her, therefore, in her ridiculous error, to hymn in a faint and mournful voice, the dead God, who was publicly condemned to a cruel punishment, by judges of singular wis. dom." During a cruel pestilence, which ravaged the empire, in the reign of Gallienus, Porphyry expresses himself thus respecting that calamity: "Are men surprised that Rome has been afflicted with a plague for so many years, when Esculapius and the other gods have abandoned us? and since Jesus has been worshipped, no one has experienced the public assistance of the gods."* To conclude this body of Pagan evidence, which might easily be increased to a great extent. The Emperor Julian, who was educated a Christian, when he afterwards became a most subtle and powerful persecutor, composed a work against the Christian religion, in which, among a variety of other calumnies, "He reproaches the Christians for worshipping two Gods, contrary to the express command of Moses."+† Julian was slain in the year 363, in a battle against the Persians. With him fell idolatry; and Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire and its sovereigns. Thus, my friend, have I endeavoured briefly to trace this important tenet, from the first promulgation of the Christian system, to the downfall of Paganism. I have shown that it was taught by Christ's own Apostles, and their immediate successors; that the adversaries of this doctrine were regarded as heretics by the brightest luminaries of the primitive Church; and that the practice of the ancient Christians, whenever it is mentioned by cotemporary Pagan writers, bears additional and solid testimony in its favour against them. Nothing further remains to be said upon this subject, in order to fix our ideas and belief, but to consider, whether the weight of evidence alleged for this doctrine, or the inconvenience of its appa rent contradictions and difficulties, ought to preponderate on an impartial mind, which has previously admitted the * See passages from his work in Greg. Naz., Euseb., Theodoret, Jerom, Cy. ril, Austin. + Cyril adv. Jul. books of the New Testament to be the word of God. I must candidly acknowledge that those difficulties are great and perplexing; that many passages in the New Testament appear to co-operate with reason, in proving some degree of inferiority in Jesus Christ; that the system adopted by a late very ingenious writer* seems exceedingly plausible, not to say sublime and admirably consistent. I must confess moreover, that I can see no answer to his arguments but such as rest on the facts contained in this letter. If these be once established; that is, if it be a fact, that Christ's Apostles did teach that he is God, by admitting their authority, we admit the fact; if it can be shown that their immediate successors believed and worshipped him as a divine person, we must conceive him such, or conclude that they were wrong; and that consequently the Christian dispensation failed in the very outset of its principal design, which was to bring mankind to the worship of the living God. Would not assertions of this kind be more unreasonable, than to admit that Dr. Priestly, Mr. Purves, and others, have not been able to penetrate this wonderful mystery; that the contradictions they allege are not real, and that they have certainly been mistaken in their several opinions? With the exception of Dr. Priestly only, I have not entered the lists of controversy with any other opponent to this doctrine much less will it be expected that I should take any notice of the flimsy, though fashionable philosophers of the European continent. Meteors, which dazzle for a moment, by a glittering display of fascinating declamation, but vanishing as quickly into the airy regions of fiction, from whence they originated. From writers of this cast, the Christian religion has little to apprehend, especially in America. Neither the harmony of well turned periods, nor the affected glow of false philanthropy, will * Mr. Purves, who admits the pre-existence of Christ, and ascribes every attribute to him short of infinite perfection in its utmost latitude of meaning. ever usurp the empire of sound and masculine reason, among a people accustomed to argue for themselves: and I trust, that a nation, in whose cause Divine Providence has shone so eminently conspicuous, will never be persuaded, either by the pompous erudition of a Diderot, the warm and unbridled fancy of a Raynal, or the cynical sneers of a Voltaire, to detach the idea of civil and religious liberty from a perfect dependance on the Great Creator. With every sentiment of esteem and affection, I remain, Dear Sir, your sincere Friend, And humble servant, CHARLES HENRY WHARTON. Prospect Hill, March 31, 1791. BAPTISM. THE Antipodobaptists hold, that believing adults only are proper subjects of baptism, because Christ's commission to baptize restricted this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, are to be excluded. It does not appear, they say, that the Apostles, in executing Christ's commission, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They contend, that infants can receive no benefit from it, as not being capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre-requisites. As to the mode, they believe that the meaning of the word Barr signifies immersion, or dipping only; that John baptized in Jordan, that he chose a place where there was much water; that Philip and the Ethiopian went down both into the water. That the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often mentioned in Scripture, allude to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first Christians, and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of our cli mate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the Church, that they stand in need but of little argument to support them. Further, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor, and that, there fore, reasoning by analogy, from previous abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule. The Pædobaptists are, however, of a very different opinion. As to the subject, that is, they believe that qualified adults, who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they think also, that infants are not to be excluded. They believe, that as the covenant with Abraham and the Christian are the same ;* that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it, as children had to the right of circumcision under the law. That if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason women should not come to the Lord's Supper; we should not keep the first day of the week, nor attend public worship, for none of these are expressly commanded; that if infant baptism had been a hu man invention, how would it have been so universal in the first three hundred years, and yet no record left when it was introduced, nor any dispute, nor controversy about it. Some reduce it to these two ideas: First, that God did constitute in his Church the membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious ordinance: Second, that this right to church membership was never taken away. This being the case, infants must be received, because God has instituted it; and, since infants must be received, it must be either without baptism, or with it; but none must be received without baptism, therefore infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear, that under the Gospel, infants are still continued in the same relation to God and his Church, in which they were originally placed under the former dispensation. That infants are to be received into the Church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following Scriptures:-Gen. xvii. ; Isaiah xliv. 3; Matt. xix. 13; Luke ix. 47-48; Mark ix. 14; Acts ii. 38-39; Rom. xi. 17, 21; 1 Cor. vii. 14. * Gen. xvii. 7. Heb. viii. 12. † Acts ii. 39. Rom. iv. 11. |