BAPTISM BY IMMERSION. There can be no question that the original form of baptism-the very meaning of the word-was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that, for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To this form the Eastern Church stili rigidly adheres: and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of the Byzantine Empire, absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of administration as essentially invalid. The Latin Church, on the other hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of a northern climate, to the change of manners, to the convenience of custom, has wholly altered the mode, preferring, as it would fairly say, mercy to sacrifice: and, (with the two exceptions of the Cathedral of Milan, and the sect of the Baptists,) a few drops of water are now the Western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing rivers, or the wide baptisteries of the East.-Extract from Lecture I." The Characteristics of the Eastern Church." p. 34. By Dr. A. P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster. London: John Murray, 1861.

Dr. Andrew Wilson.-The querist has a MS. which he considers of some value, and which, by a note of the late Dr. Charles Stuart, of Edinburgh, on the boards, is said to be the work of " Dr. Andrew Wilson, London, 1778." The handwriting, however, I should think, is of an earlier date. Can any of the readers of the "Baptist Magazine" give any information respecting Dr. Wilson ?

H. A.

Coleridge on Baptism, vol. lv., p. 711. -Since reading the remarkable and interesting letter on Baptism by the celebrated S. T. Coleridge, in your last number, I have met with the following passage in Coleridge's notes on Luther's Table Talk, which form a portion of "Notes, Theological, Political, and Miscellaneous," edited by the Rev. Derwent Coleridge, M.A., and published by Moxon, in 1853. The former part of my extract gives Luther's opinion, and the latter Coleridge's criticism:-"I (said Luther) do not hold that children are withont faith when they are baptized; for, inasmuch as they are brought to Christ by

his command, and that the church prayeth for them; therefore without all doubt faith is power unto them, although with our natural sense and reason we neither see nor understand it." On this passage Coleridge says, "Nay, but dear honoured Luther! is this fair? If Christ or Scripture had said in one place, Believe, and thou mayest be baptised; and in another place, Baptize infants, then we might perhaps be allowed to reconcile the two seemingly jarring texts, by such words as 'faith is given to them, although, &c.' But when no such text, as the latter, is to be found, nor any one instance as a substitute, then your conclusion seems arbitrary." We have in this passage multum in parvo. It is evident that Coleridge considered there was no Scriptural warrant for baptizing infants, nor for their having faith. "Natural sense and reason" do, indeed, say that the infant is incapable of exercising faith and that Luther's notion is an absurd dogma. Nov. 21, 1863. J. A.

I have been recently reminded by the perusal of a paper on the character of Samson, of what has long appeared to me to be a mistake concerning many of the great and conspicuous men of Old Testament History, to the effect that they had saving faith and were really godly men, and gave evidence of it. That they were special agents employed by God for doing very signal things in the management, protection and defence of the Hebrew commonwealth. And that, as officials of the Divine King, who in all cases, and at all times, was supreme ruler in the party of Israel, they had special help, and at times miraculous powers, and were permitted special audience of the Divine Ruler, there is no reason to doubt. Indeed, they often applied to God to sustain them, and make them successful in the offices to which he had appointed them, and received timely interposition, and in some of these cases God acted on them both physically and mentally in a very powerful and direct way-as direct perhaps as his actions on the minds of those who were the Holy Writers of matters of pure revelation. I take it that Samson and other prominent men were just the agents, and little or nothing more, by whom God as the national Ruler carried on the polity

of the Hebrew nation both in civil and ecclesiastical matters-there being only two aspects of the same governmental action, and that neither from the position nor powers, nor political and church acts, can we conclude that they were godly, holy men in the high sense of regenerate and spiritual children of God. They were heirs of Canaan, but it does not follow that they were heirs of heaven. They were holy people in the sense of being separated to God from all other nations, but it does not follow that they were personally holy, as the effect of the renewal of the soul. They had the providential and kingly favour of God, and were the receivers and conservers of the Divine religion. But all this, except in cases iu which there was the proper evidences of spiritual and personal regene ration will go for nothing as proof that they were good men. I submit to all painstaking students of Scripture whether we are not to look for the same evidences of a regenerate state in persons under the Old Testament dispensation as in the Gospel times? These may not be equal in degree, because of the inferior light under which they lived, but ought they not to be the same in kind? I ask whether true faith in the Christ to come-according as faith had revelation to guide it, it could not resist and act any farther--must not necessarily be followed by the same effects as faith in Christ in our own days? I am of opinion that in any given age it was but a small minority of the Hebrew people that constituted "the Israel of God" in the most prosperous times of their common wealth.

