borrowed from the New-Testament writers; (it has sometimes misled our critics ;) in short it became at length a sort of professional, church word, tantamount to initiati, discipuli, illuminati, baptizati, electi, and other such words as are found, for professing Christians, in early writers. Where the passage is not figurative, the literal meaning of the word is to be fixed by the peculiarities and weaknesses and habits and manners of the particular periods of human life, as exhibited in the descriptions of them by the respective writers, as in two admired and well-known pas sages, one in Shakespeare, the other in Virgil. The meaning of Tertullian shall be fixed by himself, in reference to his quotation from the New Testament, and the circumstances connected with that quotation. It has been observed, then, that Tertullian never once uses the word (infans) throughout this Treatise in any form, though in other parts of his works he frequently uses the simple forms, infans, infantia, the compound form infanticida, infanticidum, and the verbal form infanto. The word he uses is, parvulus, and, in my humble opinion, he so uses it, as to bar out your Correspondent's new-born babe. This father remarks, that baptism ought rather to be delayed than hur ried forward without due preparation and knowledge, and, præcipuè circa parvulos, "particularly with respect to little ones or children." The question then turns upon the word parvulus; and without inquiring whether Mr. R. is right in comprehending the parvuli among the petentibus dato, "give to them who ask," as he seems to do, (though it occurs to me, that Gregory of Nazianzum speaks in his Oration on Baptism, of accommodating the words, in which baptism was asked for, to the capacities of children, according to the form, I mean, that was used by catechumens or competentes,) I observe that Tertullian refers to Matt. xix. 14; and it occurs to me, that certainly the parvuli of Tertullian and his Africans must have been of the same description of characters as those to whom the quotation relates. Else, how would it apply? Christ beheld little children before him, and says, dren to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God:" My Kwλevete auta (waidia) Exbes wpas μe: “forbid them not to come to me." The word is usually translated parvuli, and I have elsewhere observed, that the very turn of the words proves they were neither new-born babes nor babes at the breast; and I take leave to repeat it here: and if this passage will not satisfy, let the parallel passage be considered, Mark x. 16, where it is more directly said, he called them to him. These circumstances do not accord to the character of mere infants, newborn babes. Had such been brought, the mothers, probably, rather than his disciples, would have been rebuked. And, what does Christ perform on these children? With the kind affections, which all amiable beings possess towards children, he put his hands on them and blessed them, that is, he used a Jewish form, in giving a benediction, which we have borrowed in our confirmations and ordinations. He grounds on it, further, agreeably to his mode of instruction, a monitory hint to his disciples, for whose sakes, indeed principally, this 66 Suffer the little chil sisted of children, of old and of young exhibition seems to have been made: men. but is there the most distant allusion to baptism? Not the most distant, at least to my apprehension ; and it is expressly said, Christ did not baptize. Your Correspondent, (by the bye,) I perceive, brings this passage forward into the foreground (in his Plea) with a q. d. "Infants will be admitted into the new community," &c." Similar to this q. d. is what Calvin, says in a Comment on the above verse: "Hac voce tam parvulos, quam eorum similes comprehendit. Insulsi enim Ana So much for the word parvulus. But further still; had the word used by Tertullian been really infans, I am baptista pueros excludunt, à quibus initium fieri debebat. He had before said, Itaque hanc clypeum Anabaptistis opponemus. Never was shield or a non temerè more wantonly placed; before passages, Matt. xix. 13-15; Mark x. 13-16; Luke xviii. 15, 16, 18, where there is not the slightest mention, nor, in my humble opinion, the most distant allusion to water, even as those passages are harmonized by himself. Harmonia ex Tribus Erangelistis Composita, cum comment. p. 244. The word in each of the above verses, in the Greek Testament by Dr. Harwood, (who professes to have followed in his edition the Cambridge and Clermont MSS. "as approaching the nearest of any MSS. now known in the world to the original text of the Sacred Records,") is waidia, which the Latin Vulgate translates parvuli, with the exception of Luke, where it has infantes, to correspond to en, which some MSS. have in Luke, and which Griesbach has in his text of that place. Some versions have pueri and pueruli. With respect to Boepos, it must be admitted that it is more commonly used in its lowest form for, recens-natus, and even lower still, for the foetus in the womb, the human species, (en ventre sa mère) εσκίρτησε το βρεφος εν τη κοιλια αυτής, Luc. i. 41, and of mere animals, as in