which calls for especial remark, inasmuch | tion; that is, it is not actually essential to as it takes quite a new ground of argument from its compeers in the debate, and is more calculated to lead the mind astray. Like a comet suddenly making its appearance in the heavens, it strikes the eye as having something peculiar about it-something, in fact, rather suspicious. salvation. The whole tenor and declaration of the New Testament demonstrates that ceremonies and works, however good in their proper place, are not the basis of salvation. St. Paul says, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law," Rom. iii. 28; also, Gal. ii. 16. In another place he says, "And circumcision is that of the heart; in the spirit, and not in the letter;" thus showing that, however justifiable ceremonies and works may be, they are not actually necessary to salvation. And then, again, it is said in St. Mark, xvi. 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," excluding baptism, you see, in the punishment, although it is part of the blessing; so that a person may be saved without necessarily being baptized. What, then, is to become of infants? you will inquire. Obviously this passage has nothing to do with them, because they cannot believe. It follows, then, that baptism has nothing to do with them. If those who hold baptismal regeneration affirm that unless the infant is baptized it cannot be saved, they must also say that unless it believes it cannot be saved, for here it is said, "He that believeth not shall be damned." It is clear, then, that this passage, which enjoins faith and baptism together, only applies to those who can have faith,-a thing impossible to an infant. J. F. says:"Upon the nature and design of baptism we believe we fully coincide with the Baptists (!). We freely grant that it signifies the state of grace into which the soul has passed through a saving faith in Christ; that the application of water to the body represents the cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, the washing of regeneration, and the sanctification of the Spirit; that it is a pledge of the dedication of the soul to God-a taking on of the yoke of Christ," &c. &c. What! And do you, then, fasten all this upon an infant? Do you mean to assert that all these solemn responsibilities are to be undertaken by an unconscious babe; and that that infant can have "saving faith," and become regenerate, and sanctified, merely upon its being sprinkled with water? Alas! I very much fear that is what you mean. If so, by all that is solemn and sacred I would warn you to beware of such a doctrine. It strikes at the very root of Christianity; it upsets the glorious fabric for which the apostles underwent persecution, and even death, and for which the reformers fought and conquered, namely, that we are justified by faith alone, that faith having as its only foundation the atonement of Christ. If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration be true, our salvation by the blood of Christ must be all a fiction, and consequently the Bible a mere fable. You are very much mistaken if you suppose "the Baptists" hold similar views with you. Allow me, on their behalf, to repudiate all I hope, then, that it will be seen that such connexion. It is true they baptize J. F.'s speculative theory is quite untenable, only those who profess that they have re- and, moreover, has nothing to do with the subpented and believed; but they allow no sanc-ject. He has not given us one actual proof tity to the act of baptism by itself. It is from scripture that infant baptism is an merely a sign or profession of their faith, ordinance enjoined by our Lord or practised conformed to in obedience to the command by his apostles. In fact, he openly avons and example of their heavenly Master; but himself unable to do this. How utterly it is nothing more. absurd, then, and inconsistent to attempt to prove his point from scripture. Doubtless many, reading the article of J. F., would thus confound the salvation of infants with their baptism. Now baptism, in itself, is a thing quite apart from salva And, secondly, since those who have not this faith are to be condemned, the whole text must necessarily exclude infants as having anything to do with it; for we have reason to believe that infants, dying such, are saved, though not capable of repentance or faith. This matter, however, we may leave. What the Bible has not explicitly revealed is not necessary for us to determine But, not satisfied with his own inability, he endeavours to bring the same charge against us in the following sentence:-"If Oh, away with such nonsense, and this in the nineteenth century. Talk of the seven sacraments of Rome! why, we have one in Protestant England that is not only quite as Popish, but, considering our additional enlightenment, more absurd. Reading this chapter in the Acts, the most simple reasoning in the world will show us-1st. That St. Peter fully understood our Lord's command to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c., to mean that no nation, Jew or Gentile, was to be excluded (not necessarily every individual in that nation), for we find him preaching to Parthians, and Medes, and Ethiopians, &c. 2nd. That these individuals who were commanded to "repent and be baptized" were all adults; for they heard what Peter said, felt it, and inquired what they should do. 3rd. That the apostles only deemed these men fit subjects for baptism if they repented, another condition impossible to an infant. 