that when the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gift of tongues fell upon them, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." I would only here remark, that what is said of these baptisms, conveys the idea that they were baptized in the places where they were-Saul in the house of Judas, and Cornelius and his friends in Cornelius's house; and that immediately too, on Saul's receiving his sight, and after the Holy Ghost had been poured out on Cornelius and his friends. Every circumstance conveys the impression that they were baptized by affusion; nor is there a single circumstance that favours immersion. translate "eis" to, and "ek" from. || said of Cornelius and his friends, Philip and the Eunuch were together in the chariot, and according to JEROME, SANDYS, and other travellers, who have visited the place, a small stream of water (ti hudoor) ran beneath them. And instead of translating the passage they went down to the water, and came up from the water; they have rendered it, "they went down into the water, and they came out of the water." They evidently designed to convey the idea, and make the impression, that there was immersion in the case; and I have frequently heard these words quoted as a proof of it; and Mr. C. seems, in p. 154, to understand the words as conveying this idea. But such do not reflect, that the words thus understood, imply that Philip was immersed as well as the Eunuch; for it is said that "they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and they came up out of the water." But read the passage as it ought to have been translated; "they went down to the water; and they came up from the water;" and all the absurdity of the baptizer being immersed as well as the person baptized, disappears; and the passage is rational, solemn, and instructive. I deem it unnecessary to say a word more respecting this interesting baptism, as I am persuaded that there is not a person whose mind is not prepossessed by a system, and who will weigh the circumstances attending it, but will be constrained to say that the Eunuch was baptized by affusion, and not by immersion. The baptism of Saul of Tarsus, recorded in the 8th, and of Cornelius and his friends, mentioned in the following chapter of the Acts, were administered, the one in the city of DAMASCUS, and the other in Cornelius's own house. It is merely said of Saul, that when Ananias laid his hands upon him, "there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received his sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." It is also As for the baptism of Lydia, and of her household, recorded in the 16th chapter, it is not said where it was administered. There is, indeed, mention made of her resorting to one of the Jews proseuche, or places of prayer, by a river side; but there is not the least intimation that she and her household were baptized at or in that river. But I think it is certain that the jailer and his household, mentioned in, the same chapter, were baptized in the prison, and the strong presumption is, by affusion, and not by immersion. For although it appears that there was a river near the city of Philippi, it is not to be supposed that he would leave his charge, and at midnight go with his household, and Paul and Silas, to that river, for the purpose of being baptized. Besides; it is said, that after the alarm by the earthquake; and after they had spoken the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his house; and after he had washed their stripes," he was baptized, and all his straightway," or immediately. The refusal of Paul and Silas on the next day to leave the prison, until the magistrates themselves "would come and fetch them out," is a strong presumption that they would not, and did not, leave it in the night. Here again every circumstance attending this extraordinary baptism, affords the strongest presumption that it was administered by affusion; nor is there a single circumstance in favour of its being administered by immersion. SAMUEL RALSTON. (To be continued.) Keviews. CONSTITUTION &C. OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. (Concluded from page 461.) In our preceding papers we have shown, it is apprehended, the true light in which the Confession of Faith, considered as a part of the constitution of the Presbyterian church, is to be viewed. It contains an exhibition of the doctrines which her ministers are required to preach. It constitutes one of the terms of ministerial communion. It is a rule that must govern presbyteries in receiving members of their bodies, and a rule by which they must try and censure those who depart from the faith. By this adoption of the Confession of Faith as a part of her constitution, for the preservation of her peace and purity, the Presbyterian church has done injury to no one. She has only exercised a right common to all societies; the right of declaring the terms on which she will admit persons to hold official stations in her communion. "In the exercise of this right," to use her own language, societies " may err in making the terms of communion either too lax, or too narrow: yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty of others, but only make an improper use of their own." (See chap. i. sect. 2, Form of Gov.) It would ill become any individual to contend that the church ought to change her terms, for the sake of admitting him to exercise his ministry among us; for what would this amount to, but to insist that the will of a whole society should bend to the will of an individual, and that their rights should be sacrificed to his pretensions? She invites no one to enter her communion, she asks the ministerial services of no one, who cannot conscientiously subscribe to her terms. To such as cannot, if they hold the essentials of religion, and appear to be pious, she says, "I acknowledge you as brethren in the Lord; but, as we do not sufficiently agree in points of doctrine to walk together in peace and act in harmony, as members of the same society, I cannot consent to endanger the prosperity and comfort of my family, by receiving into ministerial