« PreviousContinue »
the most acceptable, and they never approached their altars without sprinkling them with blood drawn from their own bodies. The spirit of the Mexicans was accordingly unfeeling and atrocious. To what circumstances it was owing that superstition assumed such a dreadful form among the Mexicans we have not sufficient knowledge of their history to determine. Robertson's Hist. vol. ii. p. 302, 303.
But, are not these rites of a similar nature with those of the Canaanites, who offered their sons and daughters unto devils; and, might not they be derived from the Phenicians, who were well skilled in navigation?
Most historians, antient and modern, extol AugUSTUS as one of the most mild, humane, and moderate, princes, that ever swayed a sceptre; but, we meet with too many instances in history which evidently shew that cruelty was the natural bent of his temper. An instance of which we have in Aulus Gellius, whom, though on all occasions he had assisted him to the utmost of his power, on a suspicion that he had a design to murder him, he condemned to the rack, but first caused the miserable magistrate to be brought before him, that he might have the cruel and brutal pleasure of digging out his eyes with his own hands. Univ. Hist. vol. xiii. p. 363.
Habebat hoc omnino Augustus Casur quem plane perditum are alieno egentemque, si eundem nequam hominem audacemque cognoverat, hunc in familiaritatem libentissime recipiebat. Ciceron, Philip. 2da.
Si ADAMUM recens creatum cogitamus, qualem eum nobis exhibent Sacræ Literæ, rationis et orationis facultate perfectâ præditum; non sui, non Dei, ignarum, divinæ bonitatis, majestatis, et potentiæ, conscium; pulcherrimæ totius mundi fabricæ, terræ cæliq. non indignum spectatorem, fierine posse credamus, quin ei hæc omnia intuenti intus incalesceret cor, ita ut ipso affectuum æstu abreptus animus ultro sese effunderet in Creatoris laudes, inq. eum impetum orationis, eamq. vocis exultantiam exardesceret, quæ tales motus animi pene necessario consequitur. Et Odæ origo ad ipsum poeseos initium recurrit, quod cum religionis, hoc est, cum ipsius humanæ naturæ ortu con junctum videtur. Lowth, de Sac. Poesi.
A most astonishing instance of unnatural fortitude exhibited in the person of ARISTODEmus, a Messenian, who, the Oracle of Delphos having declared in the war of the Messenians with the Spartans “ that a virgin of the royal blood of the Æpytidæ should be sacrificed and willingly devoted," offered his own virgin-daughter as a victim for his country. But her lover, when he found no persuasions could save her, boldly charged her with being debauched and with child by himself. This so enraged the generous Aristodemus that he killed the virgin; and, opening her body, shewed to the whole assembly her womb, that they might be convinced she was not with child: hipon which this sacrifice was allowed as sufficient. What a horrid religion was the
prevailing prevailing Paganism of Greece at that time! Winder's Hist. of Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 199.
April-Fool. See Fool.
The ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION fell out in the year before Christ 1225. Jackson's Chronol. vol. iii. p. 313.
ASTARTE, the elder Venus, had her name from the fecundity of flocks, minus, greges. Æsculapius, health, from the Arabic Aaz kelpo, the power of the heart; or, the virtue of converting from sickness to health. Blackw. Mythol.
It is now the common practice of the Christian world, and it hath been so for many ages past, to admit children to Baptism; but there are, and there have been, persons of another mind, who have thought that none should be baptised except those who are capable of answering for themselves; and this is a subject of controversy on which learned and good men have been divided. Our opposers in this question have so much to say for themselves that they should not be condemned by us for acting according to their serious and best judgement, or treated as stubborn and contentious persons. But then it becomes them to judge as fairly and favourably of us, who have as much to say for ourselves as they; and, I think, have something more than they. First, the general practice of the church from the fourth century to this day. Secondly, baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision; and, when the Jews made proselytes, they used to baptise the new convert with his whole family, infants as well as adults; and hence it is reasonable to conclude that the apostles followed this custom. Thirdly, God permitted the Jews to make vows in the name of their children ; and, for the same reason, a parent may present and offer his child to Jesus Christ; and it seems as proper that an infant should be baptised in the name of Christ, as that he should be brought to be blessed by him. Fourthly, since baptism is appointed in general terms, and infants are neither expressly named nor expressly excluded, it seems best, all things duly considered, rather to admit them to a covenant which cannot be prejudicial to them, than, by refusing them, to run the risk of acting contrary to the design of the precept. Jortin's Serm. vol. (forgot.)
