which these versions were made. Such persons, forsooth, know Coptic better than the Copts, and Syriac better than the members of the Syriac churches! Peculiarly modest, this. II. By the testimony of the early church, as contained in its rituals, in its acts of councils, and in the writings of its distinguished members. Its rituals. That of the Nestorians, made probably in the seventh century, gives the following directions:-"They bring them (the children) to the priest, who, standing on the western side of the baptistry, turns the face of the child to the east, and dips him in water." In the ritual of Severus, patriarch of Antioch, the following passages occur:-" John mixed the waters of baptism, and Christ sanctified them, and descended that he might be baptized in them. Altitude and profundity imparted glory to him," "Who hast immersed thy head in the waters." The old Abyssinian ritual contains the following words :"And the priest shall take them and immerse them three times." The sacramentary of Gregory the Great directs that persons to be baptized should be immersed. All the ancient Greek rituals require immersion. In the Manuale ad usum Sarum, published in England in the twenty-first year of Henry the eighth, is a direction to the priest to take the child and dip him in the water. In the Smalcald articles, drawn up by Luther, it is said:"Baptism is nothing else than the word of God with immersion in water." * * * Its writers. Tertullian, who died A.D. 220, speaking of the mode of baptism in Africa, tells us that a baptized person is "let down into the water, and dipped between the utterance of a few words." "I do not see," confesses Professor Stuart, "how any doubt can well remain, that in Tertullian's time the practice of the African church, to say the least, as to the mode of baptism, must have been that of trine immersion." Gregory of Nyssa, says :-" Coming into the water we hide ourselves in it;" and Basil speaks of three immersions. Thus, then, in Asia Minor, for there these two bishops lived during the fourth century, the custom was like our own. Chrysostom, on the third chapter of John, informs us of the manner in which baptism was administered in Constantinople during the same century. His words are, "We, as in a sepulchre, immersing our heads in water, the old man is buried, and sinking down, the whole is concealed at once; then, as we emerge, the new man rises again." Ambrose, archbishop of Milan at the same period, says, "Thou saidst, I believe, and thus wast immerged, that is, thou wast buried." Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome in Bethlehem, likewise gave the same testimony. Thus, then, as late as the fourth century, immersion was still customary in Europe, Asia Minor, and Africa. The Oriental and Greek churches have always practised dipping, as they yet do. Even as late as the year 850, W. Strabo speaks of immersion as Its acts of councils. The Apostolic being general. Nay, more, in the Constitutions, probably written in the twelfth century Rupertus tells us that fourth century, declare that, "immer- this was the custom in Germany; sion denotes dying with Christ, emer- while the Episcopalian Wall confesses sion a resurrection with him." So that," in the times of Thomas Aquinas also in sect. iv. of the fourth council (thirteenth century) and Bonaventure, of Toledo, it is said, “Immersion is immersion was in Italy the most comlike a descent to the grave, and emer- mon way." Such, according to Fuller, sion from the water as a resurrection." was the practice of the English church The decretals of Leo speak of a trine from the beginning, a statement immersion as resembling the three borne out by the language of Tyndale, day's burial, and the emersion from who, at the eve of the Reformation, the waters as a resurrection." speaks of it as the general practice; and by the autobiography of bishop | dox Doctrine," published for the use Chappell, who states that he was im- of the schools in Athens, says that the mersed, as was the custom in the parish baptized person is "plunged into the in which he was born. With respect water." Indeed the members of the to Scotland, we find the following Greek church call those of the western language in the Edinburgh Encyclo- churches "sprinkled christians," by pedia, "In this country, however, way of ridicule. Pity that these sprinkling was never used in ordinary Greeks had not the valuable assistcases till after the Reformation." ance of one Canadian scholar. They might then perhaps better understand their own language. 66 Well may Augusti say that this mode is "a thing made out;" and well may the upright and erudite Congregationalist Stuart, whose truthfulness contrasts most favourably with the blind zeal and incorrect statements of Dr. Miller, add-" So indeed all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, which seems to be more clearly or certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this." III. By the testimony derived from the places in which baptism was anciently administered. V. By the testimony of the most celebrated scholars. The Reformers Luther, Beza, and Calvin own that immersion was the practice of the primitive church. Luther's own words are "I would have those that are to be baptized, to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify." Milton, Seldon, and Johnson all confess the same. Seldon says "In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson baptized his own fingers rather than the child." The testimony of Bentley Clement of Rome speaks of a river, and Porson, the two most celebrated fountain, or the sea as suitable for the Greek scholars England ever produced, performance of this rite. Tertullian may be cited in our favour. The former tells us that "it mattered not where a in his discourse on Free Thinking, person was baptized, whether in the defines baptism dipping." The sea, or in standing or running water, latter affirms that Bapto signifies in fountain, lake, or river." Subse- "total immersion," and candidly conquently, baptistries were built for im- fesses, "the baptists have the advanmersion, large enough for ecclesiastical tage of us." Dr. Campbell's language councils to be held in them, as indeed is to the same effect, Dr. Chalmers, was sometimes the case. More re- in his Lectures on Romans, states cently still fonts were erected, that in that "the original meaning of the them the subjects of baptism might word baptism is immersion.' Allow be dipped. Hundreds of these fonts me now to refer to the evidence are yet in existence. The fathers, in afforded by German critics, who do speaking of the place of baptism, not themselves practice immersion, frequently call it "the bath." All and who are confessedly the masters these statements point to one result. of the world in matters of philology. IV. By the testimony of the modern Greeks. 