ticular emphasis, or contrast: as when our Saviour says, Matt. v. 48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect" xiii. 18: "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower." Where is the contrast here? However, as the women might perceive that the guards were fled, (seeing, perhaps, some marks of their flight,) and might suppose it was from some cause of fear, the angel might allude to that, in bidding them not to fear. It is sufficiently evident that, according to this evangelist, the women did not see Jesus in the act of rising, and therefore could not have been present at the earthquake, or the flight of the soldiers. For the angel says to them, (xxviii. 5, 6,) "I know that ye seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen.-Come, see the place where the Lord lay:" so that the resurrection was evidently over before they came.

In this letter Mr. Evanson's preference of the Gospel of Luke may be easily perceived, and also his rejection of that of Matthew; but he seems at that time to have retained his respect for that of John, as of equal authority with other canonical books of the New Testament. For, speaking of what is there said of the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus, he says, "I have frequently considered this passage with that attention wherewith it is the duty of every public teacher, and indeed of every Christian, to consider those parts of scripture especially upon which any essential doctrines of our religion are founded."*

No. XI.

OF THE DATE OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.

(See supra, p. 379.)

SOME have thought that Paul refers to a written Gospel in his Epistles to the Corinthians and to Timothy, that this Gospel was that of Luke, and that if Matthew or Mark had seen this Gospel they would not have written any. Consequently the works that bear their names are spurious compositions.

The passages in which Paul is supposed to allude to a written Gospel are the following: 1 Cor. ix. 9: "It is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." Ver. 14. "Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel."† 1. Tim. v. 18: "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the labourer is worthy of his reward." Now I think it is evident that the writer quotes the passage from Moses only as something written, and scripture, and not the saying of our Lord corresponding to it.

If the Gospel of Luke had preceded any other Gospel so long as this hypothesis requires, viz. eight or nine years, it would have acquired so much reputation, that some preference would have been given to it in Christian tradition; no similar work, not well known to be written by an apostle, or some person equally qualified, could ever have been ranked with it; and it could never have been supposed by any of the ancients that the Gospel of Matthew was prior to it. Nor is it possible to account for the universal opinion that

• Letter n 05 (P.)

+ See Vol XIV: vn. 84. 85.

the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle, and that of Mark by the companion of Peter, on the supposition of their being spurious compositions, of no real authority. The difficulty of imposing upon the whole Christian world such books as these, interested as every individual Christian was in the question, and this either while the supposed authors were living, or soon after their death, can never have been attended to by those who entertain such an opinion; and to effect such an imposition so completely in those peculiar circumstances, as to have no trace of the truth, far exceeds the powers of man; besides that it is not possible to imagine any motive for such an imposture. I think it very probable that Luke wrote both his treatises during the two last years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, and that this supposition will remove every difficulty.

No. XII.

OF THE IDENTITY OF LUKE AND SILAS.

(See supra, p. 380.)

A LEARNED and ingenious friend of mine thinks that Luke and Silas were the same person, because it appears from Acts xvi. 19, 25, 29, that Paul and Silas only, were imprisoned at Philippi: so that, if Timothy accompanied them to that city, he was not with them when the Pythoness followed them; and if so, when it is said, (ver. 17,)" the same followed Paul and us," Silas must be intended, and consequently he must be the author of the book. It is very remarkable, he adds, that Mill mentions four MSS. as having in this place Silas instead of us.

But though Paul might have twenty persons in his company when he was apprehended, it would not follow that they were all taken into custody. The magistrates might very well content themselves with taking the most zealous preachers. When Peter and John were imprisoned at Jerusalem, and when James was put to death there, the rest of the apostles, though we cannot suppose that they had been idle, or were unknown, were not molested; and though Paul had companions when he went into the temple at his last visit to Jerusalem, they were not seized along with him.

Timothy appears to have been in Paul's company at Berea, on the same progress, (ch. xvii. 14,) so that there is no reason to suppose that he left him either at Philippi or Thessalonica; and if Timothy was with him, Luke might be there too. As "Paul and Silas" occur in several places, and " Paul and us" in others, it is not at all extraordinary that, in copying the book, the one should sometimes, by mistake, be written for the other.

No. XIII.

OBSERVATIONS ON INFANT BAPTISM. *

(See supra, p. 465.)

Ir appears to me, that few persons in these Western parts of the world, enter sufficiently into the ideas of the Jews and other Asiatic

Theol. Repos. (1771). III. nn. 281 —930.

nations; and that some objections to infant baptism cannot be satisfactorily answered without laying aside some notions that are, in a manner, peculiar to Europeans, and especially such as have prevailed in modern times. With respect to this subject, I cannot think that writers have attended so much as they ought to have done to the power of a master of a family in the East, and particularly how far his own character and profession usually affected his wife, children, and servants, and, indeed, every thing that belonged to him. When the Ninevites repented, they made their cattle to fast and wear sackcloth as well as themselves; not that they could consider their cattle as having any occasion to repent, but in order to express, in a stronger manner, their own humiliation and contrition. Jonah iii. 7, 8: And the king "caused it to be proclaimed, and published through Nineveh, (by the decree of the king and his nobles,) saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing; let them not feed nor drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth."*

Agreeably to these prevailing ideas, though circumcision was a religious rite, instituted as a symbol of the covenant between God and the children of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, yet not only was Ishmael circumcised, but all the slaves of Abraham, who could have no more interest in the promises made to him, than others who were blessed in his seed, † and who were not to be circumcised. Such were the converts to Christianity. Gen. xvii. 10-14: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that his eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Vers. 24-27: "And Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his fore-skin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his fore-skin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ishmael his son. § And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

It is evident from this history of circumcision, and of the practice of Abraham in consequence of it, that the application of this rite to Ishmael, and the slaves of the household, was no more than, as it were, a necessary appendage to the circumcision of Abraham, as the master of the family. It must be considered as his own act only, and therefore the consent of Ishmael and the slaves cannot be sup

See Vol. II. p. 333; V. p. 271; XII. p. 370. + See ibid.; Vol. XI. pp. 76, 77.

