REVIEWS.

The Sacraments.

An Inquiry into the nature of the Symbolic Institutions of the Christian Religion, usually called The Sacraments. By Robert Halley, D.D. Part I. Baptism. London: Jackson and Walford. [Congregational Lecture: Tenth Series.]

SECOND NOTICE.

(Resumed from page 213.)

WE began this paper with the intention of securing all the brevity which our scanty time demanded; but the interest of the subjects discussed, and still more, their admirable treatment in Dr. Halley's volume, have beguiled our prudence, and caused us to linger, examine, and admire, when we should have hastened on. With the remaining lectures, we must be more perfunctory.

The third lecture-that on "Jewish baptism"-is not less able or less candid than those we have noticed; and, towards the close of it, bears with no small force on the modern question of the subjects of Christian baptism. The evidence adduced in the lecture, especially the beginning of it, is, however, necessarily so wide and discursive, that to compress it would be unsatisfactory; and we can do no other than advise our readers who are interested in the subject of it, to peruse the lecture for themselves. We observe with pleasure that, in pages 147 and 148, Dr. Halley has expressed a view of our Lord's intention in saying, "Except a man be born of water," &c., which accords with that we just now offered, viz., that he meant Nicodemus to understand he must confess as well as believe. We must own ourselves indebted to Dr. H. for a new explanation-and, as we think, a correct one-of the obscure question proposed to Nicodemus: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter," &c. Considering the prevalence of parables in the conversations of the learned, we think it highly probable that Nicodemus did, as Dr. Halley supposes, intend in these words to intimate, by a figure, his difficulty of conceiving that the Jew needed, like the heathen, a visible regeneration.

"Already they were the children of Abraham-how, like Gentiles, could they come into the new relation of Israel, and be introduced into the covenant of mercy? Had our Lord spoken of a Gentile as being born again, Nicodemus would probably have understood him to mean, that the stranger had become a proselyte, a new-born child of father Abraham; but for a true and legitimate son of Abraham, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a master in Israel, in whose veins every drop of blood flowed pure

and uncontaminated through the long line of honourable ancestry from the blessed patriarchs to be born again, to be brought into a new relation, to acquire a new parentage and a nobler ancestry, must have appeared as inexplicable a mystery, as it would have been for a man to be born again of his mother when he was old. The prejudice of the Jew was deep in the proud heart of the rabbi, and he replied, 'How can these things be?' Was he to renounce the descent from Abraham? Was he to be regarded as the son of a stranger? Why should a child of Abraham seek another parent, be baptized and born into another family?"*

* As the passage of which this extract is an explanation, forms part of one of the most important and interesting doctrinal sections of the New Testament, it will gratify many of our readers to see the late "Bishop" Heber's views upon it. They substantially accord with Dr. Halley's as to the obscure question put by Nicodemus, distinguish most decidedly between the outward and the inward regeneration, and lay due stress upon the latter. Dr. Heber believed, of course, that the inward change invariably accompanies the sacramental sign where duly administered and received; but that view is not expressed in the following extract, which, with Dr. Halley's, we regard as a valuable elucidation of the verse under consideration, as well as those which immediately follow it. "A great deal, I think, of surprised and disappointed pride is perceptible in his reply, 'How can a man be born again when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' He then endeavours to evade the obvious application of our Saviour's words, and he urges, in answer to this command of Christ's, his age, his high character, his privileges, as a native Israelite and a descendant of Abraham, and endeavours to persuade Jesus, that a man of his age, and consequence, and respectability, could have no need of baptism, or of that repentance and change of life and habits, of which baptism was the sign. How can a man be born again when he is old?' Dost thou suppose that at my age, a doctor of laws and a master in Israel, I want any change of this sort? What tedious ceremonies or probation can I submit to, old as I am? How long wilt thou keep me in the same dependence and humility which we expect of children or heathen converts? What yet is wanting to a descendant of Abraham like myself? Can I make myself any more a child of promise than I am already? Can I enter a second time into my mother's womb? from which former birth I became an heir of Israel, and the countryman, perhaps the kinsman, of the Messiah ! 'Verily, verily,' our Lord again replies, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' As if he had said, Alas! old man, many things are necessary to make thee a child of God, of which thou hast as yet but little notion: not only is the outward sacrament of regeneration by water required, but a great and spiritual change, altogether distinct from those privileges on which thou layest so great a stress, of the birthright of a Jew, and thy descent from Abraham. That which is born of flesh is flesh.' From thy mother's womb, of which thou talkest, thou hast only derived a fleshly life. Those Jewish promises which thou inheritest, and wherein thou boastest thyself, are all of a worldly nature, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit;' and the birth of the Spirit only can introduce thee to the spiritual privileges in which the kingdom of God consists. 'Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again; nor dream, that because thou art born a Jew, thou hast, by that national birth, an exclusive title to the kingdom. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' As if he had said, Canst thou direct, or comprehend the course

