Martyr already quoted, he says, in describing the mode of regeneration or baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Lovrov пolovvrai, they wash or purify them.

66

2. They often use ẞanziouos in the legal and sacrificial sense, so as to exclude any idea but xa@agiouos. So Chrysostom, Hom. 33, says, He calls his cross and death, a cup and baptism,—a cup, because he readily drank it; baptism, (ẞanzioμov,) because by it he purified, exaonger, the world;" that is, he calls it purification, because by it he purified the world, in which case the sense is sacrificial, he made atonement for the world,--and the reason assigned depends, for all its force, on giving to βαπτισμος the sacrificial sense καθαρισμος. I do not quote this, nor the following passages, because I believe that he assigns the true reason, but simply to illustrate his use of language.

So Theophylact, on Matt. 20: 22, 23, says, " He calls his death βαπτισμον ὡς καθαρτικόν οντα παντων ήμων ; as making a purification, or expiation for all of us," where the whole force, as before, rests on giving to Barrioμor the sacrificial sense xabαquoμov. As if he had said, he calls his death a purification, because it was designed to purify all of us. So, on Mark 10: 38, 39, he says, "He calls his cross fanrioμor, as about to make a purification for sins,” καθαρισμον των άpagtia. Here the sacrificial sense is still more evident, and undeniable, and requires βαπτισμον to mean καθαρισμον, as before. Many other passages of a like kind could be adduced, but it is needless.

3. They sometimes, in describing the rite, use xabaigo or xaαgio alone. Thus Gregory-Nazianz. says, owεi zαÕαigoμενον Ιησουν εν τω Ιορδάνῃ την εμην καθαρσιν μαλλον δε εγνιζοντα τη καθάρσει τα ίδατα-ου γαρ δη αυτος εδείτο καθάρσεως ὁ αιρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν του κοσμου ; that is, thou shalt see Jesus purified, i. e. baptized, in the Jordan, with my purification, i. e. baptism, or rather, sanctifying the waters, by his purification: for he did not need purification who taketh away the sins of the world. Here ßantico is not used at all in describing the rite, and in its place is used xabaigo and its derivatives, both in a moral and sacrificial sense.

Again, "He who can take away the sins of others," óv καθαρσιών ενεκα επι τα νάματα ερχεται, αλλ ώστε δυναμιν αυτοις ενθείναι καθαρτικήν, does not come to the water for the sake of

being purified himself, but to impart to it a purifying

power.

Here, as before, I do not vouch for the truth of the ideas. They are pregnant with superstition. From the notion that Christ, at his baptism, gave to the water a purifying power, came the idea of holy water, and of a mysterious influence or presence in the water of baptism, which is a constituent part of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Still the passages are of no less importance in showing the use of words; and for this alone I quote them.

It would be of no avail, here, to say that the Fathers did in fact immerse; this could not decide that purify was not the sense,--and even if it could be shown that some of them use the word ẞanzisw to denote the act of immersion in baptism, it would avail nothing. It would only prove inconsistent usage. But in the confluence of classical and Alexandrine Greek, after the days of Christ, and in writers so various and so multifarious, we are not to book for consistent usage. It is enough that we find the usage claimed. We should rather expect a transition from the original ideas of the New Testament writers, through a period of inconsistent usage, till, as the form usurped the place of the spirit, and a superstitious efficacy was attached to immersion, the original sense would disappear, and the name of the form alone remain, as is the case in the Greek Church at the present day.

I do not expect to find in the Fathers a correct philosophical account of the origin or progress of their own errors. They assign different, and often inconsistent reasons for the usages of language already adverted to. It is enough for me that I have the facts before me, and the laws of the mind to explain them. They are just such as I should expect, on the supposition that the original religious sense of βαπτίζω was καθαρίζω.

ARTICLE VI.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF DEISM.

By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Prof. Theol., Theol. Sem., Bangor, Me.

By Deism is meant that form of religion, which admits the existence of a Supreme Being, but denies that he has made a supernatural revelation of his truth and will to mankind, in the Scriptures. In other words, it is that form of religion which, while it admits the Divine existence, denies the truth and inspiration of the Bible.

Of Deism, as of most other forms of error, there are different degrees. There are those, who professedly and openly discard revelation, avowing that its claims to have come from God are without foundation. There are others, who, while they do not professedly discard the Bible, are yet its real opposers and enemies. They secretly reproach it, endeavor to undermine it, and labor to turn its doctrines into ridicule and contempt. It will be seen, that this second class of Deists has been much more numerous, in modern times, than the first.