4th. That all those who hold infant baptism as authorized by the New Testament are in grievous error, inasmuch as this whole chapter of the Acts, especially including verses 37, 38, and 41, does prove to a reasonable mind that adults only were the subjects of baptism as understood by the apostle Peter; and that infants were necessarily excluded, for they could neither understand, nor speak, nor repent; and also because it is said, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized;"— clusive a mass of evidence, in my opinion, as the most scrupulous could require, to show that those who hold infant baptism are, in scripture estimation, grievously in the wrong. we cannot produce a single passage of scrip-mitting to the ordinance with tearless eyes! ture which plainly and positively institutes There is no mention that St. Peter did not the baptism of infants, neither can they find do all this; and it is just as clever to infer a single passage which plainly and positively that it was done in this case as in any other. excludes infants from this ordinance, and confines it to adults." I think my friend is mistaken, and the reader who has followed me even thus far will have had sufficient evidence to refute such a charge. I will, however, give a passage out of his own article, which he has brought in, I suppose, to strengthen his argument, but it will do exceedingly well for mine:-" Then Peter said unto them (who? a multitude of infants?), Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." What! infants repent and be baptized? Yes; for, according to J. F., this passage excludes rational individuals, and includes, of course, infants! Well, such reasoning being certainly infantine, we will leave it, and see what the context says. In Acts, chap. ii., it will be seen that individuals, "Parthians, Medes," &c., had come up to the feast at Jerusalem, and that, on the day of Pentecost, Peter addressed them, after which address it says, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them (these same strangers), Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ," &c. Now, these individuals Peter in addressing them said, "Repent, and be baptized." But, no; J. F. does not at all think this is in favour of adult baptism, for he brings it in to support infant baptism. Perhaps, then, these strangers brought their babes with them to Jerusalem? and perhaps they went hunting about for godfathers and godmothers for them amongst the Jews? and perhaps St. Peter's important address, beginning, "Men and brethren," was, after all, meant for them? and perhaps, to conclude, the apostle in a surplice sprinkled their faces with water, and made the sign of the cross? and perhaps, when it says, "they that gladly received his word were baptized," it referred to those little ones sub-rized by the Bible. were men. -as con In now leaving the matter with the reader, we may say that the discussion of the question, necessitating as it has done a reperusal of the scriptures bearing upon the subject, has greatly strengthened our conviction that adults, and those believers, are the only recipients of the ordinance of baptism autho AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. ALL dispensations which have God for their anthor must be regarded as spiritual in relation to the end they are designed to promote, J. W. W. namely, the salvation of man. But they are characterized by the quality of the means or appliances used for this end, since these must needs be adapted to the particular J. M. P. tells us "it is the bounden duty of genius and state of mankind, or that portion every one" to be baptized.* of mankind who sustain the functions of a church at any given period. The advent of our Lord was made at a time when mankind were prepared for a more spiritual dispensation than that vouchsafed to the children of Israel; accordingly, the dispensation then founded was eminently spiritual; for in virtue of its essentials, which are charity, faith, and a life according, it is spiritual par excellence, and this in contradistinction to the Mosaic dispensation, which in its intrinsic nature was ceremonial and typical-typical of Christianity, and therefore was it superseded by its antitype. We deem these preliminary remarks upon the essential nature of Christianity advisable, because it appears to us that a consideration of baptism, as an ordinance performed in connexion with the visible church of Christ, is necessary, since there is a difference of opinion in regard to its nature and use underlying this discussion, and requiring to be first settled, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the more immediate point at issue. For our own part, we regard baptism as a mere ceremony, having its foundation on an ecclesiastical, rather than a theological, basis; as such we cannot concede it to be an essential part of Christianity, which, as a spiritual system, addresses itself to and affects man's spiritual nature. But those who argue in favour of the negative side of the present question regard the ordinance of baptism in an assumed connexion with certain adjuncts, which affect, first, the nature of the ordinance, secondly, the eligibility of the subject; the result is, that they come to regard baptism as an authoritatively-enjoined duty, to the performance of which advanced Christians alone are adequate. These conclusions being diametrically opposed to our own, we proceed to test the validity of those adjuncts whereby our opponents arrive at them. First. That which affects the nature of the ordinance. "L'Ouvrier" alludes to baptism as a "positive precept," prescribing "the path of duty to the Christian," subsequently he designates it a "divine precept," to the same effect; "Annette" speaks of submitting to the rite of baptism as obeying this command of Christ;" and, lastly, Now, the only passage in the four gospels which can with any propriety be regarded as establishing the external ordinance of baptism (Matt. xviii. 