1848.] Passage of Tertullian on Infant Baptism. 309 baptism before the time of Tertullian, who zealously opposed it!' True enough, he did oppose it with all zeal, as the reader will soon see. But the question is not, whether he opposed pedobaptism, but in what sense did he oppose it? and on what grounds? Was it because wrong and unlawful in itself? Or was it only on the ground of a decided inexpediency in most cases? If the former, then his testimony is against the rite itself; if the latter, it is impliedly but just as decisively in its favor. And if the former, so laconic a writer can give his testimony in a word; if the latter, he may deign to reason a little in support of it, especially if in favor of a position entirely new and opposed to the established custom. With these needful remarks as to the question itself, we present his testimony, as translated by Dodgson and printed in the Library of the Fathers. "But they, to whom the office belongeth, know that baptism must not be rashly entrusted. In every petition there may be both deceit and self-deception. Wherefore the delaying of baptism is more profitable according to the condition, and disposition, and moreover the age of each person, but especially in the case of children. For why is it necessary, if the thing be not so necessary, that the sponsors also be brought into danger? For both they themselves may, from their mortal nature, fail of their promises, and they may be disappointed by the growing up of a bad disposition. The Lord indeed saith, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come when they are of riper years; let them come when they are disciples, when they are taught 1 Si non tam necesse est; if it be not so necessary. This is the more exact rendering, and also preserves more exactly a strong Shakespearian element of style everywhere found in the writings of the terse, abrupt, antithetic and obscure Tertullian. Perhaps it was on account of its obscurity that it has ever been omitted in the text of Tertullian. Dodgson has restored it; but does not tell us why or on what authority, or whether himself understands it. But, for both its import and its pertinency, we have only to advert to what Tertullian had just said, in the preceding section, on the necessity for even a layman's baptizing, in case of extreme danger of death. “For then is a boldness, in him that aideth, admissible, when the case of him that is in danger, is urgent. For he will be guilty of destroying a man, if he shall forbear to do that for him which he had free power to do." A necessity arising from the danger of death, is then the necessity spoken of in the parenthetic clause, and which was to create an exception to Tertullian's general rule. His meaning is simply this: 'Why is it necessary for the sponsors to incur this peril, provided it be not such a case of life and death as I have just mentioned ?' The clause is exactly one which an ignorant or unreflecting transcriber would be apt to omit, but which no man would be likely to foist into the text; and the whole manner is so much like that of Tertullian as to bear prima facie evidence of its genuineness. And if genuine, it casts additional light on Tertullian's views of the lawfulness of infant baptism. whither they are coming; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why is the age of innocence in haste for the remission of sins? Men will act more cautiously in worldly matters, so that to one, to whom no earthly substance is committed, that which is divine is committed! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that thou mayest seem to give to him that asketh. With no less reason unmarried persons also should be put off, within whom temptation is already prepared, as well in virgins by reason of their riper age, as in widows by reason of their wandering about, until they either marry or be confirmed in continency. They that understand the weighty nature of baptism will fear its attainment rather than its postponement. Faith unimpaired is assured of salvation." De Bap. c. 18. We think so terse and uncompromising a polemic as Tertullian would not have wasted half these words in dissuading from the then obvious custom of pedobaptism, provided he thought the custom itself unlawful. He would have said so at once, and passed to other matters. But, instead of even saying it all, he only urges prudential considerations against needless haste in this matter, just as also in the case of all unmarried persons. And then, in the last two sentences, which we have put in italics, he assigns the grand reason for this delay. And it embodies precisely the reason mentioned by Prof. K. that opus operatum, that "mysterious and magical forgiveness of sins," expected from baptism in the third century, "which led men to defer it as long as possible." This was obviously Tertullian's doctrine. Such, in his view, was "the weighty nature of baptism," that they who had once received it must keep "the faith unimpaired" by sin, if they would be sure of salvation. Hence was it such presumption to have it administered to infants or to unmarried persons, unless in danger of death. And we make this exception, not merely because of the general tenor of his argument, but also because, in the preceding section, he had taught, that even a layman ought to baptize in a case of extreme danger, and that he would be even guilty of destroying the person by refusing to do it. And that this extended to infants as well as others, is further obvious from his belief in original sin, and that all sin is to be washed away by baptism. But it is enough for our present purpose thus briefly to have placed before our readers the noted passage so often alleged against pedobaptism. Were we discussing the whole question of its early history, we think it might be shown that all the earlier as well as the later 'Tertullian regarded the benefit conferred by baptism in the light of a divine treasure which might be lost, like any other treasure, by a heedless child, or thrown away by a wanton youth. 1848.] Tertullian's real Views. 