eh. ii, 3, 6, 25; iii. 7, 8, bis. In these passages it uniformly signifies existimo, arbitror, and is so translated by Jerome, It is likewise invariably used in the same seuse by other writers of the New Testament; as, Pet. ii. 13, ἡγούμενοι την εν ημερα τρυφήν, and iii. 15, και την του. Κυρία ήμων μακρι Ouμlav σwтyplav η. Nor is there a single passage in which it could be rendered as Dr. A. would render it here, secum volvere, animo agitare. Had it been the intention of the apostle to express the idea contained in these phrases, the Greek language was not so meagre and barren as to be destitute of correspondent expressions, nor was Paul such a novice in it as to be at a loss in what terms to clothe his own sentiments. The subjects, indeed, on which be treated in his Epistles, were often so new and so far removed from the common apprehensions of mankind, that he found it necessary, on some occasions, to use words in a sense peculiar to himself; though he introduced them only where the connexion appeared particularly to require it, and was uniform and consistent in the application of them.

Another objection to Dr. Alexander's proposed version of this passage, Is, that the prepositive article before είναι, (admitting his sense of ἡγευμαι to be a legitimate one,) should have been put in the genitive, and not in the accusative case, since the Eva στα Θεῳ will then be governed by dpraypov, and not placed in apposi tion with it. Why, too, has not Dr. A. seen the propriety of rendering άρπαγμον by some word more consistent with his views of the passage, than the one already coined to his hand in the public version? To raise ourselves to an equality with our superiors, may justly be regarded as an assumption of privileges to which we have no peculiar title; but it is, it can be, no robbery.

E μopen Cε оrapy is correctly rendered, "though in the form of God." Hoogeveen, in his remarks upon the particle xamp, (Doctrin Particul. Ling. Græc. p. 276, Glasg. Ed.) says, "Ad usum ellipticum quod attinet, triplex est: nam (i) vel abest x21, (ii) nonnunquam deest #ɛp, (iii) est et ubi totum hoc xaiTEP intelligendum relinquitur:" and he subjoins,

as an instance of the third rule, Gal. iv. 1. (Εφ' όσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονομος 75 8519, ουδεν διαφέρει δέλε, HUPIOS TOYTOY CUY,) where the application of wv is very similar to that of aw in the present instance, through the construction is infinitely

more harsh. But I am the more con firmed as to the propriety of this rendering, from having lately met with some expressions in Clement's Epistle, (ch. xvi.) where there is an evident allusion to the whole of the passage under consideration.

Clement was Bishop of Rome, and contemporary with the apostles; and is mentioned by Paul, (Phil. iv. 3,) among his fellow-labourers in the gospel, whose names are recorded in the book of life. The Epistle which he wrote to the Corinthians, coutains many passages in which a similarity may be traced to passages in the New Testament, and particularly to some in the writings of Paul, of which they are almost a literal transcript. Lardner, in the second part of his Credibility, chap. ii. has pointed out nearly forty such instances, and has enumerated among others Philip. ii. 5—7, which corresponds with the introducfory part of Clement's '6th chapter. Ταπεινοφρονούντων γαρ ες ιν ὁ Χρισος,

ουκ επαιρόμενων επι το ποίμνιον αυτό. Το σκήπτρον της μεγαλοσύνης του Θεοῦ, ὁ κύριος ήμων Χρισος Ιησους, ουκ ήλθεν εν κομπῳ αλαζονείας ουδε ὑπερηφανίας, και περ δυνάμενος· αλλα Tovwv. For Christ is theirs themselves over his flock. The sceptre who are humble, and who do not exalt Christ, came not in the shew of pride of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus and arrogance, though he might have done so ; but with humility.

If the preceding remarks are well founded, the following may, perhaps, be regarded as a correct translation of the passage. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, though he was in the form of God, deemed not the being equal with God, a thing to be violently seized upon, but emptied himself, and assumed the form of a servant," &c.