19) does not substantiate this view of its nature, for there the command to baptize is given not to the disciple or proselyte, but to the apostles. Now, the apostles assembled at the mountain in Gallilee represented the church militant in all time, as is evident from the magnitude of the mission enjoined, "Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations ;" and from the extent of its duration, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end." Thus it is the duty of the church to bestow baptism on the proselyte, who receives it as a sign or token of a privilege-church membership-conferred. As such, it may in some sort be likened to the diadem which adorns a monarch's brow, as the symbol of royalty, or to the sceptre he wields, as the symbol of kingly power; hence the propriety of using it, in its ceremonial capacity, as the initiatory rite on admission into the external christian church. But the Baptists, according to "L'Ouvrier," regard baptism as a "pledge" on the part of the subject "that he believes;" or, according "Annette," "as a token that they lay aside their sins." But we demand, to whom does it constitute such a token or "pledge?" To God? It is not needed, for he sees the heart. To man? It is unsatisfactory thus regarded, for it is notorious to every reader of church history that the peculiar sentiments of Bap tists in regard to baptism have been held in connexion with heresies of the most pestilential nature-heresies which have excused, favoured, and even inculcated, an evil life. Baptist views of the use of baptism are, therefore, inadequate. It is conceded by our opponents that bap tism is a type and a ceremony. Now, it is in accordance with scriptural order and precedent, that a ceremonial type should be in use at a time anterior to the advent of its antitype. But "believer-baptism" implies the performance of the type in the very presence and ascendency of its antitype; clearly, therefore, it is not in harmony with the scriptures. A sort of eleventh commandment, we pre baptized, in the name," &c. sume, which might run thus:-"Thou shalt be B. S., in the course of his powerful article, | water"-"springing up unto everlasting life;" has shown "6 'believer-baptism" to be "im- and again, John vi. 35, he says, "He that possible;" and we may add that the attempt that believeth on me shall never thirst." to perform it consistently with the implied Now, bearing in mind the Lord's character conditions is impious, since it attempts to as "the Word" and "the Truth," we at once judge of a man's spiritual state-a judgment conclude to the spiritual signification of to which the Lord alone is adequate, and water as being truth, and specifically gospel which it is expressly forbidden man to truth. That the body of man represents his attempt (Matt. vii. 1). Whatever conclu- soul, in ceremonial observance, is too evident sion, therefore, may be arrived at in regard to need any comment in its support. That to infant baptism, here is an overwhelming the ceremonial application of water to the case against "believer-baptism," founded body for purificatory purposes signifies the upon the intrinsic nature of the ordinance of application of the Lord's teachings to the baptism. soul, or life principle, is evident from the particular significations of water and of the body in such a ceremony; also from the Lord's performance, as detailed in John xiii. 5-10, and from his words (John xv. 3), "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Our opponents, in their turn, would probably ask us to justify our sentiments in regard to baptism as they stand affected by the Lord's words, Mark xvi. 16, and John iii. 5, in which passages baptism appears to be made a condition of salvation. Our reply is, We hold the Lord's words to have a spiritual signification, according with the character which he himself has affixed to all his teachings. Thus he says (John vi. 63), "The words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life." Hence we are bound ever to look for a spiritual and life-giving sense in which to regard baptism; a sense which applies to the spiritual part of man's nature, and which can be supposed to be effective for eternal life. But the rite of baptism is performed on the perishable body of man; nor can external or bodily purification be regarded as in any way conducive to life eternal. We, therefore, repudiate the notion that the rite of baptism is the thing meant in the passage referred to, which, indeed, our opponents have no right to assume, even on the score of the bare literal sense, since there are other baptisms than that of water (as that of the Holy Ghost" and of "fire") mentioned in the gospels, any of which might be the "baptism" intended. Thus, from the signification of those particular types involved in baptism, we conclude to the signification of the concrete ceremony as shadowing forth those essential things in order to salvation, repentance and reformation; for repentance is a necessary condition of genuine reformation, which is effected by the application of christian principles to life; repentance is also necessary to the remission of sins; and all these conditions together are necessary to salvation. Therefore baptism is called (Mark i. 4) “the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins," and therefore the Lord said (Mark xvi. 16), "He that believeth and is baptized (i. e., spiritually) shall be saved." But Secondly. We proceed to test the validity of that condition which, according to Baptist notions, should invest the subject of baptism, namely, the condition of "belief," or saving faith, which is of a spiritual nature. we have already shown that a just consideration of the intrinsic nature of baptism, as a The genuine or spiritual signification of rite, directly militates against this notion of the rite of baptism, as practised by John our opponents; and our able ally, B. S., has the Baptist and the disciples of our Lord, is shown, in a manner which would be conto be gathered from a consideration of the clusive with an "unbiassed mind," that the component types which go to make up the genuine arguments to be derived from Matt. concrete ceremony. These types are water, xxviii. 