Homer, Bperposovo. Iliad. ¥. Still even pedog has its vagueness. In Anacreon Cupid talks like a sufficiently stout boy, βρέφος ειμι, μη φοβησαι, and does execution enough for a man, gepos μer εσόρω, φέροντα τοξον Ανα δ' αλλεται καχάζων Συ δε καρδιην πονήσεις. Od. iii. The English word child, is liable to the same ambiguity; it is used by ancient writers for boys of almost any age, and particularly for a noble youth, or son of a king: thus in Spenser we have Child Arthur and Child Tristram, in Shakespeare's King Lear we have Child Roland; hence, too, Childe Harold; though child (cylde, Saxon, probably from the Hebrew word chil, filius) is analogous to the Scotch word barne, which means not only one in a state of childhood, but often one advanced in life, as implying relation to a parent; Barnis, (says Sanct Paul,) "obey your father and mother in all points, for this is God's command." See Jamieson's Scotch Dictionary: and yet barne is used for a young man, and for one of almost any age; thus John Baptist is called a barne not aware that your Correspondent could have reasoned from it, in favour of his new-born babe, unless some adjective had been placed beside it, determining its limits, as Cyprian applies recens-natus, or unless some circumstance preceding or accompanying or following infans, determined its meaning, as we have seen in the example of parvus, from Virgil. We have already spoken of infantuli martyres and infantuli lectores, and that is a diminutive of a lower order than infans. If infans should be what they call in Scotland a wee thing, infanInfans is undoubtedly used for tulus would be a wee, wee thing. one who cannot speak, or speak plainly, corresponding to our word babe, bambino, bambolo, bambolino, babayev, ba basei, loquor, to speak indistinctly as children do; and even so used, it would not carry precision, as our old English words suckling, cradle-child, would. Infans, too, was mind in law; and by the Roman law, taken for one who could not speak his (under which Africa, as a Roman province, was,) though males arrived at puberty at 14, and therefore à tutela erant liberati; yet they were not of complete age till 25, being then under curators, that is, they were infants or minors. In this sense the word has passed into different languages, as we know it has into our own, in which a minor is, in law, an infant; at 14 in one of our old legends, quoted by Mr. Robinson, (and innumerable passages of s similar import might be produced from old English and Scottish writers,) Seint Johan was the beste bern, the holi baptist, That of wommen was i bore, withoute In short, nothing but circumstances can limit the meaning of all such-like vague words. • Blackstone observes, (Commentaries, B. iv. Ch. i.) that the civil law distinguished the age of minors, or those under 25 years old, into three stages; "infantia, from the birth till seven years of age; pueritia, from 7 to 14; and pubertas, from 14 years upwards." Mr. Robinson refers to some Digest or some African Code, with the distinct titles of de Tutela, de Infantiâ, &c.: and, I doubt not, he is cer rect both as to the titles and the reason of the reference, though he does not specify he is at years of discretion, and may marry or choose a guardian, but he is not of full ́age, and therefore cannot the book referred to: but I do not find, that in either of the four books of Justinien's Institutes, though there is a distinct title, de Tutelis, Lib. i. Tit. xiii. that there is any title, de Infantiâ, or that the word infans occurs once, though it is exact and complete in stating the limits and condition of nonage. Mr. Robinson seems to speak, as though sponsor and tutor or guardian, was one and the same office. Now I must doubt whether this was strictly and necessarily the case. What he says of the office of the tutor and curator, according to the civil law of the Romans, is strictly conformable to what is laid down in the Institutes. But though the words tutors and curators are mentioned hundreds of times, it does not occur to me that sponsor where introduced as a synonysm, or as naturally and necessarily related to them, nor, indeed, that it is once mentioned. The inference, therefore, seems to be, that the sponsor was not, as a matter of course, connected with the office of tutor or guardian. any The first Christian writer who mentions the word sponsor is Tertullian; and it should seem to be one connected merely with the Christian profession. When the baptism of children was first stirred, (and as before observed, in the judgment of many learned men it was first stirred in Africa,) a difficulty would naturally arise relative to the questions usually put to those who asked for baptism, and the profession that was to be made by them; hence sponsors engaged for them. It might happen, indeed, that a sponsor might be a tutor or guardiah, but I know of no law which provided that no Gentile could be a tutor or guardian of the child of a Christian, and it does not appear how a Gentile tutor conld be a Christian sponsor. The sponsor, therefore, seems rather to have been a sort of Christian fide-jussor, whether he was his tutor or not. The child might be considered a sort of