and the Church had believed, that baptism had come in the place of circumcision. If the Gentiles had received baptism instead of circumcision, the "much disputing" would certainly have been avoided-the difficulty could never have arisen. Again, when Peter was led away by the Judaizing party, and refused to eat with the uncircumcised, is it possible that he could have regarded baptism as the equivalent, or the representative, or the substitute of circumcision? In his mind, it is clear the one had no connection with the other.

Dr. Alexander, of Edinburgh, has, moreover, said :—

"If baptism is to be regarded as having come in the place of circumcision, the argument from the Abrahamic Covenant lies altogether with the Baptists, and not with us. For, in virtue of the relation of type and antitype, the natural descent of the Israelites corresponds to the spiritual descent of believers, that is, their succession through one becoming the spiritual father of others; and, consequently, as natural descent entitled the son of a Jew to circumcision, as the sign of the covenant, it is spiritual descent which alone entitles a man to receive baptism, as that which, under the spiritual dispensation, has come in the place of circumcision. Hence, as descent from Jewish parents must be proved before a child could be circumcised of old, so spiritual descent by faith from those who have conveyed to us the Gospel-in other words, real conversion must be proved before a man is entitled to be baptized."—"Life of Dr. Wardlaw," p. 239.

66

We should have been glad if the space and time at our command had permitted us to show, at length, that there was not, strictly speaking, a Church" under the Jewish dispensation; that there was no organisation distinct from the nation at large; no separation of this kind between those who spiritually were the Lord's, and those who were not. The Christian Church was, in its most essential points, a new institution, different from, and superior to, anything which had been previously known. This is not only admitted, but stoutly contended for, by Pædobaptist Nonconformists in their controversy with State-Churchmen; and not long ago we saw a correspondence in one of our provincial papers, in which an Episcopalian writer twitted his Nonconformist opponents with adhering to the practice of infant baptism, for which, as he said, there is no explicit sanction in the New Testament, and which has not one whit more authority than the organic connection of Church and State. All that we require is a full and consistent application of the principles laid down, e.g., by Dr. Stoughton, in his essay in the first series of "Ecclesia," pp. 19-22, and by Dr. Wardlaw, and other writers of the same school in their works on the State Church controversy.

This part of our subject would, perhaps, be incomplete without a brief reference to the words of Peter in Acts ii. 3, quoted both by Mr. Horton and Mr. Mander, and often regarded as the greatest proof-text of infant baptism:-"The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." We have often and anxiously examined this passage, and have been unable to see in it the faintest sanction of infant baptism and Church membership. We can merely remark on it now, (1) That the Apostle addresses those who had deeply felt their sin, and had asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (ver. 37, 38.) They are commanded to be baptized themselves, but are not told to bring their children for baptism. (2) Repentance is demanded as a prerequisite to baptism-" Repent, and be baptized;" and so, likewise, is faith, "in the name (literally upon the name) "of Jesus Christ," in reliance on, in acknowledgment of, His name. Dr. Gloag says: "Their

То

belief in Jesus as the Messiah was the ground on which they were to be baptized." Not only so, the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, are, as we know, from the uniform teaching of the New Testament, the result of our faith in Christ, nor can they be realised without faith. (3) The term children is equivalent to descendants. It is so used in Acts xiii. 33, and though ii. 17 may be quoted to show that it means, literally, "your children," or "little ones (Alford), it must not be forgotten that the children are, at any rate, old enough to see visions and to prophecy. quote again from Dr. Gloag: "The promise not only embraces and refers to those Israelites who are now present, but it stretches itself to the future to the posterity of Israel." (4) The promise is to "all that are afar off," adults and children, Mr. Horton and Mr. Mander would say, but, of course, the children of all who are afar off, not only of believers, but of unbelievers as well, in contradiction to the fundamental theory of both these writers. (5) But is it not certain that the qualifying clause at the endas many as the Lord our God shall call "belongs to the whole verse, i.e., to "you and your children," as well as to "all that are afar off?" To restrict the qualification to those afar off, introduces doctrinal confusion of the most hopeless kind. It makes the Jews and their children members of the Christian Church, altogether independently of the call of God, and thus proclaims that there is "respect of persons with God." The teaching of the verse is this, that the promise of the Holy Spirit is unto all those whom God calls unto Himself, be they Jews or Gentiles, adults or children. The gist of the whole matter lies in the "call." It is not a question of age, but of hearing and obeying the invitations of God's grace. (6) The way in which the Jews understood the words of Peter, is explained by their subsequent conduct. "They that gladly received his cord were baptized," they, and no others (ver. 41).