19, and the numerous examples our the body of man, and the application of the opponents have quoted of the practice of bapwater, with a cleansing effect. We propose tism by the apostles, are all in favour of proto arrive at the genuine sense of these par-selyte-baptism, as contradistinguished from ticular types by the recognised rule of allow- "believer-baptism." There is an obvious ing scripture to interpret scripture. distinction between a proselyte or neophyte In John iv. 10, our Lord speaks of "living and a believer; yet J. M. P., while professedly criticising the article of B. S., neglects either to deal with the argument, or to reconcile the obvious conclusions from it with Baptist notions. We can only account for the omission either on the ground of obtuseness or of an intense party spirit, which prompts him to blink a point of such importance in its bearings on the general discussion, but which tells against his own cherished system. It remains for us to notice a piece of equivocal argumentation which pervades all the articles of our opponents. It exists in connexion with the term "disciple." It is certain that both proselytes and believers are in a certain sense disciples; but proselytes are not believers. Now, the argument of our opponents amounts to this,-our Lord commanded, and his apostles practised, discipleproselyte-baptism. Believers are disciples; therefore our Lord commanded, and the apostles practised, disciple-believer-baptism. The fallacy is too transparent to need a more formal refutation. But our opponents may exclaim, Admitting that the baptism which the Lord enjoined and the apostles practised was proselytebaptism, still this does not prove the case of infant baptism. You cannot proselyte infants, and there is no "direct" evidence that the children of proselytes were baptized with them. Now, this objection is a mere quibble. It was to be expected from the circumstances of a new dispensation, which was to be spread by proselytism, that the principal feature in its history would be the initiation of proselytes, in the present case by baptism, and that the subjects noticed personally in such a history would be adults; but the baptism of households-families-is recorded as being practised by the apostles; and nothing but a rampant party spirit would deny the extreme probability of such "households" containing both infants and children. Our opponents may be assured that, in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, this circumstance, so distinctly recorded, will always have its due weight in such a discussion as the present. And now we come to face the impossibilities, which our opponents are so eager to point out as lying in our path to infant baptism. We are tauntingly asked if we can make "believers," "disciples," "proselytes," "of infants?" J. M. P. inquires, in the same sense and spirit, but in less equivocal terms, "How are we to teach them?" "How are we to disciple them?" But let us see if there is not a sense in which children, or even infants, may be regarded as disciples, or learners. Thus, if we teach a child bis alphabet, in order that he may be able to read the Bible, may we not be represented, with perfect propriety, as teaching him to read the Bible? So, if we educate a child, even from the first rudimentary instructions, which must be the foundation of his future acquirements, in view of his attaining to a full knowledge of the christian doctrine, may we not with equal propriety be represented as teaching him Christianity? Hence there is a sense in which infants and children are learners, or disciples, in relation to Christianity. The only difference between the infant disciple and the adult proselyte-disciple is in the matter of will, which must be supposed to actuate the proselyte; this, however, is bespoken on behalf of the child by his christian parents, and is valid to such an extent that he cannot at any subsequent period assume a negative aspect in regard to christian truth without incurring the moral guilt of infidelity. But there is really no essential difference between a child's belief and the belief of most of the first converts to Christianity, in whose cases a miraculous element had place. Now, the effect of miracles, or any other element, as prophecy, which astonishes or "confounds," is to take away the freedom of the will-to force it to adopt certain conclusions. The faith, therefore, of the first proselytes to Christianity was a superinduced faith, and altogether similar in its nature to that faith or belief in Christianity which christian parents superinduct by education on their offspring. Having, on the one hand, disposed of those fictitious adjuncts with which Baptists would fain invest the rite of baptism, and the subject thereof; and, on the other hand, estab lished and defended our own views on thest fundamental points, we at length come to the immediate point at issue, "Is the prac tice of infant baptism in harmony with the scriptures?" This is, in effect, to ask, Do the scriptures sanction infants as the subjects of a ceremony? But the ceremony in question being the initiatory rite into the visible or external christian church, the question may be rendered, Is it in harmony with the scriptures to consider infants as eligible for |