fellowship individuals, whose discordant sentiments would too probably furnish occasions of strife and unhallowed controversy among members of the same church." She is of the opinion of Abraham, who although he and Lot were kinsmen, yet thought it better for them to separate from each other, than that strife should exist between them or between their herdsmen. near Butwhile the Presbyterian church thus watches over the peace and purity of her family with a careful eye, she is ready to receive as teachers into her communion all who can conscientiously subscribe to the Confession of Faith, provided they are well qualified in other respects. The existence of the Confession of Faith, as a part of the constitution of our church, imposes no improper restraint on freedom of inquiry. It may restrain the exercise of a disposition given to change; it may prevent a minister from being rash and precipitate in altering his religious sentiments, without deliberate investigation; it may save a congregation from the injurious effects arising from the preaching of men who seldom remain long in the same mind, who "prove all things," but do not "hold fast that which is good." But it does not restrain the exercise of that manly independence of mind which every minister of the gospel should maintain; nor does it discountenance that spirit of wise and cautious inquiry which every conscientious man ought to indulge. The Presbyterian church considers the sacred scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments, as the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and, therefore, she will receive no man as a teacher in her communion who does not profess to believe them to be such a rule. (Form of Gov. chap. xiv. sect. 7.) And not until he has answered affirmatively the question on this subject, does she inquire whether he can receive and adopt the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures. The scriptures then, in the judgment of our church, are the great rule by which ministers must fashion all their sentiments; and he has not the spirit becoming his high and holy office, who, in the investigation of truth, is restrained by the fear of losing his standing in the Presbyterian church. From a man of such a spirit we should have no reason to expect any valuable discoveries in theology, even if he were freed from all ecclesiastical control. To a far different spirit the world owes the promulgation of the gospel at first, as well as the recovery of it again, after it had for so long a time been almost lost under a vast heap of superstitious errors and practices. What is alleged by some that Presbyterians make a Bible of their Confession of Faith, and assign to it the property of infallibility, is an objection so utterly destitute of foundation, that we deem it sufficient just to mention it, lest the omission should be supposed to result from ignorance. But the objection, that it is improper to make any human creed a term of communion, and that the Bible is the only lawful test of orthodoxy, shall receive due investigation. By seeming to exalt this divine book, it carries a degree of plausibility, and wears an imposing aspect. There is, however, a fallacy in this objection, of which its advocates are not aware; and it can be, we think, shown, that in the present state of the world, the Bible is not, and cannot be used as the sole test of orthodoxy, while any regard is paid to the sacred claims of truth in the constitution of a Christian church. How shall the Bible be applied as a test of orthodoxy? Shall this be the question, Do you believe the Bible to be the word of God, written under the inspiration of his Spirit? Who could not stand this test? Would not gross heretics answer this question affirmatively? And would a church that admitted such men to minister in the gospel, be organized on scriptural principles? Does not John tell us not to bid such God speed? 2 John, 9—11. And if it be unlawful for an individual Christian to salute them with such a wish, surely it must be unlawful for any Christian church to open her pulpits to them that may disseminate their heretical notions, and sow destructive tares among the wheat. But the opening so wide a door may be disavowed by the objector. He will allow that heretics ought not to be admitted into any Christian church; not even to the privilege of communing in the Lord's supper, much less to the ministry of the word. We ask him then how, on his principle, he can close the door against them? How, by the application of the Bible as the sole test of orthodoxy, he can exclude either Arians or Socinians from the ministerial office? I would examine them, he may say. Well, let us suppose such candidates in regard to literary attainments amply qualified for the office to which they aspire, appear before a presbytery or council, and that the subject of orthodoxy is brought up; how shall satisfaction be obtained on this point, while the Bible is used as the sole test? Let the judicatory propose their questions. What questions? Such as the following ?-Do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? Do you believe that it was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God? Do you believe that he died for sinners? In proposing such questions a presbytery or council may proceed for hours, and as long as they continue to put them in the words of scripture, affirmative answers will be given, and it may be impossible to discover the heretical notions of these candidates. What now is to be done? Why, ask them to explain their meaning, or propose questions in terms different from those of the Bible. But this is abandoning the Bible as the sole test of orthodoxy. As soon as the presbytery or council begin to propose questions in terms accordant with the construction which the members put on the language of the inspired writers, they begin to apply their own creed as the test of orthodoxy; or if the candidates should explain their meaning of particular passages, and they should be rejected as heterodox, it would be because their construction of scripture differed from the construction of the