godbearn, and the sponsor what we now call a god-father. It does not, therefore, seem strictly correct to say the tutor (i. e. guardian) or sponsor, because in certain cases (particularly where a guardian was not appointed in the will of a parent, and the next of kin, on the male side, became Tatores legitimi, Instit. Jur. Civ. I. i. Tit. xv. or in the case of Tutores Fiduciarii, L. i. Tit. xiv. where the Tutela was also Legitima) they might, it should seem, be different characters. The office of tutor or guardian is thus described in the Insti aliene (has no voice in the disposal of) his lands, goods and chattels, and is therefore considered an infant. At all events, infans was used for children of various ages, and is so used by Tertullian. But the word parvu lus, as Mr. Robinson properly observes, is more vague still; and yet vague as it is, by the reference made, and the circumstances attending that reference, it cannot, in my humble judgment, be brought down to your Correspondent's babe, whether new born, or at the breast. This shall suffice for the former part of the compound, Infant-Baptism, in reference to Tertullian: with respect to the latter part, Baptism, quotations in abundance have been given long since from that father, in reference to the mode practised, and the persons baptized and after combining together the above observations with those quotations, the reader will form his judgment on the point submitted to him, whether Mr. R. or Mr. B. is most incorrect with respect to Tertullian on the subject of baptism. For my own part, I scruple not to express my humble opinion, that Mr. B. is fundamentally wrong, that he stumbles at the threshold, and tice to the subject, without tracing goes on stumbling: nor can I do jushim a few steps further, licet non passibus æquis. Brief Notes on the Bible. THE D. No. VIII. HERE are three resting-places, which the orthodox are accustomed to occupy, when pressed with arguments against the possibility, either of there being a second God, or of the existence of a second person in the Godhead; (can a more prominent tutes, Tit. xiii. : Est autem Tutela (ut Servius definivit) Vis (aliter Jus) ac Potestas in capite libero ad tuendum eum qui propter ætatem se defendere nequit, jure civili data et permissa. Tutores autem sunt, qui eam vim (al. Jus) ac potestatem habent, exque ipsâ re nomen acceperunt. Itaque appellantur tutores, quasi tuitores atque defensores, sicut æditui dicuntur, qui ædes tuentur. The sponsor was a surety; a word nsed several times by Cicero, and from him, I suspect, it was derived. example be cited of a distinction without a difference?) The miracles of Jesus. His office of presiding at the final judgment. The miracles of Christ fall infinitely short of proving his divinity, inasmuch as Moses and other preceding prophets had worked stupendous miracles before him; and as he encouraged his apostles by an assurance that they who believed for felt an unwavering faith, in him, should be able to effect greater works than his: which I consider as disposing of this branch of the subject. The power to forgive sins would have a more formidable aspect, had not Jesus himself supplied an answer to the assumption founded upon it by committing the like, and even an extended power to his apostles in the declaration, "If ye remit the sins of any, they are remitted unto them. If ye retain them, they are retained." As their authority to remit sins was that which he conferred upon them, so was his own in like manner derivative as he was uniformly anxious to impress upon his hearers-from his Father. The power, therefore, to dispense with the penalty of moral transgressions, though an original attribute of the Deity, is no more a proof in one instance, than in the other, of the commissioned possessor of it being super-human. Presiding in judgment upon the human race is, indeed, an awful and magnificent prerogative; for, to what being but the Creator, to whom alone all are responsible, could such a jurisdiction be assigued? Let the words of our Saviour answer that question also, who (not to dwell in this place on the Father's having committed all judgment to the Son ‡) animated his apostles with the prospect of "sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."§ Even this high prerogative, therefore, being communicable, must be rejected as a proof of divinity accompanying the possession of it. A question of some curiosity, at least, if not of some importance, arises out of this designation of the apostles. The promise was given to the selected twelve, including Judas the traitor. It was, in its terms, positive and unconditional; but, are we not to presume a condition implied, and that the glorious appointment was forfeited by the subsequent treachery of Judas? The question also occurs, whether Matthias, who succeeded Judas in the apostleship, succeeded to the promise: otherwise, one of the thrones would be vacant. I touch these matters but gently, and with a view to the consideration of them by some of your Correspondents, better qualified than myself to discuss their bearings. In the way of postscript, (premising a reference to my exordium, No. VII.) 1 would observe