If baptism be, as it is generally allowed, substituted in the place of circumcision; if it be, in design and intention, exactly analogous to what that was among the Jews; there will be no farther room for any dispute concerning its use and necessity. It will be, as that was, a divine institution, communicated to mankind for the bringing them nearer unto God; and it will be interpreted not only as an outward sign of an inward and invisible grace, but will be a means, likewise, of conveying that grace to us; so that he, who doth duly and properly receive this holy sacrament, shall together with it
actually be inade partaker of the divine grace. But, while we meditate on baptism as the sure and intullible covenant of God, we must not forget that there are conditions without which it cannot have its completion; for, at the same time that it is God's covenant with us, it is our covenant with him. To this purpose, at our baptism, we not only solemnly bind ourselves to obedience to God's laws, but likewise renounce every thing that might hinder us from fulfilling thein: we renounce the devil, &c. Hawtrey's Sermons, p. 284 — 304. See Paley.
Why are they then buptised for the dead? Cor. xv. 29. Whitby's exposition of this passage is this: “Why are they baptised for that Jesus, who according to their doctrine must be still dead?” Which he thus defends: “ 1st. The proposition urip often signifies in gratiam, or on the account, Rom. i. 5; Ephes. iii. 12. 2dly. oi vençoo is used in Scripture when speaking of one single person, Lu. vii. 15, 22; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13. 3dly. The apostle doth not say, What do they that baptise for the dead? but, What will they do, who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not again? Ti xai Battikortat; Why are they also baptised for the dead? We, who believe otherwise of him, and prcach in Jesus, or by him the resurrection of the dead, may well be baptised in his name; but why are they so who believe him dead? What will they do? What inotive can they have to stand to their baptismal covenant, and own a dead man as their Lord and Saviour? What inducement can they have to continue faithful to him to the end but this, that, if they suffer, they shall also reign together with him?” — But his proofs for the sense of os vingad, as spoken of a single person, do not come up to the point entirely.
Wall, in his Infant-Baptism, remarks that “ Epiphanius speaks of a tradition that the Corinthians did use to baptise some living person in the stead of any friend of theirs that had happened to die un-baptised; and that it was in relation to such a practice that the apostle says, “ If there be no resurrection of the dead, why are they then baptised for the dead?” And Tertullian, in his fifth book against Marcion, speaks of that custom and the apostle's mentioning of it; but shews that his mentioning it is no evidence that he approved it. There are two objections against this interpretation, but it is certainly the most obvious.” Chap. 21.
Baptizari pro mortuis est baptizari pro fide et spe resurrectionis, quam ante baptismum profitentur catechumeni, dum symbolum recitant. Chrysost. &c. vide Poole. And, as Dr Hammond observes, “ rendering inis, for, answerable to the Hebrew 30 is most natural. For the vexpoi, the dead, is but the title in brief of that grand article of the creed, that of the resurrection of the dead; just as, among the Hebrews, 171 1712 v by of; or for, strange worship, denotes that precept of the sons of Adam and Noah which prohibited the worship of any strange gods: and so, generally, titles of constitutions and of articles are abbreviates in a word or two." To which purpose he refers to Scaliger, Suidas, &c.
The The rite of baptism, as administered in the first ages of the church by immersion, was a most significant emblem that the curse of the law, through the fall of Adam, was entirely abolished; for, as that extended to the destruction of soul and body, by the washing of regeneration we are assured that our souls are cleansed from all sin; and, by descending into the water and ascending out of it, we are fully satisfied that our dead bodies shall be restored to life.
Lay-baptism allowed of by Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, not adınitted by Wheatley in his Common Prayer.
Ex Mattha'o, c. xi. 13, liquet ministerium Joannis Baptistæ non pertinere ad V. T. neque ininisterium ejus áthūs erat Novi Testamenti, ut qui prænunciarit Messiam, non qui venisset, sed qui venturus est, Matt. iii. 11. Ergo baptismus ejus nec erat V.T. nec danas Novi Testamenti, sed ejus temporis, in quo vetus desineret, et N. Testamentum inciperet. Unde Tertullianus eum vocat limitem institutum inter vetera et nova. Vossius.
