they had been accustomed to look down upon, and that, too, knowing that all their associates would still continue to look down upon it. I really do not wonder at their ingenuity (perverse as it may seem to us) being exercised in every way, to eliminate their practice from the sacred authority. In Germany, scholars are released from the worst of these biassing causes. Strong as their motives are to find Infant Baptism in the bible, they have still stronger motives to be accurate in their scholarship.

And, let it be remembered, this is not a question in which German Neology or philosophy spoils the value of the opinion given. It is a question of exact knowledge of antiquity, whether the documents be the Sacred Scriptures, or the early Christian Writers. In this knowledge, the scholars of no country yet equal them. Their pride is to be at the head in that department. They would rather sacrifice their ecclesiastical preferences, than pronounce a wrong verdict on a question of Ancient History; hence the candour of their verdict. On their principles, they can retain their places in the State-church, and gain the additional credit of a sound scholar's verdict, that is, an unbiassed one, on this baptismal question.

1. As Foreman of our Jury, we call upon NEANDER, the well-known Church Historian, with whom no Englishman will presume to compare himself in knowledge of Christian Antiquity. In his "History of the Planting of the Christian Church by the Apostles," he says

"Since Baptism marked the entrance into communion with Christ, it resulted from the nature of the rite, that a confession of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer would be made by the person to be baptized; and in the latter part of the apostolic age, we may find indications of the existence of such a practice. As baptism was united with a CONSCIOUS entrance on christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable, that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that THE practice of inFANT BAPTISM WAS UNKNOWN AT THIS PERIOD."

He goes on to refute the "household argument," to show that Paul must have alleged the baptism of the children of the Gentiles, had it existed, against those who demanded their circumcision, had baptism really come in its place, to show also, that there was no class of christians among whom it could have arisen in apostolic times,-and that the apostle's not reasoning from the baptism of the children in 1 Cor. vii. 14, necessitates the conclusion that the thing did not exist. (See Ryland's Translation, vol. 1, pp. 187—193).

Further, in his “History of the Times subsequent to the Apostles,” he says

"Baptism was at first administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of faith and baptism as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving Infant Baptism from apostolical institution; and the recognition which followed somewhat later (in the 3rd century), as an apostolical tradition, seems to confirm this hypothesis." (Vol. 1, page 424, Clark's Foreign Theological Library).

2. GIESELER, a Church Historian, second to Neander only, in writing of the second century, says

"Baptism was preceded by instruction, fasting, and prayer. The baptism of children was not universal, and was occasionally disapproved." (Page 174, Clark's Library).

3. HAGENBACH, a Theological Professor of high reputation, in his "History of Doctrines,” says—

"Infant Baptism had not come into general use prior to the time of Tertullian," (i.e. the close of the 2nd century). "The passages of Scripture which are thought to intimate that Infant Baptism had come into use in the primitive church, are doubtful, and prove nothing." (Pp. 190, 193. Clark's Library).

4. Professor HAHN says

"Baptism, according to its original design, can be given only to adults, who are capable of knowledge, repentance, and faith. Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of Infant Baptism to be found; and we must concede, that the numerous opposers of it cannot be contradicted on gospel grounds." (Theology, p. 556).

5. Professor LANGE says

"All attempts to make out Infant Baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament." (Infant Baptism, page 101).

6. OLSHAUSEN, one of the most devout and learned of German Commentators, and one whose Lutheran views of sacramental efficacy would strongly incline him to find Infant Baptism in the New Testament, shows repeatedly in his very valuable Commentaries, that the language of the New Testament is irreconcilable with its existence, and that passages adduced by English Pædobaptists are wholly irrelevant. Thus,