66 Schleusner, Bretschneider, and Wahl, the celebrated New Testament Lexicographers, limit baptism as a religious ordinance to immersion; while Rost and Passow, in their admirable classic Greek Lexicons, give information as much in our favour. In an important Greek work, published 1757, the following statement occurs" And again, the word baptism will not express any other thing besides dipping." Strong proof, this! The most able scholar among Binghem, Augusti, Winer, and the modern Greeks, Dr. Cory, who Rheinwald, the most celebrated audied 1834, in the "Synopsis of Ortho-thors on Christian Antiquities, affirm that baptism was originally administered by dipping. Augusti expressly states that "the word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge," &c., and that "the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the custom of sprinkling had not been introduced." Neander, Gieseler, and Guerike, confessedly the most learned church historians alive, all add their testimony to the foregoing. Neander says "There can be no doubt whatever, that in the primitive times it (baptism) was performed by immersion.' Even the Episcopalian historian Waddington has moral courage enough to avow the same thing. The latest and best commentators are clear upon this point. Tholuck, on Romans vi. 4, says that "the candidate in the primitive church was the mode in which they administered their own rites, the most professed scholars of the present day are a set of ignoramuses! Alas! what a conclusion of the whole matter. Were it not better and safer, and more just, to regard our learned friend as being ignorant of "what he affirmeth ?" It is a source of consolation to us to know, that while we are suffering under the charge of ignorance at the ipse dixit of a pedant, there are some who, with the Bishop of Kentucky, believe "that God in his Providence has permitted the rise of the baptist denomination, in order to restore, in America at least, the long lost primitive mode of immersion." ONE OF THE "IGNORANT BAPTISTS." immersed in water, and raised out of LIFE AND TIMES OF MENNO. it again," and declares from the Professor's chair in Berlin, that " baptism always means immersion in the New Testament." Olshausen affirms the same in his commentary. Hahn, the celebrated editor of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, asserts that baptism takes place through the immersion of the whole man." Knapp and a host of other equally learned men, state the same. Even the Episcopalian Bloomfield says: "I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it (immersion) should have been abandoned in most christian churches." Indeed, to use Professor Sears' own language, "the reasoning adopted in this country by the abettors of sprinkling, is openly ridiculed in the German universities." Now Sir, in view of all that has been said, what are we to think of our Canadian critic ? If we in this matter are "ignorant baptists," the translators of the most valuable ancient versions of the Bible were ignorant, the most learned fathers of the church knew not the meaning of their own language, or (Concluded.) MENNO was now thirty years old. With a heart subdued and simple as a child at the feet of his Saviour, he had a manly understanding, enriched by study, and ripened by reflection. His knowledge of languages, ancient and modern, was considerable. He was in the full vigour of his faculties. His mind, indeed, had been greatly ex-panded, strengthened, disciplined, and purified by the struggles through which it had passed for five years in the pursuit of truth-and more recently, of the transforming Spirit of truth. That truth he had now found. That Spirit he now felt; and had given himself up, perhaps beyond any other man of his time, to its transforming power. With the yoke of sin, he had renounced the yoke of human authority in religion; and the liberty which he claimed for himself in the name of Christ, he as freely conceded to others. This generous spirit was not exclusively his; but with no other great man of his age was it, as with him, the fundamental principle of a consistent system of action-a principle drawn in all its transparent purity from the word of Christ, and controlling all the decisions of his judgment, all the feelings of his heart. Affectionately attached to the great life-principles of the Reformation, he differed from the other Reformers chiefly in this,—that he would not, and in conscience could not, in any circumstances whatever, justify the use of force to defend, support, or spread them. This was his grand distinction; and it should be distinctly understood. It is not sufficiently considered, that infant baptism is in every instance the exercise of force, of compulsion in religion. Disguise it as we may, this is its real character. Fitly was it described by the ancient Waldensian christians, as the first-born error of anti-Christ. "He teaches to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the work of regeneration; thus confounding the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration with the external rite of baptism; and on this foundation bestows orders, and indeed grounds all his christianity." Bold words these for the twelfth century! No wonder that anti-Christ bitterly revenged "them by the horrible extinction of the nation and language where they were publicly proclaimed." But the bold words lived still in myriads of martyr hearts-to purify the church, and redeem a subjugated world. The word of God had deeply engraven them on the meek heart of Menno. For a long time after his baptism, he declined all public engagements, and devoted himself to the study of