In the phrase εν μορφή Θεού, Dr. Alexander conceives that "the allusion is to the transfiguration on the Mount, where Jesus assumed a di

shall rejoice, and your joy no man
taketh from you.
Our Saviour then
goes on, It is the spirit that quickeneth.
My God and Father will assuredly re-
call me from the grave, and put it in
my power to renew my intercourse
with you.
The flesh profiteth nothing.
My death, separately attended to,
would not be any benefit to you, but
followed by my resurrection, this will
give an everlasting establishment to
your faith and hopes. Heuce, also,

explained, or, at least, to which the advocates for the pre existence of Christ return, and continue to press upon those who profess the pure Unitarian and Scripture doctrine, that there is One God, and One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

SIR,

L. HOLDEN.

Bath, Aug. 27, 1817.

the words that I speak unto you, they would be very gratifying to many

are spirit and they are life: unfolding
to you the path to a happy immorta-
lity, confirmed and established by my
resurrection from the dead. In this
connexion also Christ is himself called
a quickening spirit. Here, from their
striking similarity, allow me to refer
your readers to the words of the
Apostle Peter. 1 Peter ini. 18, 19, he
observes that Christ was put to death
in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.
This appears to apply immediately to
his crucifixion, and after this, to his
recall from death by the spirit and
power of God. By which Spirit the
apostle observes, that he went and
preached to the spirits in prison, i. e.
his disciples, animated by the fact of
his resurrection, and receiving power
from on high, resumed their labours,
and went from place to place publishing
the glad-tidings of the gospel to those
who too nearly resembled the guilty
inhabitants of the world, in the days
of Noah. This, also, is agreeable to
ancient prophecy, in which the mission
of Christ, in its eternally important ob-
jects is described by preaching deliver
ance to the captives, and opening the
prison doors to them who are bound; by
leading captivity captive and giving gifts
unto men. My referring your readers
to the above words of the apostle, in
connexion with our Saviour's words
first mentioned, arises from a present
conviction that they apply to the same
great objects; those extraordinary in-
terpositions of divine, almighty power,
which attended the first publication of
the Christian religion. The weight of
the observations met with in the Im-
proved Version is fully admitted, as
also of the authorities to which the
editors refer. The above is therefore
offered, principally to renew the at-
tention of your readers to a part of
scripture history, which does not ap-
pear to have been yet satisfactorily

VOL. XII.

4 T

of your readers if some of your correspondents could ascertain who was the writer of the 90th psalm. It is, at the head of it, commonly ascribed to Moses. But there are no circumstances in the contents of it to confirm this supposition. He could not say, according to the age of men in his time, "The days of our years are threescore of years and ten," and what follows; he would rather have said, fivescore years and ten, or sixscore of years. The words of the tenth verse are more applicable to the time of David.

But my particular intention, at present, is to inquire upon what foundation our modern critics presume that the Lord Jesus Christ is exalted to the government of the whole universe? It is very rational to believe that he is made head and lord of all the children of men.

But the habitation of the children of men is but a very small part of those millions of millions of worlds of which the boundless universe consists. Besides, his being the mediator between God and men limits his mediation to our world, and implies not that his dominion extends any farther. By the angels, in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews, are evidently meant the prophets who in time past spake unto the fathers. None of those were so beloved of God, or so exalted by him, as the Lord Jesus Christ. To none of these did he say, "Thou art my beloved Son." On the contrary, it is said, "Let all those angels or messengers of God to our world worship him," that is, be subject, or accounted inferior to him; he being so much superior to them, as "he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." These observations, I presume, will be sufficient until your correspondents of different sentiments furnish us with their objections.

W. H.

REVIEW.

"Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-Porz.

ART. I.-A Plea for Infant Baptism. To which is annexed, An Appendix, containing Two Forms of Administering the Rite. By T. Belsham, Minister of Essex-Street Chapel. 8vo. pp. 130. 1817.