811 testimony that is at all relevant, goes only to establish the practice, and that the lawfulness of pedobaptism was never then called in question by any but those who, like the female preacher whom Tertullian so fiercely assailed, denied all water baptism. Though Tertullian, in the passage above cited, seems to think, that only a faith unimpaired can assure salvation, yet, in his work on Penitence, where he treats the subject much more at large, he says, c. 7, that an offender may once, by repentance and confession, "but only for once, and never again," regain what he acquired by baptism. After he became a Montanist, he denied the possibility of any restoration after the first lapse into sin. It was obviously from such views of "the weighty nature of baptism," and the peril of losing what it was supposed to confer, that Tertullian and many others judged it expedient to defer the rite, not only in the case of infants but also of other persons who might be peculiarly exposed to temptation ;-and thus the emperor Constantine, at a subsequent period, deferred his own baptism almost to the very hour of his death, some twenty years after his complete conversion to Christianity. Indeed, so far did some carry this matter, even in the days of Tertullian, that he charged them with pleading a license for sinning and for postponing repentance, because not as yet baptized. De Poenit. 6. And Neander, speaking of the same period and the same view of the power of baptism, says, "Hence it was, that many who meant to embrace Christianity, delayed their baptism for a long time, that they might meanwhile surrender themselves without disturbance to their pleasures, hoping to be made quite pure at last by the rite of baptism." Ch. Hist. I. 252. It was our intention to subjoin some further extracts from the Constitutions, and especially from that portion which confers the most extravagant prerogatives on the clergy. But our limits forbid; and we close by again commending the whole work to all who would gain a thorough knowledge of the early history of the church. R. E. ARTICLE VI. INTERPRETATION OF PSALM LXVIII. By Wm. W. Turner, Hebrew Instructor in the Union Theol Sem., New York. Introduction. THE sixty-eighth Psalm is acknowledged by commentators to exhibit an extraordinary degree of lyric force, variety, and beauty; but at the same time, owing to these and to other circumstances, its interpretation presents more and greater difficulties than that of any other piece in the entire collection. A great deal has been accomplished for the elucidation of this noble ode since the time of Michaelis, who broke off at the seventeenth verse, declaring that the thread of connection had slipped from his hands and all was dark before him;1 yet much still remains to be done before all its rough places can be made smooth. The following may be assumed as some of the general principles which should guide the writer who wishes to carry forward this investigation. Where a doubt may reasonably exist as to which of two or more explanations of a word or phrase is the best, the interpreter should place them together before the reader and state his reasons for preferring the one which he has concluded to adopt. If he thinks he can offer something better than what has been proposed before, he should not hesitate to do so. But there are two errors of frequent occurrence in writings of this nature which he should carefully endeavor to avoid. While he manifests his respect for the genius and labors of his predecessors by accrediting, as far as practicable, each valuable explanation to its original author, he should disdain the cheap triumphs to be gained by elaborately confuting their palpable mistakes. Again, a profound regard for truth, while it incites him to spare no labor in investigating and weighing every particular that may promise to throw additional light on the subject of his researches, should cause him to keep a jealous guard against that natural vanity which prompts many to attach an undue and even exclusive value to their own conjectures, though they may have nothing but their novelty to recommend them. 1 Epimetra ad Lowthii Prælectiones. 1848.] Principles of Interpretation. 313 Another rule which the interpreter in the present state of biblical criticism should adopt, is that of a close adherence to the Masoretic text. That this text is wholly free from errors, no honest and well informed critic will assert; nevertheless the absurdity of setting up the authority of the Septuagint or any other version in opposition to it as a whole, has been too well exposed to be now entertained for a moment. The period no doubt will arrive, when the discovery of ante-Masoretic manuscripts or the collation and classification of manuscripts already known, will render possible a systematic revision of the standard Hebrew text; but at present, alterations of it, whether in accordance with ancient versions or by conjecture, except in a few palpable cases of error, are merely labor thrown away. It is time this fact was more generally acknowledged, when we see commentator after commentator rejecting the emendations of his predecessor, often with expressions of contempt, yet venturing on new conjectures of his own, which a like fate quickly overtakes. There is still another duty imposed on the interpreter who writes in the English language by the existence of the Authorized Version. Of this version many things have been said which are true, many which are absolutely false. It is true that it is the joint and careful production of many admirable scholars profoundly skilled in the Hebrew and English languages, and familiar with the works both of Jews and Christians who had labored in the field of biblical interpretation before them; it is true that the nervous Saxon English in which they have clothed the thoughts of the Hebrew bards and prophets may well be regarded as a miracle of beauty and fitness, and forms a style which, on account of its intrinsic excellence and of the hallowed associations conferred upon it by time, no modern translator can depart from with impunity. But it is not true that this is the best version extant, or that it does not require very great and essential improvements both in matter and in form to raise it to a level with the philological science of the present day. This however is not the place to discuss its imperfections, or to analyze the motives of those who cast stumblingblocks in the way of their removal; all I wish to say at present is that, in view of the facts here stated, it seems incumbent upon one who offers a new English translation of any portion of Scripture to adopt as his model the style of the Authorized Version, and where he deviates from it to point out his reasons for so doing. Every portion of Scripture thus explained will form a useful contribution to an improved English version to be prepared at a future day. The principles here laid down I have endeavored to adhere to in the following translation and commentary, with what success the reaVOL. V. No. 18. 27 |