Baptismus Johannis a Christi baptismo in his discrepat; 10. Johannes non in nomine Christi, aut Sancti Spiritus, baptizabat. 2o. Discipulos in fidem Messiæ venturi baptizabat.” Vossius, Limb. &c.
De formulâ vero, quæ in baptizando uti solet, cum taceat Scriptura, neque nos quicquam certi afferre possumus; sed verisimilior est sententia Ambrosii, Hieronymi, &c. quod hac similive formulâ usus est, baptizo te in nomine venturi Messiæ; quod colligunt ex Act. xix. 4.” Vossius.
Cur in N. T. non præscribitur quinam baptizandi? Num infantes, &c. Quia illa ex communi usu Judæis notissima erant. Et si infantes baptizandos noluisset servator, plana prohibitione opus erat. Et parvulorum baptismus solide possit evinci, ex Matt. xix. 13; xxviii. 19. Act. ii. 39, 40; et aliis locis.” Lightfoot and Vossius.
The representatives of BOROUGHs were first summoned to Parliament in the 231 year of Edward I. 1295, and seems to be the true and real epoch of the House of Commons in England, and the first dawn of popular government : for, the representatives of the counties were only deputies from the smaller barons and lesser nobility. Boroughs were erected by royal patent within the demesne lands : liberty of trade was conferred upon them. The inhabitants were allowed to farm at a fixed rent their own tolls and customs. They were permitted to elect their own magistrates. Justice was distributed to them by these magistrates, without obliging them to attend the sheriff or county-court. Hume, vol. ii. p. 272.
In Edward the VI.'s reign, twenty-three new burghs were summoned to send burgesses to Parliament; in Philip and Mary's, thirteen more; in Elizabeth's, thirty more; i James I. added the two universities and twelve burghs ; Charles I. eight burghs ; Charles II. the county of Durham and two burghs. Ellys's Tracts.
The Earl of Leicester, during his rebellion against Henry III. ordered returns to be made of two knights from every shire; and, what is more remarkable of deputies from the boroughs, an order of men, which, in former ages, had always been regarded as too mean to enjoy a place in the national councils. This period is commonly esteemed the epoch of the House of Commons in England, and it is certainly the first time that historians speak of any representatives sent to parliament by the boroughs. Hume's Hist. vol. ii. p. 210.
The BIBLE is much better guarded against wilful corruptions, and even casual mistakes in material points, than any other old record, by the vast multitude of copies taken early, dispersed every where, read in public, weighed in private, quoted in sermons, conversations, books, and remaining in the hands of all different sects of Christians, who would of course watch one another to prevent any attempts of making alterations. Accordingly we find, and have great cause to adore Providence for it, that neither during the long reign of popery hath any text been changed, whatever may have been tried, to favour their tenets, nor do the various readings of the manuscripts and translations of any church upon earth affect any single fundamental of faith and practice. But still even small errors in copying may have rendered passages of less moment (for in these they would be likelier to escape observation) defective, harsh, contrary to grammar, inexplicable; may have broken connections that once were plain; raised seeming inconsistencies, where at first there were none; but particularly may have altered names and increased or lessened numbers, which in all books are very apt to suffer by transcribing. God was not obliged to work miracles to prevent them; but we are obliged to honour duly whatever comes from him, though we cannot enjoy it in its original perfection. Secker, vol. vi. p. 80, 81.
The Holy Scriptures, though dictated by the spirit of God, were committed to the custody of men, and were to be delivered down to future ages after the same manner as all other writings are, that is, by successive transcripts of them. And, though we cannot, without great impiety, suppose that the eye of Providence would not be in a particular manner watchful over this sacred depositum, in which its own glory and the good of mankind were so nearly concerned, yet to extend this interposition in behalf of the integrity of the Bible, so far as to deny the possibility of a variation in any minute circumstance, is to run ourselves into a greater difficulty on the other side; and that is, to maintain that the several transcribers, through whose hands this book has passed, were exempted from all possibility of mistake, which we cannot do but by supposing them to be continually under the immediate influence of divine inspiration; a supposition, which those who declare the most warmly against different readings will not, I believe, be forward to allow. Hunt on Prov. vii. 22, 23.
Non religiosi mihi sed superstitiosi videtur, velle illam arauapinoiar tribuere ex Scriptoribus Judæis, quain novi fæderis ex Scriptoribus Græcis vel Latinis, assignare non