On Matt. xix. 13, 14, "No trace of the often sought for reference to Infant Baptism in this passage, can be found in it." On Rom. vi. 3, 4, "This working of baptism can be ascribed to the baptism of adults only, in whom baptism and the new birth meet together." On Acts xvi. 13, 14, "Her baptism followed immediately on her confession of faith in the Messiah; hence it is highly improbable that infants can be included under the term "household." Relations, servants, or grown up children, must be understood. Indeed, we are utterly destitute of any sure passage in favour of Infant Baptism in the apostolic age; nor can its necessity be deduced from the idea of baptism. The condition of the church since the 3rd century, imperatively demanded the introduction of Infant Baptism; only, christian baptism sank as it were to the grade of John's baptism. But both baptism and the whole church had sunk down to the legal state!" Again, on 1 Cor. vii. 14, "It is clear that Paul would not have chosen this kind of proof, had Infant Baptism been in use at that time."

7. SCHLEIERMACHER, a devout man, and of world-wide reputation as a philosopher and scholar, both classical and sacred, says very decidedly"All traces of Infant Baptism which one will find in the New Testament, must first be put into it."

8. AUGUSTI ("Handbuch der Christlichen Archäologie,” vol. 2) considers Infant Baptism to rest on apostolical tradition; but states also, that the practice was gradually introduced into the church. Having quoted passages from Origen (3rd cent.), and Augustine (end of 4th and beginning of 5th cent.), he adds

"The certainty with which this is assumed (namely, that it was a church practice in their times, and rested upon apostolic authority) is a pledge of the universality of the tradition, that Infant Baptism has its foundation in the arrangements of the apostolic church.' (Pages 328, 329).

He afterwards speaks of alterations in the form of baptism, owing to the prevalence of Infant Baptism. (The passage is given almost literally in Riddle's Christian Antiquities, pp. 444, 445, first paragraph under sec. 2). 9. LINDNER (Dr. F. W.) in a treatise entitled, "Die Lehre vom Abendmahle nach der Schrift," &c. (Leipz. 1831), says

"For whom is baptism appointed? For adults, not for children; for adults of all times, not only of those times. Schleiermacher rightly says (Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 540), Baptism is only then complete and right, when it is performed under the same conditions with the same spiritual pre-requisites, and the same influences as were found in those who were baptized in primitive times (bei den ersten Täuflingen), from religious communities not christians.' According to this, it follows that there can be no question about any Infant Baptism, if the christian church will remain true to the gospel. Neither the baptism of John nor Christian baptism can be fulfilled in respect to new-born children. The children of christians are, by nature, formed just as those of Jews or heathens. The formula concordiæ says truly, Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt'-Men are not born, but become christians. They need the new birth just as Jews or heathens do; yet whilst they are infants they are not capable of it."

He goes on to say that some consider Infant Baptism an act of initiation, and then concludes thus

"All such views would certainly not be brought forward, if we held fast by the Scripture." (pp. 275, 276).

10. VON CÖLLN (Dr. D. G. C.), in his "Biblische Theologie, &c. Von Dr. D. Schulz" (Leipz. 1836), after saying that baptism is "an outward sign of the inward living conviction which the baptized person has of the truth of the doctrines of the new religion to which he goes over," adds"These convictions pre-suppose, if they are genuine, previous instruction. That Jesus

required this, is shown in Mark xvi. 15, where he makes the announcing of doctrine to precede baptism. It is involved in this, that baptism can be fulfilled on those only who are capable of instruction, or only on the adult; and that it was certainly not the design of Jesus to introduce infant baptism. Its later introduction into the church, was an effect of the erroneous notions which were entertained of the connexion of baptism with salvation." (vol. ii. p. 145).

11. DE WETTE, a first-rate translator of the Bible, in his "Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Nevun Testament," on Acts xvi. 15, says"In this passage, as well as in verse 33; xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 16, proof has been found of the apostolical authority of Infant Baptism, but there is no evidence here that any, except adults, were baptized. Against Infant Baptism, see Theol. Stud. and Krit. 1830, p. 671. Neander, i. 204, &c. Meyer on the passage, Remarks on 1 Cor. vii. 14, p. 110)."

12. To the above I may add GESENIUS, the well-known lexicographer, who, when a friend of mine, then a student, described to him the views and practice of English Baptists, exclaimed,

"Why, how exactly like the primitive christians !"

