On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
out some elucidation . I was almost tempted to copy the whole passage , but two or three of the first lines shall suffice : " They went , ( those who obtained the first law for Infant Baptism , ) therefore , on the forlorn hope , and a plain tale puts them down ; they
did not pretend to ground Infant Baptism on Scriptures , but on tradition ; and as they could not possibly cite a law , human or divine , they ventured to place it on universal custom . Had custom been for it , and reason against it , reason should have taken plaice of
custom . But with what possible decency could they venture to assert this ? " This question Mr . R . elucidates , by asking a few more plain questions and stating a few facts . One great crime , however , he has certainly committed . He will not admit , that
the , sprinkling of a new-born babe is Infant Baptism : and he proves , that while the Greeks always administered ( as before observed ) baptism by immersion , that the Latins introduced aspersion in favour of the northern Christians : p . 428 .
Surely then , it must appear from the above statement , that your writer ' s regret far want of facts and arguments , was as unfortunate as it was unnecessary ; that it was altogether without reason , and a little pFematu
re-Mr . B . u In vain did I seek for any proof , that either Christ or his apostles bad ordained the application of baptism to the descendants of baptized persons , but had limited the rite to those onK who are of adult age . *'
Here again your writer ' s anxiety , however much to be pitied , appears to be quite needless : for Mr . R . has even been generous . He produces distinct proofs , in chap , viu of the institution of baptism
by Jesus Christ , where he connect ^ being baptized with being taught , agreeably to the baptismal form . 44 The order , " he says , runs , ** teach all nations , bapiizing them . The thing speaks for itself , the style is popular , \ he sense plain / ' In the principles of ( he kingdom of Christ there is neither fraud nor for ^ e , nor is it suitable io
the dignity of the Lord Jesus to take one man by conviction , and his ten children hy surprise ; and , * ' theprac ~ tice of the ^ apostles * who understood the words , no doubt , Ts the best ex-
Untitled Article
position of the language , p . 44 . tie elsewhere endeavours to shew , incidentally , that such passages of the New Testament as are usually introduced in this controversy , are not hi point .
In chap . viii . of apostolical baptism , he shrewdly observes , " the book ( the Acts of the Apostles ) is full of information j and in regard to baptism it informs as well by what it does
not say , as by what it does . There are frequent narrations of the baptism of believers , but not one infant appears in the whole history ; yet , no doubt , some Christians had married , and had
young families within the thirty years between the ascension of Jesus and the settlement of Paul at Rome . " He throws much light , in my judgment , on the passage , ( and the advocates for Infant Baptism lay great stress on
that passage , ) which relates to &te ~ phanns ' s household ; and I think it will be found there is not a single text in the New Testament , which is brought into this controversy on Infant Baptism , which is not incidentally and , more often , critically examined .
Now , though this History brings no proof from tradition , yet as it docs from apostolical authority , certain persons surely ought to allow it to stand for something . Further , the question on the baptism of the descendants of baptized persons depends , as every one
acquainted with this controversy knows ; on another concerning Jewish Prdselyte Baptism . Into the latter ; the History of Baptism enters at sufficient lengths . The author admits , that the Jews had washings , common , traditional , ritual and extraordinary , bat denies that there was a Jewish
Proselyte Baptism , and says , " that it could not be pretended seriously , that it was instituted by God ; that it was introduced by the Jewish rabbins , since the introduction of Christianity . A fact it is , " he says , beyond all contradiction , that this same proselyte baptism is no baptism , but , as Dr . Benson truly says , a very different thing , in which infants could have no share . " The arguments he employs on this subject , and the inferences that he makes are the same as those
introduced by Dr . Benson , Dr . Gale and Dr . Gill , men at least of some authority in matters of Jewish antiquities *
Untitled Article
486 On Mr . SehhanCs Censure of Robinson *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1818, page 436, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2478/page/28/
-