There is still a third class of men, who fall fairly within the ranks of Infidelity, who, while they admit that the Bible contains a revelation from God, still leave it to each individ. ual to determine what, and how much, this revelation is. It is not the whole Bible, but is contained in the Bible; and every reader of the Bible is to judge for himself, what portions of it are to be regarded as of Divine origin, and what not. A principle such as this amounts obviously to a species of infidelity; since it is a manifest rejection of the canonical Scriptures as an infallible rule of faith and life. One person sets aside this passage as constituting no part of the revelation, and another that; and we need a new Bible, to inform us what parts of the Old are to be received, and what rejected.

In presenting a brief account of discussions relative to the Divine authority of the Scriptures, I shall have no occasion

to go farther back than to the first age of Christianity. The Jews were a people by themselves. They held their Scriptures as a sacred deposit, which they were to keep, rather than circulate; and the surrounding nations were either so entirely ignorant of these Scriptures, or they held them in so much contempt, as to enter into no controversy respecting them. The ancient idolaters would all have rejected the Jewish Scriptures; or, at best, would have placed them on a level with the responses of their own oracles, and the dreamings of their own diviners, but previous to the Christian era, I am not aware that there was any considerable controversy respecting them.

Near the close of the first century, Josephus published his Antiquities at Rome. They were written in the Greek language, and for the express purpose of vindicating the great antiquity of the Hebrew nation, and of making the Greeks and Romans acquainted with their history. But some of the learned Greeks, who read the books of Josephus, were very incredulous as to his statements; and entered into formal controversy with him on the subject. Their writings are now lost; but a triumphant refutation of them, from the pen of Josephus, is extant. His two books against Apion, in which he refutes the calumnies, not only of Apion, but of several others, and demonstrates, from the early records of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Phenicians, the high antiquity of the Hebrews, will remain as a monument of the learning of Josephus, and of his zeal for the honor of his people.

The earliest enemies of the Christian Scriptures were the Jews and heathens. With the Jewish unbelievers, several of the early fathers engaged in controversy. The dialogue of Justin with Trypho, the Jew, is still extant, in which the former endeavors to prove to the latter, from the writings of the Jewish prophets, that the Messiah has come, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

The first efforts of the Pagans against the Christians were directed, not so much to discredit their writings, as to defame their characters, and destroy their lives. Because these Christians had no images among them, and refused to worship the idols of the heathen, they were charged with atheism. And because they were constrained from a regard to their own safety, to hold their meetings in private, and often in the night season, they were accused of practising in them

the most foul and horrible crimes. To refute these calumnies, and stay the effusion of innocent blood, was the object of most of the Apologies for the Christian faith which were early written. Several of these Apologies, particularly those of Justin, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix, we have in our hands, and they should be diligently pondered by every Christian student. Next to the writings of the Apostles, they furnish the best exposition, and the most authentic monument, of primitive Christianity.

The first of the heathen philosophers who entered into formal controversy with the ancient Christians, was Celsus, an Epicurean, who lived about the middle of the second century. His work against Christianity, which he entitled "The True Word," is irrecoverably lost, except so much of it as may be extracted from the reply of Origen, which was published almost a hundred years after Celsus was dead. Enough of it, however, remains, to give us a pretty full idea of the character of the work. Amidst a multitude of frivolous objections, and much ridicule and reproach, he bears the most unequivocal testimony to the authenticity of our sacred books, and to some of the more material facts of the Scripture history. He speaks of the Pentateuch as an acknowledged writing of Moses. He was familiar with the books of the Old Testament, and represents them as having a Divine authority among Jews and Christians. He not only admits, but insists, that the Gospels were written by the early followers of Christ. "From your own writings ye have these things. We make use of no other witness. Ye fall in your own snare." He admits that our Saviour performed many miracles, though, like most of the idolaters of that age, he ascribes them to magic. "Supposing these things to be wrought by him, they are of the same nature with the works of enchanters, and of them who have learned of the Egyptians." On the whole, I regard the work of Celsus as one of great interest to the Christian student. It furnishes a most important link in that strong chain of evidence, which goes to establish the authenticity and Divine authority of our sacred books.

.

Cotemporary with Celsus was the Greek critic and satirist, Lucian. He satisfied himself with ridiculing the Christians, without any very serious attempts at opposition.

Near the middle of the next century flourished Porphyry,