THE SUM IS, that all these first-rate Pædobaptists, whom we quote, of course, not as authorities, but as necessarily impartial jurors, pronounce that tradition, not Scripture, is our authority for Infant Baptism; and no set of men in the world, have studied both tradition and Scripture more fully and accurately than they. I need hardly add, that assertions of its being an apostolical tradition, not only shew that the early fathers who made them, could not (any more than candid moderns) justify it from Scripture; but that as it was so common in the 3rd century, and onwards, to attribute men's inventions to the apostles, no Protestant historians can rely on such assertions. They only shew a wish to find the highest authority for some existing practice. At any rate, all institutions which claim to be apostolical on the ground of tradition, must be treated by consistent Protestants, as some who, on traditional grounds, claimed the priesthood, were by Nehemiah: "These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found; therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood." We hope the distinction of Protestants will ever be that of putting away arguments from tradition as polluted. All who do not, must first be met like Papists, by asserting against them the sufficiency of "the Bible alone."*

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE BODY.

BY THE REV. J. J. BROWN.

"If our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved."-2 Cor. v. 1. This passage represents the body as an earthly house, in which the thinking, spiritual, indissoluble part of man dwells. It is a tenement which the "Father of Spirits" has erected from the dust of the ground, and in which He has deposited the spiritual creation, which makes man the image of God. It is an organized apartment, into whose composition various elementary substances enter; which consists of various parts and members; and which the mind uses as instruments to secure its happiness, or to give expression to its thoughts and feelings. "We have our foundation in the dust, and we dwell in houses of clay." In these the powers of the mind are gradually to expand; are to acquire some degree

As some of our readers may probably wish to have the above article in a form suited to gratuitous distribution, we have had it reprinted at a very low price, and it may be obtained through any Bookseller of the Publisher of this Magazine. We cannot but think that the dissemination, especially amongst Pædobaptists, of the information it contains could not fail to be useful.

of vigour and maturity; and are thus to be fitted for a nobler habitation, and for higher pursuits. The apostle evidently marks this condition as one of inferiority, a state of imperfection and degradation. He opposes the earthly house to the heavenly building, and thus indicates the one as inferior to the other. This is the germinant state of the human being; that in which he puts forth the early and feeble developments of his faculties, not that in which they attain their full vigour and power. There appears good reason to believe that the body, as at present constituted, was never designed to be man's final abode; and, as defiled and degraded by sin, it is unfitted. It is now a prison, and not an appropriate dwelling for a pure mind. The faculties of the soul cannot be fully expanded and matured in it. The organs through which the soul perceives and acts are imperfect, and often deceive and lead us astray. The avenues through which knowledge is attained are but dark glasses; few things are distinctly seen and clearly understood by us. The very affections and appetites of the body are constant sources of temptation to evil. The mind sympathizes with the frailties and weakness of the house in which it dwells. The slightest disorder of the bodily powers will obstruct, and sometimes totally derange, the operations of the mind. A slight change in the atmosphere we breathe; a little more heat or cold in the temperature in which we live; a little change in the food which we eat, will affect the workings of the mind within. This is our present state. We are occupants of this earthly house-a changeable, decaying, perishable habita

tion.

