse

ness it appears that the citation of Tertullian's condemnation carried with it an evidence that I also absolutely believed in its existence! I was not quite so absurd as to imagine he condemned what he did not suppose to exist! But, further, he alleges that his condemnation of it was a proof of its prevalence! Indeed! What, a proof of its prevalence all over the Christian church, and from the days of the apostles-for this is your Reviewer's argument! Whether it is from an inferiority of logical genius to your Reviewer I cannot tell, but to me it appears, that though his condemnation proved it existed, it equally proved that it was not prevalent! Is it probable that Tertullian would have condemned what was the settled and universal practice of the church, and supported by the most ancient examples, and, traditionally, by the apostles themselves? It is infinitely more probable, and tolerably certain, that he condemned a novel practice, introduced by a few speculators in religion, or by those who were willing to practise clinical baptism for the sake of convenience.

Besides, if infant baptism were generally practised, how came it to pass that Cyprian convened sixtysix bishops to give it their solemn synodical sanction in the middle of the third century? These must have been wiseacres indeed, to have met in general council to enforce infant baptism, when it already universally prevailed! The questions agitated respecting the period of the administration of this rite must necessarily have been precluded by an invariable, notorious, and apostolic practice. The canon runs thus:"It is our pleasure, that whoever denies that new-born infants are to be baptized, let him be anathema." -Oh, but my confession cannot be recalled! Certainly it cannot; but every Pædobaptist would have rea

son to rejoice if it could! Yes, I have really confessed, and do hereby confess again, that Tertullian condems infant baptism-he condems it in the third century, at a time when other errors had begun to shew themselves, which merited a similar fate. This is, indeed, my confession, and my Pædobaptist antagonist is extremely welcome to it?

was

But between John's death and Tertullian's conversion there not quite an interval of a hundred years; and therefore, argues our Reviewer, infant baptism being then found to exist and to be prevalent, which is proved by its being condemned, it must have been apostolic. So, then, a practice is found to exist, perhaps among some half dozen innovators, about a hundred years after the decease of the oldest of Christ's disciples, and a presbyter of the church condemns it, therefore, it was practised by the apostles! This is really pretty well for those who charge others with being rash and illogical! If the Reviewer were not so profoundly versed in ecclesiastical antiquity, I would venture to inform him, that we have substantial proof that infant baptism was not universally practised, notwithstanding Cyprian's council, even in the fourth and fifth centuries! "Mr. Cox and the Baptists of the present times say, he condemns infant baptism; and so he does: but his opinion is of no value." No, certainly; if he condemns infant baptism, his opinion can be of no value! As the Reviewer is kind enough to suggest an alteration for my second edition, he will perhaps allow me to hint that he should have added a word or two at the end of this "pithy" passage; namely, me judice. That he considers the opinion of Tertullian of no value, I do not question; and had he not laboured under a mistake as to its purport, he would

have said the same of his testimony. Upon all the ordinary and received principles of reasoning, we should be led to conclude, that the fact of Tertullian's recording, without disapprobation, sundry rites and ceremonies of the church, rendered it much more probable that they were prevalent and apostolic, than that a particular service which he did condemn was universal and of the highest antiquity. Tertullian has so recorded the consecration of bap tismal water, the imposition of hands, the material unction used in confirmation, prayers and oblations for the dead, the use of the white garment after baptism, and other ceremonies. Our opponent, if it suited his purpose, would say, " and in so doing became an undeniable witness to their existence and prevalence." Tertullian mentions these 66 as things that were, not as things that were to be." Nay, further, it might be alleged, he does not condemn them, but intimates his approbation; a proof they were not only prevalent, but universally approved. Suppose, however, it were affirmed of any one of them, as for instance of the consecration of water, that Tertullian condemned it; would any person in his senses deem it a conclusive argument that the practice not only existed, but was universally prevalent and apostolic?

It happens, moreover, that Tertullian expresses his disapprobation of another practice, namely, that of offering sponsor's or sureties to Christ, who engaged on behalf of new-born infants that they should not depart from the Christian faith when adult. Now, were the reasoning of the Reviewer legitimate, it must be equally applicable in this instance. Tertullian condemns sponsorship; very true (mutatis mutandis), very true, Mr. Reviewer; but to complete this sentence, let us propose "a trifling addition, which

being overlooked in the hurry of your first paper, may advantageously be introduced into your second; it is this, and in so doing, became an undeniable witness to its existence and prevalence. This confession cannot be recalled!!!" Now, Gentlemen, let your critical shade escape from this dilemma if he can!