The lecture closes with evidence to the effect, that "the household, the children, and the servants of the family, were baptized in the apostolic age, when the head of the family offered himself as a proselyte for baptism." The evidence is ample; and as it is not by any means probable that the custom was recent, we think, with Dr. Halley, that it harmonises with the allusions to baptism which are contained in the gospels, and that these allusions may even imply it. Still we see no difficulty in believing-indeed, John i. 25, "Why baptizest thou then," &c., almost compels the belief-that the impression was prevalent before and during John the Baptist's ministry, that the "reign of heaven" was to be preceded by a general sanctification of water; and the allusions may therefore be accounted for without a reference to proselyte baptism. Dr. Halley has hinted how the argument in favour of household Christian baptism is confirmed by either supposition. We entirely agree with the following propositions extracted from his summary of this lecture :

64

That previously to the time of our Lord, the baptism of proselytes was customary among the Jews; that the Jewish and Christian baptisms correspond in many particulars.... that the Jews were accustomed to baptize the infants of proselytes together with their parents, and so to incorporate them into the kingdom of Israel; and that, without baptism, no Gentile adult or infant could be received into the congregation of Israel, or admitted within the gate of the temple of the Lord.”—p. 160.

The lecture on John's baptism has satisfied less than any of those we have hitherto spoken of. Dr. Halley first proves that it was indiscriminately administered to "all applicants," and "that it effected no change, moral or spiritual, upon their minds." So far, we entirely agree with him. Both points are indeed so clear, that we do not imagine he would have thought it worth his while to do more than state them, but for their bearing (especially that of the second point) on the question of "baptismal regeneration" under the Christian economy. We also perfectly agree with the views expressed at the end of the lecture (pp. 202-205) respecting the baptism of children with their parents by John. Their own baptism under the circumstances in which John appeared and acted, would have been an anomaly in Judaism much too violent for probability. But we are not convinced by the learned author's argument in favour of the identity of John's

of the wind of heaven? Canst thou command its free and blessed breezes to visit the Jews alone? Yea, thou knowest not whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth; but thou hearest the sound thereof,—that sound which is gone forth into all lands, and as far as the ends of the earth. Can earthly wisdom find it, or can the works of man produce it? No; it bloweth where it listeth, and Jew and Greek, Pharisee and idolator, are born of the Spirit, they know not how, and are purified by its invisible influence, which is known only by its effects, and the fruit that it generates."

baptism with that of the apostles as commissioned by our Lord after his resurrection. We may have perused it under prepossession; but we have carefully considered all that he has advanced upon the subject, and though sensible of the candour and the skill with which his argument is conducted, are rather confirmed than otherwise in our conviction that the two baptisms are essentially distinct. That they are so is, in our view, a necessary consequence of their belonging to different dispensations, and their respecting distinct and different credenda.