OMICRON.

Rom. iii. 25:-"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through-rather in the forbearance of God." This passage contains two words which demand special attention, and it is submitted that they are not so clearly rendered as to give the English reader just ideas of their meaning. These are ιλαστήριον and πάρεσιν, the first rendered a "propitiation" the other "remission." propitiation is used twice in the first Epis tle of John, ii. 2, and iv. 10, but the word employed by John is naous, which is never used by Paul. The word he used is that which, in the Hebrew, is employed to describe the mercy-seat in the most holy places · the of the ark, the sacred chest, the foot-stool of the Lord, before which

Covers

the blood of sacrifice on the day of atonement was offered, and from which God dispensed His mercy. The Greek word of Paul occurs also in Hebrews ix. 5, and is necessarily rendered "the mercy-seat," for it was that literally. Perhaps such a rendering would not be admissible here, but surely the notion conveyed by the mercy-seat-a covering of the broken law-and the fact that the mercy-seat was that on which God stood in receiv ing the atonement and showing mercy, would have been made apparent to the common reader. The word propitiatory would have answered this purpose. What was intended by the Apostle is not the atonement, a propitiatory sacrifice, as we think, which Christ made by His death, but the point or place on which God stands in dispensing pardon and pronouncing the acquittal of all believers in Christ. In this view the words "through faith in His blood," have a significance not really apparent in the common version. The atonement contained in the blood of Christ, which "blood" is put here for the atonement itself, is that in the New Covenant, which the mercy-seat was in the old, the ground on which God stands when approached by faith in Jesus-the place where we meet him. The other word intended for remark is peony, unhappily rendered “remission" instead of "passing by or over the sins that are past." There is a precision in the teaching of Paul through the use of this word, which occurs only in this one passage, which is wholly lost to the reader through the use of the word "remission." The sins that are past are the sins of believers under the old economy, "the transgressions under the First Covenant," Hebrew ix. 15, which times were times of "the forbearance of God" to punish, and those sins were not actually and fully remitted, and the persons acquitted from the charge of having committed them on the ground of the redemption to be made afterwards, but were passed and not paid, in anticipation of the redemption, which being actually accomplished in due time, completed the remission of the sins and the acquittal-justification-of the persons. As the sin offerings under the law not only removed the civil and ecclesiastical disabilities of those for whom they were offered, but had a deeper meaning as shadows of the sacrifice of Christ, and assured the believing offering of the great fact, so this passing by, of sins looked forward to it and assured the perfect salvation of Old Testament believers

66

though probably most of them had the spirit of bondage, because they did not see the full meaning of the sacrifices. See Heb. xi. 40-"God having provided some better things for us that they without us should not be made perfect." And the xii. 23-"The spirits of just men made perfect,” THOMAS OWEN. Cranfield, Beds.

John, iii. 8.-The wind bloweth where it listeth. Why should μ be here translated "wind?" As this word, which is of such constant occurrence in the New Testament in the sense of “spirit," is in no other place rendered "wind" (though it is sometimes so used in the Septuagint Old Testament), is there any good warrant for making this the sole exception? Let us endeavour to trace the argument in the text without any foregone conclusions, The statements made in this most pregnant of our Lord's discourses, are to the effect that flesh and blood (that is to say, all the nature which we derive from our earthly parents), can never rise above its original, and can never inherit the kingdom of God. Something must be superadded. What is it? ---Spirit. And in this case also, as is the parent so is the offspring. As that which was born of the flesh was only flesh, so that which is born of the spirit becomes spirit. Then the eighth verse goes on to add that, whatever is characteristic in the operation of this Divine parent will be characteristic also in the offspring. The spirit inspires (or breathes on) where He willeth, and His voice thou hearest forobeyest) though thou canst not trace his coming or his going. And such will be the nature of the offspring." So also is every one (or every that) which is born of the spirit”- -a view which might be further illustrated by other passages indicating the quickening nature of the ineffable gift. Further to put the objection in another form-It is undeniable that the process here discussed is generation or birth: and it is also undeniable that in verse the sixth we have reference made to the resemblance which the offspring bears to its parent. Does it not seem strange that in the process of carrying out the analogy in verse eighth, though the spiritual offspring is spoken of, and its resemblance to something reiterated yet that resemblance is not to its spiritual progenitor, but (according to commonly-received versions) to the wind? Have I stated a reasonable objection, or will some of your critics convict me of folly? J. W.

