from militating against the church-membership of infants, either among Jews or Christians, that it is an argument in its favour. If adults ought never to be initiated until they resemble infants, then the fitness of infants for initi ation is taken for granted. But let us see what assistance Dr. Gill has obtained from the Syriac version, in proving that it is adults, and not infants, who belong to the church. A little labour and attention in examining and comparing different passages of that version, with what he has said about them, will shew that he has refuted himself. In Matt. xix 14, the Syriac reads, "Suffer little children to "come unto me, and forbid them not; for of those who 66 are, DAIK ELIN,(u) such as these, is the kingdom of "heaven." In Mark ix. 37. it reads, "Whosoever "shall receive AIK ENA, (v) as this little child, in my "name, receiveth me." In Mark x. 14. this Version reads "Suffer little children to come unto me, and for"bid them not; for of those who are, DAIK ELIN, such "as these, is the kingdom of God." I wish it noticed that this passage reads, DAIK, such as, and the preceding passage reads, AIK, as, but that Dr. Gill reads AIK, as, in both texts, and in both he renders it by the word like, which alteration and mistranslation are both more favourable to his views, than if he had recorded and translated it with perfect accuracy. It may be, however, that he considers AIK and DAIK Synonimous. If so, we shall take him at his word, and explore only one of them to ascertain the force of both. But do not think that I shall weary you with many exam איך הנא (0) דאיך הלין (u) The little Lexicon of ples: two or three must suffice. Gutbirius explains DAIK by the Latin word TALIS, such as, and refers to Matt. ix. 8. to prove it. Here the Syriac Version is as follows: "But when this multi❝tude saw, they feared and glorified God, that he had "given power, DAIK ENA, such as this, to the sons "of men." This was occasioned by our Saviour's healing" the sick of the palsy ;" an outward miracle intended to set forth his omnipotent energy in healing our inward diseases; just as our Saviour held up infants to the view of his disciples, to set forth the necessity of the new-birth. But the question is, what power the multitude meant, in the view of the Syriac Translators, when they spoke of a "power such as this" act of healing? Did they mean the outward miracle, or the inward grace? That they meant the latter, no man from Syria, Persia, or Arabia, is simple enough to believe : if they meant the former, Dr. Gill's whole fabric of Syrian resemblances tumbles to pieces. On this subject every man of common sense is compelled to adopt one opinion, and Dr. Gill among the rest, as may be seen in his Commentary. If, then, when the multitude spoke of "power, DAIK ENA, such as this," they meant literally, the power of working miracles, and not figuratively, the power of saving souls, which resembled it; let us then be consistent, and interpret such expressions literally of infants, and not confine them by figures, to professing adults, because they resemble infants. This therefore settles the meaning of Dr. Gill's parallel passage, just now quoted; "Whosoever shall receive as this lit"tle child in my name, receiveth me." There is also another association between the two passages which need not be overlooked. In Matt. ix. 8. there is a Latin Translation of the Syriac which reads "POTESTATEM HUJUSMODI," for, "power such as this;" where the literal miracle, and not the figurative grace, is confessedly intended. So in Mark. ix. 37. the ancient Vulgate Latin says, "Whosoever shall receive one, Ex "HUJUSMODI PUERIS, of children of this sort;" that is, real, literal, and not figurative children. One more example will shew that Dr. Gill refutes himself. It is Jas. iv. 16. The Syriac reads, "Ye "glory in your inflations: all glorying, DAIK ENA, such "as this, is from evil" The Dr. refers to the Syriac of this passage, but, forgetting his doctrine of resemblances, he gives these Syriac words precisely the same rendering which our English Translators have given to the original Greek. Instead of saying "all rejoicing like this," he says, "all such rejoicing." Why could he not understand the Syriac of Mark ix. 37. in the same way? "Whosoever shall receive one of such "children in my name." interpret the same word, in And why could he not thus xviii. 16. where the word children is confessedly implied, and where there is only a little addition of the characteristic verbosity of the Syriac language? It is vain to contend that the authors of the Syriac Version had doubts about the application of these passages to infant-baptism, when Tertullian himself, the boast of the Baptists, admitted that it was a command to this effect, although he became so wise as to dispute the propriety of obeying it. In advocating the delay of bapN n 66 tism in the case of unmarried and bereaved believers, (a whim of his own,) he says, PRECIPUE TAMEN CIRCA "PARVULOS ; but especially concerning little ones ;" the very name which Jerome gives to the children which our Saviour blessed. Then Tertullian, knowing that this passage lay in his way, observes, "AIT QUIDEM "DOMINUS, NOLITE ILLOS PROHIBERE AD ME VENIRE. "The Lord indeed saith, Forbid them not to come unto "me" a prohibition, the application of which to infantbaptism he never once denies, but only urges prudential reasons for delaying obedience, "SI NON TAM NECESSÉ, except when absolutely necessary." As Robinson, in his History of Baptism, saw that this testimony was fatal to his cause, he directed his artillery against our understanding of the word, PARVULOS, little ones, pretending that it meant adults. After all Dr. Gill's ingenuity on the subject of resemblances, he found that the Syriac could not help him out, if those were real infants whom our Saviour blessed. He thinks that there is evidence in the little Greek pronoun, avra, them, in Luke xviii. 16. "which shews that these infants were "not new born babes, or children at the breast, but "such as were more grown up, since they were capable "of being called to, and of coming to Christ." In opposing this flimsy conceit, I need not lay much stress upon the Ethiopic Version which he confesses is pointedly against him; I shall be satisfied with proving that the infallible original, to which he has appealed, is against him. If it can be shewn that these children were not adults, then our Saviour's calling, auta, them, unto him, will shew that he expected the call to be an swered by those parents who brought them to him, or those disciples who forbade them. In Luke xviii. 15. it is said, "And they brought un"to him also, ta ßeson, infants." In the next verse, Jesus says, "Suffer, va raidia, little children, to come unto me." Now the question is, what do Brephos and Pais mean? In making out an answer, it would be well to follow a rule which Dr. Ryland, an eminent Baptist controversialist of England, has expressed as follows, viz. "Every "word should be taken in the primary, obvious, and or"dinary meaning, unless there be something in the ❝connexion or in the nature of things which requires "it to be taken otherwise."(w) And here let it be observed, that in the time of Hesychius, the ancient Glossographer," the primary, obvious and ordinary mean. "ing" of Pais was so decidedly child, that he did not define it, but took this meaning for granted in his explanation of, radioxoi, boys, which he said were " 66 παιδων εις άνδρας μεταβαίνοντες, those who are changing "from children to men." One reason of the wonder expressed on the occasion of "the children, tovs raidas,” crying in the temple, was their tender age; for they were called "babes and sucklings."(x) The age, however, of those who suffered under Herod, cannot be easily mistaken, since it is said that he "sent forth and “slew, navras tovs raidas, all the children, that were in "Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two 66 years old and under."(y) (w) Taylor's 4th Letter to a Deacon of a Baptist Church. p. 28, |