1. John's baptism and Christian baptism belong to different dispensations. As under the designation "Christian baptism" we intend only that which was administered by our Lord's apostles and subsequent ministers, pursuant to his crucifixion, in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, we of course consider that the baptism administered by his disciples before his crucifixion was also distinct from that they afterwards administered. We are not prepared to maintain that there was any real difference between John's baptism, and that administered by our Lord's disciples during his own earthly ministry. Both were essentially Jewish for as a prophet our Lord was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel-and both were merely preparatory for a coming dispensation, not initiatory into it. Neither of them, therefore, answered completely to the idea of proselyte baptism: they presented, indeed, a theory of discipleship, which that also did; but they did not, like it, introduce to a new and separate religious communion. This, however, Christian baptism did; and its so doing constitutes, we think, an essential difference between it and those with which it has been identified by Dr. Halley.

It may be that this representation of our Lord's personal discipleship by baptism (John iv. 1, 2) will not, at first view, be satisfactory to many of our readers. But let them consider a little. If John's baptism was, as Dr. Halley thinks, identical with Christian baptism, and, for the period preceding the great day of Pentecost, a proper initiation into it, as he argues, p. 199, then our Lord was both the subject and the institutor of the same rite, which seems an incongruity. He was, moreover, on this view, the founder of a new dispensation, while he was a subject of the law of Moses, and initiated disciples into a new dispensation before the old one was abrogated; both of which views are, in our judgment, unsanctioned by the New Testament, and at best seem to involve the violation of propriety. Our Lord appears, from the gospels, to have sustained a purely prophetic character-the character of a Divine teacher sent from God-until his sacrifice was accomplished; for we do not regard his judgment respecting the law of the Sabbath-or his forgiveness of sins-or his declaration to the thief upon the cross, as exceptions to that view; nor do we know of any divine who would urge that they were so. Certainly all these acts were acts which might have been just as well performed by him, even

if the Mosaic dispensation had not been on the verge of its removal; and they were not a part of the machinery by which it was to be removed. His acts after his resurrection are, however, of an essentially different character. In these, we see nothing of the teacher sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel-confirming his heavenly doctrine by works which bore witness of his mission-but we see Jesus, who had been made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, restricting his communication to those who were faithful to him after death, convincing them that he was indeed risen from the dead, and imparting to them a commission, which, though he had announced it to them before, prophetically, he now first instituted, confirming their official faith and obedience by a miracle witnessed by themselves alone, (John xxi. 4-12, Matt. iv. 19,) and directing them when and where their commission should be opened. All this, especially as it is confirmed by the considerations which we shall presently adduce relative to the peculiar doctrines of the Christian economy, forbids us to conclude that the previous baptisms of John and of our Lord's disciples, were strictly Christian rites. They were, we are firmly persuaded, merely Jewish preparatives, though necessarily illuminated with, and reflecting a measure of that more simple spiritual glory which was about to burst upon the world.

But some man will say-If so, then the apostles themselves, Paul excepted, never received Christian baptism! If the loss of this rite was of any consequence to them, we fear they incurred that consequence. But what imaginable disadvantage, we would ask, could the omission of the ordinary outward rite be to those who were visibly baptized with the Holy Ghost, according to their Master's promise? We hold, moreover, that it would have been contrary to analogy and propriety that the first apostles should have been baptized with water. Was John the Baptist baptized with water unto repentance?-by whom? And who could have baptized the twelve with water, into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, unless it were our Lord himself, when he commissioned them? But this would have made him the minister of that economy of which he was the founder; and their baptism with the Spirit and with fire on the day of Pentecost was a form of initiation and of designation, selected in preference to water baptism, doubtless because it was fitting that those who, being the first Christian baptizers, were not themselves to be baptized by human hands, should receive a public designation to their ministry, expressive, in the very mode of it, of the exalted agency by which it was conferred.

2. John's baptism and Christian baptism had respect to different and distinct credenda. It was not essential to baptism that the subject of it should be thereby introduced into a new economy; for the multitudes who received John's baptism were not so introduced.