the scriptures, reflection, and prayer. From that retirement, where his days flowed on in serene communion with God, he looked out on the busy world, with a calm eye, and a melting heart. He saw an immense work to be accomplished; but it seemed beyond his power. He saw many able men attempting to lay anew the foundations of the church; but he saw one fatal error-the fruitful source of many more-laid in the very corner stone of the new foundations. This error was the union of the Church with the State-the incorporation of one with the other, by means of infant baptism and adult confirmation-the supremacy of the State over the Church, conceded by the reformers, and exercised in the legal establishments of creeds and liturgies, stipends and church-rates, and uniformity enforced by pains, and penalties, and persecution. He saw that all this was as really foreign to the true idea of the christian church, as the fanaticism of Munster-that the one error indeed was but the natural reaction from the other. He saw that both errors grew from one and the same root-the false notion that the kingdom of Christ is a worldly kingdomto be propagated by schemes of civil policy, and supported by the sword of civil power. These dragon's teeth were sown in the reformation of the sixteenth century, to spring up in the hosts of armed men; and drench the battle fields of Europe, for three centuries, in blood. After the fearful experience of three centuries, the world is at last awakening to this great truth, that the union of the Church and the State is the certain corruption of both. Even a century ago, Mosheim confessed there was no discipline in the Lutheran Church. Calvin struggled with but temporary success, to enforce a rigid discipline in the Churches of the Reformed. In our own time, Archbishop Whateley owns that there is no government in the Church of England. And in truth there can be none, where Christ is not sole king in his own kingdom. All national churches are, by necessity, as really anti-christian as the Church of Rome herself. deed they are so, in Protestant states, more openly and more offensively in theory, if not in practice; and of this the Romanist, in this country especially, well knows how to take advantage. How strange that the keen eyes of Luther and Calvin could not see this! That men who translated, and commented upon the studied, In scriptures, with a depth of penetration unrivalled among biblical scholars since the days of Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine; nay, who in many points greatly surpassed those great men of the fourth century, should overlook a truth so obvious and so fundamental, that no pious day-labourer in the United States could be cozened into a doubt of it for an hour. Yet for maintaining that single truth in express terms, in the twelfth century, and the sixteenth, baptists were charged with mysticism, fanaticism, sedition, heresy, and high treason. And the most celebrated reformers of the sixteenth century conceded to the prince and the magistrate the very supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs they had so justly and earnestly denied to the Pope. It was as if the apostles, after solemnly disclaiming the authority of the high priest and sanhedrim, had submitted the control of the christian church to Festus and Agrippa. As if they had ceased to be Pharisees, only to become Herodians! There is a blind veneration attached to the names of the reformers, that needs to be broken up, in order that we may more worthily honour their memory, and more justly estimate the man whose meek humility received at least one ray of heavenly wisdom denied to them. Great divines they were; and yet we do but speak the simple truth of history when we say, that not one of them comprehended the pure idea of the Church of Christ. They stumbled at the threshold. Alas! are our great moderns-our Tholucks, our Rankes, our Arnolds, our Maurices, any wiser ? Has Chalmers abandoned even yet the old principle of church establishment? Has Whateley cleared himself in practice, as he has so well done in theory, of Erastianism? Has Neander, or Milman, or D'Aubigne, notwithstanding the admitted peculiar, rare, and admirable qualities of each, comprehended the unalterable spiritual constitution of that christian church, whose history they have so long studied, and zealously sought to unfold? We ask these questions from the sovereign necessity of truth, and with unfeigned sorrow of heart. We speak as unto wise men. Judge ye what we say. The principles of Menno, derived. from the New Testament, equally forbad him to exercise his ministry without a lawful call; or to regard the call of a pope or a Protestant prince as of lawful authority. He waited, therefore, the indications of the divine will in a more scriptural form. Dead with Christ to all worldly ambition, the shade of devout retirement was sweet to his soul. His entrance into the ministry, therefore, among the persecuted baptists, was not a work of vain glory, or hot haste, or zeal without knowledge. It was a step on which hung weighty consequences, reaching far beyond himself, or his own times. The destinies of myriads of immortal souls were involved in it—as the event has shown. The whole matter was with him a concern of deep conscientiousness; and furnishes a most remarkable and edifying example. The account is too characteristic to be given in any other than his own words: "Perhaps a year afterwards, as I was silently employing myself upon the word of the Lord, in reading and writing, there came to me six or eight persons, who were of one heart and soul with me; in their faith and life (so far as man can judge) irreproachable; separated from the world, according to the direction of the scriptures; subjected to the cross of Christ; and bearing a hearty abhorrence, not only of the Munster, but also of all worldly sects, anathematizings and corruptions. With much kind entreaty they urged me, in the name of the pious who were agreed with them and me in one spirit and sentiment, that I would yet lay a little to heart the severe distress and great necessities of the poor oppressed souls, (for the hunger was great, and very few were the faithful stewards,) and employ the talent, which, unworthy |