We thus see that so far as the testimony of the New Testament is concerned, there is no ground for asserting that, "when the head of the house believed, all those depending on him were baptized too," and that "the faith of the parent carries the child with it." Other points we hope to pass under review in a subsequent article. We have dwelt upon this at such length because of the importance which both writers assign to baptism. They say "it really means admission into the Church" (Mr. Horton, p. 8), and that "the baptism of the child stands for as much as that of adults. The one betokens the parents' faith in God's covenant, the other the faith of the baptized himself." "It is to the child what it is to the parentthe formal admission to the visible Church, with all its privileges and blessings" (Mr. Mander, pp. 7 and 15). If this be the significance of baptism in itself, and if the teaching of the New Testament in regard to its subjects be as we have represented, one of the strongest supports of this peculiar theory falls at once and utterly to the ground.

OF

Naaman the Syrian.

F his parentage and early life nothing is known. We cannot tell, therefore, whether, like Oliver Cromwell, he greatly raised himself in the scale of society, or whether, like the Honourable Arthur Wellesley, he was born among the nobility of the land. His name signifies "sweetness," or "beauty" and was a very natural name to give to a muchloved, newborn babe. The word occurs among the names of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. xlvi. 21), who went down with their father into Egypt; and it is much better known as Naomi, the name of the good mother-inlaw of Ruth. "Call me not Naomi (pleasantness), call me Mara (bitterness): for the Almighty hath dealt bitterly with me." But names are by no means an unerring index of the character and condition of those who bear them. The firstborn child was called Cain—“ a valuable possession;" Eve probably supposing that he was the Messiah-but he became a murderer. David said, "We will call our little one Absalom,"-the father, a fountain of peace; yet what a fountain of bitter waters he proved! "Would God I had died for thee, my son, my son!" The parents of Naaman had not such a bitter experience in connection with their child; but the "sweet one," became a loathsome leper. The disease of leprosy, so rare, happily, among us, was sadly familiar, especially in ancient times, to the Eastern nations of the earth. "The Egyptian and Syrian climates, especially the rainless. atmosphere of the former, are very prolific in skin diseases; including some, which, in an exaggerated form, are common in the cooler regions of Western Europe. The heat and drought acting for a long period on the skin, and the exposure of a large surface of the latter to their influence, combine to predispose to such affections." In this way leprosy, and other severe skin diseases, would easily be produced. That the ancient Jews were familiar with this hated malady, is evident from many portions of the inspired Scriptures; and the conjecture is probable, that their slavery in Egypt was one great cause of inflicting upon them a physical evil, from which they had not been able to free themselves, during the many centuries which elapsed between the time of Moses and the coming of Jesus Christ. "The Egyptian bondage, with its studied degradations and privations, and especially the work of the kiln under an Egyptian sun, must have had a frightful tendency to generate this class of disorder; hence, Manetho (Josephus against Ap. i. 26) asserts, that the Egyptians drove out the Israelites as infected with leprosy-a strange reflex, perhaps, of the Mosaic narrative of the plagues of Egypt, yet probably containing also a germ of truth. The sudden and total change of food, air, dwelling, and mode of life, caused by the exodus, to this nation of newly-emancipated slaves, may possibly have had a further tendency to skin disorders, and novel and severe repressive measures may have been required in the desert: moving the camp to secure the public health, or to allay the panic of infection." Hence, it is possible that the worst forms of leprosy gradually disappeared in later times from among the Jews-that species alone remaining which gave the name leprosy, which means "whiteness," to the disease, and with which we

know Moses, Miriam, Naaman and Gehazi, were more or less afflicted. The mention of leprosy several times in the New Testament, shows how hard the disease was to be eradicated, even with the lapse of centuries; and we know also, that the Crusaders, in the Middle Ages, made our forefathers familiar with it; so much so, that 500 years ago there existed 2,000 leprosy hospitals on the continent of Europe, which were called Lazarettos, because it was thought that leprosy was the sad disease with which poor Lazarus was afflicted, when he was laid in rags at the rich man's gate, and "the dogs licked his sores."