Though we are now in this "earthly house," it is not designed to be our permanent abode. This the apostle intimates by the term "tabernacle." This is not a mere redundant expression, but conveys a new idea. Though the body is the house in which the soul now dwells, yet it is not to be regarded as a fixed, settled mansion; but as a temporary tent, which is erected for a season, and which at any moment may be struck and removed. As it is earthly, frail, imperfect, so also its continuance is short and uncertain. It is in perfect keeping with all that is of the earth evanescent, perishing, dissoluble. The language of the apostle is very expressive, and assures us that this clayey house is not a settled residence, but warns us that it may be short, and is wholly uncertain. We dwell not in the rocky castle which has defied the tempest for ages, and of which scarcely a stone has mouldered away, and which no blast has ever shaken; but in the frail tent which is shaken by every breeze, which has often tottered, and which will speedily be dissolved. Time leaves upon them the traces of his progress, and intimates that every moment the end is drawing nearer. Disease puts upon them his impress, and assists in the process of dissolution. Toil, anxiety, and sorrow, leave upon them their marks, and hasten the termination. Our own folly and carelessness, our wilfulness in violating the principles on which the Builder has constructed them, precipitates the issue of the catastrophe. The longest period that the frail tenement endures is short; with the great mass of mankind, it is exceedingly brief; with all, it is wholly uncertain. "Every man at his best estate is altogether vanity." "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth; because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it." "As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth over it and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more." "Our life is but as a vapour," and "between us and death there is but a step." Frail and easily removed as is this tabernacle, no one can foretell the moment when it will be taken down. The Being who constructed it will give the man

date, and it will be dissolved. The time of the removal has been in mercy concealed from us, but when the moment arrives no authority can postpone the event. The most consummate skill cannot preserve the fabric. The wealth of the universe cannot purchase a moment's respite. No strength can resist the appointed messenger. The ensigns of rank oppose no barrier to the ravages of the fell destroyer. In the palace as well as in the cottage, he plies his task. The tabernacle of the philosopher, as well as the tent of the illiterate; the sun-burnt and hardened abode of three score years and ten, as well as the lately erected and scarcely completed dwelling of the youth; the habitation of the gay and thoughtless, as well as the mansion of the sober and considerate; all are subject to the same law, and will at last be removed. "One generation passeth away and another cometh." Nay, while the possessor of the tabernacle has been contemplating its beauteous proportions; while he has been fancying that it is firmly fixed, and will long remain; the word has gone forth and the tent has been struck. While the Chaldean monarch was revelling amid his courtiers; while his pride would be satisfied with nothing else than the vessels of God's house to decorate his impious board; while he was surrounded by all that could please his depraved taste, or flatter his proud heart, or drown his senses; the mysterious hand wrote the doom, and in that night the glory and the kingdom departed, and the tabernacle was dissolved. While the rich worldling was planning to pull down his barns and build greater; while he was looking forward to many years of tranquility and enjoyment; while he was almost in the very act of addressing himself, "take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry ;' the sentence was passed which stigmatized his folly, and the soul was summoned from the tabernacle in which it had sojourned to the presence of the Judge. While Herod was in the audience-chamber, and sat upon the throne of state; when the cities had made their submission and sued for his favour; while the impious shout, "It is the voice of a god and not of a man," was yet ringing in his ears as sweetest music; the invisible hand smote the frail fabric, and it fell amid manifest tokens of degradation. As the morning mist, which the first beams of the sun scatter and leave no trace behind them; as the tender blossom, whose beauty is smitten by the eastern blast, and it droops and dies; as the tent, which the traveller pitches when the shades of evening fall, and which he strikes with the first dawn of morn; so is man, his "breath is in his nostrils, whereof is he to be accounted ?"

The house which is thus earthly in its origin, and short and uncertain in its continuance, will at last be wholly "dissolved." It is composed of various elements and parts; these will be taken one from another, and all will be resolved into their original components. This dissolving process is perpetually going forward in the world. Perhaps it was the Creator's design that the inferior races of the sentient creation should prey upon each other; and certainly it was his design that there should be a perpetual succession of decay, death, and reproduction in the vegetable world; but there is no reason whatever to suppose that the degradation of death and dissolution formed any part of Jehovah's plan in the erection of the "earthly house" in which we dwell. That the original condition of man was not designed to be his final state, there seems good reason to conclude. It was the state of probation, from which, had it been successfully sustained, the creature might have been translated to a higher sphere, endowed with nobler powers, and put in the possession of richer enjoyments. To fit him for such a state of existence, change would perhaps have been necessary. What was gross and decaying would have been removed; and perhaps after the example of Enoch, or of the