BRAINTREE CHURCH.

THE OLDEST NONCONFORMIST CAUSE.

Dr. Evans, in his recently-published volume on the "Early English Baptists (p. 77), cites the following quotations out of Strype's Memorials"::- Sectaries appeared now in Essex and Kent, sheltering themselves under the profession of the Gospel, of whom complaint was made to the Council. These were the first that made separation from the Reformed Church of England, having gathered congregations of their own. The congregation in Essex was mentioned to be at Bocking; that in Kent at Faversham, as I have from an old register. From whence I also collect that they held the opinions of the Anabaptists and Pelagians; that there were contributions made among them for the better maintaining of their congregations; that the members of the congregations in Kent went over to the congregation in Essex to instruct and to join with them," and (p. 78) "in January 27th, a number of persons, a sort of Anabaptists, about sixty, met in a house on a Sunday, in the parish of Bocking, in Essex." According to these memorials there were Baptist congregations existing at Faversham and Bocking as early as the reign of Edward VI., 1547-1553. That at Faversham, I understand, has been long ago extinct. As it may interest your readers to know that the other is still extant and flourishing, and in all probability has uninterruptedly enjoyed this long career, I will, with your kind permission, give a brief account of this ancient church as I gather it from the church book now in my possession.

As strangers cannot be deemed conversant with the relative position of Braintree and Bocking, I would just explain that they are the two parishes in which the present town of Braintree stands, and divisible only by the main street, or road, called the Rayne and Coggeshall Roads. In olden times Bocking took the lead, being an extensive mart for the woollen trade; but, in course of time, as the woollen trade declined, and the silk trade sprang up, and as in the case of many other towns throughout the country, the order was reversed, so that Bocking has had to follow in the wake of Braintree.

From the materials now before me, it seems that, during the pastorate of the Rev. John Hornblow, the old chapel became the subject of grievous and protracted litigation in the High Court of

Chancery, owing to which, as well as the unpleasantness hereinafter referred to, and other causes of a domestic nature, the earliest records were destroyed. Referring to these proceedings, it is recorded that "even the trust deed had been missing for 50 years, and another had been forged." This deed, together with a few other papers, was some years after the demise of Mr. Hornblow, discovered in the possession of a Mrs. Johnson, of Coggeshall, so that by means of these papers and other collate ral evidence, we are now in possession of a correct record, dating as far back as the reign of Charles II. (1660)—about one hundred years after the time to which Strype refers as above. It appears that a General Baptist Church was then existing in Braintree, and which, under a succession of pastors, gradually became a Particular Baptist Church. The congregation in the reign of Charles met in premises, since the property of a Mrs. Bright, in Back Lane, then called Sanford Pond Lane, Braintree. Afterwards they met in a place belonging to W. Humphreys, coach builder, now to Mrs. Smee, on the opposite side of the adjacent Rayne Road, and in the parish of Bocking. After that they assembled in a cottage belonging to W. Cartwright in Coggeshall Road; but, on the other side of the street, and consequently in Braintree parish. This cottage was afterwards purchased by the congregation during the ministry of Mr. Draper, fitted up for a place of worship, and soon enlarged to twice its original size. Mr. Draper was succeeded by Mr. Slaughter, and Mr. Slaughter by Mr. Hume, who was a native of Patiswick, Essex. Mr. Hume was succeeded by Mr. Wright, a general Baptist; and Mr. Wright by John Watkins, who went over to Amsterdam in the year 1778. John Watkins was succeeded by Mr. Hornblow in 1779. The Rev. John Hornblow was a native of Halstead, Essex, but a member of the church, under the care of the Rev. Abraham Booth, in London, by whom he was recommended to the church at Braintree. During his ministry the chapel was enlarged to accommodate about 400 persons. At the outset of his ministry a most unpleasant difference arose between him and a Mr. Perrott, M.D., an occasional preacher and communicant, but a member of the church at Birmingham, then under the pastoral care of the Rev. William Turner, which dispute was submitted to the arbitration of