As

S this work is under discussion in the Monthly Repository, we judge it equitable to confine our Review to an analysis of its contents.

Mr. Belsham proposes "to prove that the baptism of the infants of baptized Christians was the uniform, universal, undisputed practice of the primitive church; and consequently that it was an apostolic institution. That the mode of baptism, whether by immersion or affusion, was, in fact, and with great wisdom, left to the discretion of the parties concerned. And, finally, that infant baptism is a religious service of great and obvious practical utility."-P. 101.

He allows that direct evidence concerning baptism, and particularly the baptism of infants is wanting; but maintains that its place is abundantly supplied by that which is indirect.

"And though we cannot produce the testimony of Scripture, we produce evidence fully equivalent to that of Scripture: nay, if possible, even superior to scripture evidence itself; for it is that upon which we actually receive the Scriptures: namely, the uniform, universal, undisputed testimony of Christian antiquity."-P. 9.

The following is Mr. Belsham's own summary of this testimony:

"The baptism of the infant descendants of baptized persons, though clearly alluded to by Irenæus, who was the pupil of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and the disciple of the apostle John, and even by Justin Martyr, who flourished within half a century of the apostolic age, is first explicitly mentioned by Tertullian, a presbyter of Carthage, about A. D. 200. It is mentioned by this pious but eccentric writer ineidentally as a prevailing practice, which indeed he disapproved; and for this disapprobation he assigns his reasons, but he appeals to no authority whatever in support of his opinion. Far from declaring that it was the apostolic rule and the primitive practice to defer baptism to years of discretion, which surely he must have known

and would have appealed to had the fact been so, he refers to no church, to no seet or party of Christians, to no ecclesiastical writer, not even to a single example in his own age, in support of his own advice for deferring baptism. The conclusion is, quently that infant baptism was the uni that he knew of none such, and conse versal, or at least the prevailing and undisputed practice of the church in the time of Tertullian. From whence it follows by irresistible inference, that infant baptism was an apostolic, and therefore a divine institution.

"Origen, likewise the learned contemporary of Tertullian, in his Commentary upon the Gospels, if they are faithfully in this case there appears no reason to translated by Jerome and Rufinus, of which doubt, incidentally mentions infant bap tism in a way which plainly indicates that in his time it was the prevailing practice. He was the most learned man of his age, a presbyter of Alexandria, and spent much of his time among the Christians in dif ferent parts of Asia.

"After this, little or no mention is made of infant baptism for nearly fifty years, till A. D. 253, when a question was moved in a council of sixty-six bishops assembled at lawful or expedient, or whether it were 1 Carthage, not whether infant baptism was rite of apostolical origin, (these were facts which never came into discussion,) but whether it was expedient that an infant should be baptized before the eighth day? The reply is still extant: in which the council, with St. Cyprian at their head, unanimously determine that it is not neces sary nor advisable that the baptism should be postponed till the eighth day.

"After this, the question slept for nearly one hundred years: only that Gregory, the celebrated bishop of Nazianzum, in Asia, A. D. 360, in a Treatise written expressly for the purpose of urging proselytes to submit to baptism, advances it as a private opinion of his own, that except where life is in danger it would be expe dient to defer baptism till a child is two or three years of age, when he would be able to speak and to repeat the formula, though he should not be able to understand it:-plainly allowing that infant baptism was then the prevailing practice.