presbytery or council; or, in other words, because their creed did not correspond with the creed of the ecclesiastical body. But it will be asserted, the candidates do not believe the doctrines of scripture. Granted: but how is this fact ascertained? Not by using the Bible as the sole test of orthodoxy; for to every proposition stated in the words of sacred scripture they assent. The discovery of their heretical opinions is made either by applying questions expressed in terms VOL. I. conveying the sense which their examiners put upon the language of the inspired writers, or by the candidates giving explanations which show that their sense of the scripture differs from that of their examiners. In either case the test of their soundness in the faith, is the creed of the presbytery or council. Where then is the difference between such a test and that of the Presbyterian church? Both are human creeds, or expositions of the Bible by fallible men. The only difference we can discern is this: one is a written, and the other an unwritten creed. Now, if it be lawful to apply an unwritten creed as a test of orthodoxy, what can make it unlawful to apply a written one? If the one be lawful, the other cannot be unlawful; and we think that to a written creed the preference should be given, because by affording the candidate an opportunity for a careful examination of its contents, he is enabled to answer the great question that is to try his orthodoxy with more deliberation. An independent church is vacant, and wishes to settle a minister. Is this church obliged to call a candidate whose literary attainments and elocution are entirely satisfactory, merely because he professes to believe the Bible to be an inspired book? May not that church, if, from his preaching or conversation, they find that he has adopted a creed differing from their creed in important or fundamental points of doctrine, refuse on that ground to call him as their minister? Would this conduct violate any Christian principle, or be derogatory to the honour due to the Bible as the word of God? Or suppose the members of this church were in a public meeting to draw up a certain number of propositions expressive of their faith, and resolve not to call any man as their minister, who could not subscribe these propositions, would there be any thing unlawful in this, any thing in 3 R consistent with due homage to the Bible? If these propositions accorded with the sacred scriptures, and embodied important doctrines, the conduct of this church could not, we presume, be condemned; but ought rather to be commended for their attachment to the truth, for their caution in guarding against the incursion of error, and for their wisdom in endeavouring to secure to themselves and children the bread of life. Now, if a single church may do this, why may not several churches associated together for mutual edification, do the same thing, by forming a common creed as a barrier against heresy, and a security to the preaching of sound doctrine among them? This the Presbyterian church has done; and she is to be commended for her wisdom, and attachment to the truth, and for that firm opposition which she has made to the progress of heresy and error. Let us look at this objection in another light: let us consider the operation of the test for which it pleads in another case. It is taken for granted that those who advocate the Bible as the only lawful test of orthodoxy, will allow that heretical ministers ought to be deprived of their sacred office. But how shall their deposition be effected by the application of this test? Suppose a man arraigned before a presbytery for preaching heretical doctrine. He professes to believe the Bible and whatever it contains. Witnesses are produced. They deliver their testimony. In the review it does not appear that this preacher has ever denied the divine authority of the Bible, or asserted that he disbelieved any doctrine revealed in it; but on the contrary he always professed to regard it as the rule of his faith, and to receive all its doctrines as true. It however does appear, that while he professed to believe the doctrines taught by the inspired writers, he explained them in such a way as to deny the pro per deity of Christ, and his vicarious sacrifice for the sins of men. The presbytery condemn him. They do right. But on what ground do they rest their sentence? Not on the ground of his avowed opposition to the authority of the Bible, but on the ground that, according to their apprehension of the sense of scripture, he does not believe some of its capital doctrines. What is this but applying their creed as the test of his orthodoxy? But it may be said, that they interpret the Bible right, and the heretic interprets it wrong. Admitted. This does not alter the case. Here is still the application of a human creed as a test of orthodoxy; and this is an abandonment of the principle on which the objection to the Confession of Faith is founded. The objection is, not that false creeds are unlawful to be used as tests of orthodoxy, but that all human creeds, whether true or false, are unlawful to be used for this purpose; all are derogatory to the honour of the Bible. We think we have now exposed the fallacy of this objection, and shown, that in order to prevent the intrusion of heretical men into the sacred ministry, as well as to expel them from it, the application of the Bible as the sole test of orthodoxy, is insufficient, and that to preserve the purity of the church, recourse must be had to the application of human creeds, written or unwritten, as tests of soundness in the faith. We cannot conceive how the Bible, separate from all human creeds founded on it, can be used as the sole test of orthodoxy, unless every candidate for the ministry be admitted to the sacred office, without any regard paid to the manner in which he interprets the inspired writings, how different soever his sense of them may be from that of the ecclesiastical body to whom he applies for ordination; provided he only profess to believe the Bible as a revelation from God. Such an application of this test will, we |