the Revs. Robert Robinson (chairman), John Reynolds, Abraham Booth, Wm. Clark, Isaac Gould, John Hitchcock, Humphry Larwell, Thomas Stevens and James Brown. Notwithstanding this, unpleasantness, his ministry seems to have been greatly blessed for a period of 40 years the church number 50 members at his death in 1816, all of whom have since died. Of Mr. Hornblow, it is stated that he was a man of unimpeachable character and highly esteemed, and that in his views he sympathized with his pastors, Abraham Booth and Dr. Gill. The Rev. Richard Miller, from the church at Old Ford, and a student at Stepney, succeeded Mr. Hornblow, and was ordained, December 23, 1817. Mr. Miller resigned 14th of April, 1822. There were added to the church during his ministry 35 members, four of whom are still living. Our dear brother, I believe, is also living in one of the inland counties.* The pulpit was then supplied from 21st of April, 1822, to October, 1823, by the Rev. Wm. Ragsdell, from Thrapstone. The Rev. George Washington Wilks, from Diss, supplied it from October 12th, 1823, to December 22nd, 1825. Thirty-four members joined the church during these two years, but only two now survive. The church at this time seems to have fallen a prey to Antinomianism, which was the means of reducing it to a wretched condition, both as to number and sentiment. Mr.

Wilkes was succeeded by the Rev. William Humphries, from Horton College, April 16th, 1826, who continued his ministry up to the day of his death, which occurred, June 13th, 1845. During these 19 years there were 126 members added unto the church. The present commodious chapel was built in lieu of the old one in the year 1833, at an expense of £1,882. The church also, during Mr. Humphries' ministry, adopted,

at

some sacrifice, the open communion principle. The Rev. David Rees, who had also been a student at Horton, removed from Isleham, Cambs., and commenced his pastoral labours at Braintree on the 18th of January, 1846. Mr. Rees after a ministry of upwards of 13 years, and left England the second week in April, 1859, to take the oversigh

Since writing the above, I have noticed the death of the Rev. R. Miller, of Braunston, Northamptonshire, on December 2nd. in his 72nd year, announced in the Freeman, which two names, I presume, to be iden. tical.

of the church at Geelong, Australia. There were 117 members received into the church during these 13 years. The present minister, who like the last two studied at Horton, was settled here from Haddenham, Cambs., on the 26th of June, 1859.

From the above facts, which comprise only a brief extract from a lengthy statement in the Church-Book, we deduce the following results :

1. That the present records assure us that there was a General Baptist Church already existing in the time of Charles II.

2. That it was fully ascertained, when these were gathered, that earlier records of the church had been mislaid or destroyed.

3. That this General Baptist Church worshipped at different times at Braintree and Bocking, and vice versa.

4. That, in the quotations from Strype, we are informed of a cause at Bocking, whose views were in harmony with those of General Baptists, and so far established in the reign of Edward that the threats of councils availed not to destroy it.

The lost records, had we been in possession of them, would have doubtlessly carried us back into some (may be a considerable) portion of that century, and even the preceding one. Supposing, therefore, that the church was broken up, or the means of grace suspended, at the close of the 16th, or the beginning of the 17th, century, it could be for only a brief interval, when it would be again reorganized. But, as there is little or no ground for such a supposition, the very probable conclusion is, that the Baptist church at Braintree has enjoyed an uninterrupted existence over a period of more than 300 years, and has the honour of being one of the two which "first made separation from the Reformed Church of England, having gathered congregations of their own."

JOHN MOSTYN, Pastor.

(To the Editors of the BAPTIST MAGAZINE.)

SIRS, -Can you find room for the following brief comment on Mr. Green's paper in your last number, headed "The New Jerusalem ?"

cer

(1.) The contrast, to which he draws attention, between the harlot (Ch. xvii.) and the New Jerusalem (Ch. xxii.), is a striking one. The former is the false the Antichrist; the latter is the truethe Bride. The "Babylon" (whether involving an actual city or not) is " tainly the emblem of some great form of spiritual evil antagonistic to the Church of Christ." The "Jerusalem" of the contrasted delineation is, doubtless, the Church of the Redeemer; not, however, in its present imperfect condition, but glorified. The "Babylon," being of the

earth and earthy, has passed away; the Church, heavenly and enduring, re mains.

(2.) The omission, after "nations," of the words" of them which are saved," if allowed, does not alter the meaning at all, as, in any case, the "nations" are supposed to be more or less evil in character, and yet they subsist side by side with, although in a very different condi tion from, the perfected church.

(3.) To translate "over " the earth, instead of "on," matters little. Queen Victoria reigns over England, yet on English soil.

Mr. Green seems to think it impossible that this material earth, however purified, can be the abode of the saints after the Resurrection. On this subject let me refer him to Dr. Chalmers's celebrated