"But this fact was most fully and indisputably established fifty years afterwards, about A. D. 410, when the Pelagian controversy arose concerning original sin. Pelagius, born in Britain, a man of great talents, learning and accomplishments, and

Celestius, his disciple, born in Ireland, denied that popular doctrine, and maintained that infants were born into the world as innocent as Adam in paradise. Their great opponents were Austin, the eloquent and renowned bishop of Hippo in Africa, and Jerome, the most learned scholar and eritic of his age, who resided in Palestine. And the palmary argument of these zealous champions of the orthodox faith was derived from the universal, undisputed practice of infant baptism. Why, says Jerome, are infants baptized, if they have no oririnal sin to wash away? Austin plainly hints that he suspected the Pelagians of secretly opposing infant baptism: he cautions his readers against them: he holds up infant baptism as the practice of the universal church, derived not from synods and councils, but from the authority of the apostles and of Christ himself. < This (says he) the church has always had, has always held, and will ever maintain.' And he declares that he had never known nor heard nor read of any body of Christians, nor even of any heretics, who admitted the Scriptures as the ule of faith, who were so impious as to deny to infants the priviTege of baptism.

"What reply did Pelagius and his disci. ples make to this triumphant challenge of the orthodox fathers? Did they deny baptism to be a divine institution? Did they plead, that as children are born innocent, baptism is useless; that this rite was limited by the apostles to proselytes and their households? Or, that by the divine rule and the primitive practice of the church, baptism was to be deferred till the candidates for it made a credible profession of the Christian faith? No such thing. Learned, inquisitive and well-informed as they were, and though Pelagius and Celestius had resided many years at Rome, the centre of ecclesiastical intelligence, and afterwards had visited both Africa and Asia, they had never heard of any such doctrine as this. They repelled with indignation the insinuations of those who represented them as denying baptism to infants: they held this rite as necessary to their entering into the kingdom of heaven; and with Austin they agree in solemnly asserting that they never saw nor heard, not only of any Christian, but even of any heretic, so blind and impious as to deny to innocent infants the privilege of baptism.

"No fact in history is better aseertained than this, that from the time of Tertullian to that of Pelagius, that is, from the end of the second century to the beginning of the fifth, the baptism of the infaut descendants of baptized persons was the universal and undisputed practice of the church. And this fact confirms the conclusion drawn from the incidental notice of Tertullian, that the same practice in his time was also

general and uncontradicted. But the universality of infant baptism in the time of Tertullian, especially when combined with the clear allusion to the same practice by Irenæus and Justin Martyr, proves beyond all doubt that the practice subsisted uniformly and without any controversy from the apostolic age. From whence it follows by necessary consequence, as I have shewn at large in the Second Letter, that infant baptism is an ordinance instituted by the apostles, and that it is a rite of perpetual and universal obligation in the Christian church."—Pp. 46–51.

Mr. Belshamn readily concedes" that if we knew nothing of Christian baptism but from what is contained in the New Testament, we should conclude, that the rite was to be limited to proselytes and their families.” P. 51.

He adds,

"If no evidence is to be admitted but that of the New Testament, the case of bap`tizing the adult descendants of baptized persons appears to me to be desperate. All that the New Testament enjoins is, 'Proselyte, and baptize: all that it exemplifies is, the baptism of proselytes and their households. Where then is the precept, where the example, for baptizing the descendants of baptized persons, whether

iufant or adult?"-P. 53.

With regard to the mode of baptism, Mr. Belsham argues→

"1. That as the word baptism undoubtedly expresses washing, whether by immer. sion or affusion, the command to baptize, without annexing any limitation of the sense to one mode or the other, necessarily leaves the choice of the mode of the appli cation of water to the baptized person, to the discretion of the parties concerned.

2. That there is, upon the whole, reason to believe that the prevailing practice. in the apostolic and succeeding ages was to baptize by immersion: though it cannot be proved that this was the universal rule; and some cases are mentioned in the New Testament, in which it has been thought most probable that baptism was administered by affusion.

3. Where immersion was practised, it is highly probable that the baptized persons, if not infants, immersed themselves; this being the universal practice of the Jews under the Law, and no mention being made of the introduction of the new and inconvenient mode of one person putting another person under water.

4. Baptism by affusion, especially in cases of sickness and supposed danger, was practised by the church in a very early age: and though this mode of baptism was disapproved, except where it was believed to be indispensable, yet the right was not questioned, nor were any persons who had