See ibid. pp. 77, 78.

See ibid.

P. 77.

posed to have been, in the least degree, necessary. From the same principles we must also conclude, that circumcision, as such, could not express any interest which the subjects of it had in the things signified by it; for then Ishmael and the slaves would have had an equal interest in them.

There can be no doubt but that when the Jews, in future ages, made converts to their religion, they obliged every master of a family both to submit to this rite himself, and likewise to see that all his household, or all that depended upon him, did the same. For the same reason, whatever rite had been enjoined them, and whatever it had expressed, the same people would, no doubt, have applied it, in the same indiscriminate manner, to the master of the family and all his household. It was natural, therefore, for the apostles and other Jews, upon the institution of baptism, as a token of the profession of Christianity, without considering it as a substitute for circumcision, to apply it to infants as well as adults. According to their general ideas and established customs in similar cases, they could not have thought of adopting any other practice, without particular directions.

Accordingly we find in the Scriptures, that the gaoler, professing his faith in Christ, was baptized, (Acts xvi. 33,)" he and all his," and (ver. 15) that Lydia "was baptized and all her household." Now it is certain, that to a Jew these phrases would convey the idea of the children, at least, if not of the domestic slaves, having been baptized, along with the head of the family. A Roman could not have understood them to include less than all who were subject to the patria potestas. *

It also appears to me to be very evident, from ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the Christian fathers, that infant baptism was the uniform practice of the primitive Christians, and continued to be so till, among other superstitious notions, they got an idea of the efficacy of baptism, as such, to wash away sins, and consequently of the peculiar safety of dying presently after being baptized, before any fresh guilt could be contracted. It is well known that, upon this account, the Emperor Constantine, and others, deferred baptism till near the hour of death.

An argument derived from the uniform practice of the primitive Christians, affects some persons very little, but with me it has great weight, as an evidence of its having been the practice of the apostolical times, and having the sanction of apostolical authority. Whatever appears to have been the practice of the apostles, I would conscientiously conform to, by whatever reasons I was led to conclude that it was their practice. Even their writings are no otherwise valuable, than as they are the most authentic evidence of what they thought and did; and in other cases, where this evidence cannot be had, all Christians are guided by proofs that are less direct and decisive. Thus it is from the evidence of tradition, deduced from the uninterrupted practice of Christian churches, that we set apart, not the seventh, but the first day of the week for the purpose of public worship; and not from any authority that can be produced from the New Testament.

* See Vol. II. p. 334; V. pp. 271, 272; XIII. pp. 455, 456, 458.

If we trace the progress of this affair a little farther, we shall find that when, by the prevalence of the liberal sentiments of Christianity, more account was made of slaves, as beings of the same species with their masters, and equally interested with them in the privileges and promises of the gospel; and especially when, in consequence of this, they acquired more civil rites, and were allowed to act for themselves more than they had done, they were considered as having religious interests of their own. Indeed, in the times of the Romans, slaves, being of different nations, were allowed (agreeably to the genius of the Pagan system) to practise some of their peculiar religious rites; and a great many of the first Christian converts were slaves, their masters, at that time, not finding themselves or their interest affected by it, and therefore not taking any umbrage at it.

It happened also, that the power of a father over his children, was much less in these Northern nations of Europe, than it was in the East or among the Romans, with whom also it is sensibly declined. On this account, and also because, from the very first promulgation of Christianity, it could not but be manifest that persons were interested in it as individuals, and not as members of families, or societies, I make no doubt but that, in general, if there were adult children or slaves in a family, at the time that the master professed himself a Christian, they were not baptized without their own consent; but no consideration that can be supposed to have occurred either to Jews or Romans, could have led them to make the same exception in favour of infants.

Considering how very different are the ideas and customs of these times, and these parts of the world, from those which prevailed among the Jews, when baptism was instituted, the peculiar reasons for applying it to infants are, in a great measure, ceased. But still, as the practice is of divine authority, it appears to me, that no innovation ought to be made in it by any power on earth; but that we ought rather to preserve those ideas which originally gave a propriety to it, especially when there is nothing unnatural in them. For my own part, I endeavour to adhere to the primitive ideas above-mentioned, and therefore I consider the baptizing my children, not as directly implying that they have any interest in it, or in the things signified in it, but as a part of my own profession of Christianity, and consequently as an obligation which, as such, I am under, to educate my children, and also to instruct my servants in the principles of the Christian religion. In this view of the ordinance of baptism, infants are indirectly interested in it, whether they adhere to the profession of Christianity, and thereby secure the blessings of it, when they become adults, so as to think and act for themselves, or not.

It is possible that, at this time, and in these parts of the world, we may not see much reason for positive institutions; but with the Jews, and indeed throughout all the East, nothing is more common than to express sentiments and purposes by appropriate actions. Now, washing with water so naturally expresses purity of heart, and

See Vol. II. p. 334.