The leprosy with which Naaman was afflicted was, in all probability, the mildest species of the general disease so called; and though disfiguring and painful to the patient, did not prevent him from mingling in the intercourse, and taking his full share in the duties of social and national life. The most coveted of the prizes of earthly existence fell to the lot of this successful soldier. He was commander-in-chief of the army of Damascene Syria; his valour was equal to his exalted position; he was equally a favourite with prince and people; yet the "aliquid amari," the bitter-drop, mingled itself with his cup of earthly bliss :-" Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper." The Scriptures are silent concerning the nature of the warlike deed wrought by Naaman, by which “the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria;" but the phrase is remarkable, and seems to point to some deed which was at once pleasing to the Lord and advantageous to Syria. It is remarkable that Josephus preserves an ancient tradition concerning the matter, which says that Naaman was the "certain man who drew a bow at a venture," and struck Ahab, "the king of Israel, between the joints of the harness" (1 Kings xxii. 34). The following are the words of Josephus, taken from his Antiquities (viii. 15, 5):—“ So when the Syrians, upon their joining battle with the Israelites, saw Jehoshaphat stand before the army, and conjectured that he was Ahab, they fell violently upon him, and encompassed him round; but when they were near, and knew that it was not he, they all returned back; and while the fight lasted from the morning light till late in the evening, and the Syrians were conquerors, they killed nobody, as their king had commanded them; and when they sought to kill Ahab alone, but could not find him, there was a young nobleman belonging to king Benhadad, whose name was Naaman: he drew his bow against the enemy, and wounded the king through his breastplate, in his lungs. Upon this, Ahab resolved not to make his mischance known to his army, lest they should run away; but he bid the driver of his chariot turn it back, and carry him out of the battle, because he was sorely and mortally wounded. However, he sat in his chariot, and endured the pain till sunset, and then he fainted away and died." If we accept this tradition as true, it will explain the remarkable words concerning Naaman, "The Lord by him had given deliverance unto Syria: " for Ahab was as hateful to God as he was to the countrymen of the Syrian warrior.

The cure of Naaman's leprosy is well-known to all our readers; but a glance at it again may serve to show how truly natural and strikingly graphic the inspired narrative is. "And the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife." The word translated " companies" means military marauders, with whom all history is painfully

familiar in connection with border warfare. Probably,the home of this "little maid" was reduced to ruins, and perhaps all the members of her family were put to the sword except herself. Be this as it may, she was spared for a great purpose, and the practical use of her religious knowledge has made her famous throughout the world, She had often heard of the prophet Elisha; she knew that he had raised the dead to life, and felt certain, therefore, that he could easily cure the most obstinate disease. "And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy." The possibility of such a blessing was mentioned to Naaman, and by him mentioned to the king. Benhadad had yet to learn the position and character of Elisha. He writes to the king of Israel a letter very characteristic of a military prince, and curiously recalling words uttered by another military man in reference to the cure of a sick servant many centuries later: “I say to this one Go,' and he goeth; to my servant 'Do this,' and he doeth it.” “And now," -so ran Benhadad's letter, after the usual complimentary introduction had probably opened the communication-"And now, when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have sent Naaman my slave to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy." With this letter, and with a present in which the rich fabrics for which Damascus has always been in modern times so famous, form a conspicuous feature, and with a full retinue of attendants, Naaman proceeds to Samaria. We are not told the name of the king of Israel to whom this unique epistle was sent; but it was probably Jehoram, better known by its shortened form, Joram, the son of Ahab, and who died about the year 884 B.C. The receipt of the letter filled Joram with dismay; for knowing the character of the writer, he exclaimed: "Consider how this man seeketh a quarrel against me!" The news of the arrival of the Syrian captain reaches the ears of the prophet, and, "with a certain dignity," he sends word to the king, "Let him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel." Naaman proceeds to the house of the prophet with his "horses and chariot," and whole retinue; but Elisha, refusing to see him, gives the command, "Let him bathe himself seven times in the Jordan, and he shall be clean." The simplicity of the recipeespecially to one who dwelt in a city which boasts of the finest water supply in the East-caused the warrior to wax angry, and contemptuously to say, "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them, and be clean?" These two Syrian streams are not mentioned in any other part of the inspired Scriptures; unless, indeed, the "Amana" mentioned in Canticles (iv. 8) is the mountain in or near Lebanon, which contains the source of the "Abana" mentioned by Naaman, and which river, in the margin of the English Bible is -called "Amana." These two chief streams of Damascus still exist, being called the Barada and the Awaj, and still supply the inhabitants of the city with most of their water. Naaman was told to "wash" in the river; he followed the advice of the prophet, moved by the entreaties of his retinue, and "dipped himself in the Jordan seven times." A Baptist would expect that the word "dipped" would, in any Greek translation of the passage, be some part of the verb baptizo; and so it is. The Septuagint is a version of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Greek language, certainly made before the Christian era, and in that version these words occur:-" e Barrioаto èv tậ Iopdavη ETTάKIS."-"He baptized himself in the Jordan seven times." To baptize and to dip were, therefore, one and the same act in the estimation