With reference to Irenæus, your critic observes the words “infantes, parvulos, pueros, juvenes et seniores, as the omnes qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, cannot possibly be rendered of any thing else but baptism. What could these infants and very little children know of regeneration in Mr. Cox's sense of that term?" Here it is obvious, that, however justly I may be charg ed with that crime, my opponent is not at all dogmatical, as it has before been shewn that his assertions are not rash nor his arguments illogical! A few lines afterwards proves, as he thinks, "that renascuntur means precisely baptism, and nothing else." Now, in the first place, every scholar knows that the terms infantes, &c. are not by any means restricted in their application to infants in the common acceptation of the word. In Greek and Latin writers, infancy is generally extended to fourteen years of age, and all the terms in question are used with that signification. It is common with the fathers to speak of individuals performing the works of piety from their childhood; and indeed it is not an unusual expression among ourselves; but we do not intend that they are penitents or believers at eight days old. Thus it is said of Timothy, from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures." Ifan expositor were to argue that this must mean that Timothy knew the Scriptures when hanging at the breast, he would be thought to reason very unscripturally, and very foolishly; but he would be

using precisely the kind of logic for which your Reviewer is distinguished. But "renascuntur means precisely baptism, and nothing else;" the addition of me judice is here again requisite. If it were worth the time, I think I could demonstrate the reverse; but it is sufficient to say that this assertion avails nothing; and were we to concede it, the Reviewer's cause is not assisted, while he his unable to prove that infantes is exclusively applicable to babes.

After all, I beg leave to intimate that we have not the words of Irenæus himself, but only a paltry translation of them; of which Scaliger affirms, "The translator was an ass, and had even less learning than Ruffinus." Your Reviewer is confident that he has found a testimony from the second century, in the language of Justin, who speaks of persons discipled to Christ from infancy; and then lauds himself for having shown how incompetent my brief and rash statement is to satisfy a calm inquirer." Every tyro will perceive that the preceding remarks are again applicable to the expression of Justin, and that discipling involves in it a sense which is point blank against Pædobaptism! We are informed that Dr. Wardlaw intends to reply to my objections, and those of others; be it so; I shall be happy to listen to the dispassionate and respectful statement of one who will try at least at hard arguments and soft words: and who, I verily believe, if he reads the review in the Congregational Magazine, will exclaim, "Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis. Gentlemen, do not let us bounce, and wince, and call names, and seem as if we felt ourselves in the wrong!"

"There is one argument," observes the Reviewer," applicable to all the early fathers, which has irresistible weight. They all held

that original birth-sin, the guilt which is entailed on all, is removed only by baptism; that, until the removal of this took place, none could be admitted into Christ's kingdom or church, but that the ordinance of baptism was the actual removing of that sin, and consequently that the salvation of such was secured. Now, from these very notions, they must have practised infant baptism."

Thus the Reviewer contends, that the most eminent Christians, after the apostles, must have practised infant baptism, on account of the opinion they uniformly entertained of its being necessary to salvation. This is an important concession, as it gives a most satisfactory account of the early introduction of the practice, and its rapid prevalence, apart from any consideration of its apostolic authority. The church early and universally fell into an error, which presented an irre sistible temptation to practise infant baptism. How unnecessary is it then for us to look any further for its origin, and how absurd to infer from its early prevalence, that it must have originated in a divine prescription, when it is ascertained and acknowledged that an existed all along, which not only might have given birth to the usage in question, but was of such a na ture, that it could not possibly fail to produce it. The whole argument, from its pretended antiquity, is completely destroyed by this statement. Whoever asserts that a principle confessedly erroneous was sufficient to account for the adop tion of a certain practice, nay, that it could not fail to produce it; surrenders at once all inferences in its favour from its early rise, prevalence, &c. on this plain ground, that it is unphilosophical to assign more causes for a phenomenon, than are sufficient to produce it."