it to be somewhat remarkable that Jesus had intimated the defection of one of the twelve, t just before his ordination of them to the office of judging the tribes. it would be very gratifying to have this singularity explained. BREVIS. Permit me a few words upon a very different subject. In your last Number [p. 558] Mr. Luckcock has introduced an extract from Mr. Russell's (the resident at Hydrabad) letter, announcing, first, that the Fort of Nowah had been taken by assault; and, secondly, that the greatest part of the garrison, upwards of 500 men, had been put to the sword. Mr. Russell commences with "I have the pleasure to inform you;" and Mr. Luckcock ventures to infer that he contemplated the massacre with plea sure; than which there never was a more outrageous inference. Had he written, "I have the pleasure to inform you that the Fort was taken, and that the garrison was put to the sword," Mr. Luckcock's premises might have justified the inference; but the contrary appears. He communicates, with pleasure, the taking of the Fort, with a full stop; and proceeds, as was his official duty, to state the afflicting consequence, which he does simply and dryly. No man acquainted with Mr. Russell can be lieve that he had any pleasure in it, or did not deplore the necessity of making such a communication. And when Mr. Luckcock was apostrophizing at such a rate in the cause of humanity and Christian forbearance, it ill became him to sport an uncharitable assumption, which, in the mildest character of it, is purely gratuitous. SIR, EXA B. XAMPLES of pre-eminent virtue, and what must ever be united with it, pre-eminent suffering, are worthy of the notice and recommendation of every work, however connected as to sectarian and subor dinate opinions. I presume, therefore, to recommend to your readers the character of Lady Russell, wife of Lord William Russell, put to death in the reign of the most unprincipled of our kings, Charles II. Some account of the Life of this Lady has been lately published in quarto, with her Letters to her Husband, when he happened to be a few days absent from her, which seems always to have been against the inclination of each of the attached parties. These Letters breathe an affection which Lady Russell evidently felt to be too powerful for expression. Be tween the parties it is evident that conjugal affection existed in its most powerful character. Such examples seem natural, and, indeed, where extremely distressing circumstances do not agitate the mind, one wonders that they are not universal. Yet it is not the case, though it seems difficult to say how it comes to be otherwise. The most infamous Court of Charles had no temptations for Lady Russell. All the delight of her existence centered in domestic love. Her husband well appreciated, before his death, the great disparity of their several circumstances. He said justly, his sufferings were nothing, the cutting off his head was like the drawing of a tooth; but he knew that SHE Would abhor life, after his removal, and to induce her to submit to drag on so painful and hateful an existence, he gently suggested their children as a motive to his wife, for such grievous submission. She submitted to exist for thirty years! a devoted martyr to duty, to morals, to religion. And I am much mistaken, Mr. Editor, if this martyrdom were not infinitely more painful and illustrious, than those of the different ages which history has handed down to us with so much triumph! It is easy to die like Lord Russell, but not to live like Lady Russell! And, let me add, that the women of England, are many of them worthy to class with this their illustrious example, martyrs to duty and patient in well-doing! HOMO. Dr. Carpenter on Divine Influences. (Concluded from p. 550.) BY Y intermediate agency, God often aids, influences, and directs his rational offspring without their expressly seeking for his mercy and favour; but whatever be the nature of his immediate influence on the human heart, I see no scriptural warrant for the opinion, that he employs it without our seeking for it. The best of spiritual blessings are promised to the faithful, humble, aud devout servants of God, to those who trust in the Lord with all their hearts, and lean not to their own understanding, who acknowledge him in all their ways, whose chief aim is to serve and please him, whose chief desire is to obtain his approbation; but where is the authority for believing that he affords more than the opportunity of knowing and doing his will, to those who do not fear the Lord, and endeavour to walk in the path of his commandments? The fact undoubtedly is, (I say undoubtedly, because every one who has observed the workings of the heart in connexion with extraordinary acts of sincere and earnest devotion, or who has traced out the influence of habitual piety, on the dispositions, the conduct, and the happiness of the servants of God, knows it to be so, and the Scriptures most strongly and expressly declare the same thing)the fact undoubtedly is, that he who knoweth our frame has made the exercises of piety, and especially the act of prayer, the means of cherishing, purifying, and strengthening the affec |