The Rev. W. JAY uses language respecting Divine providence, assuredly applying to Divine precepts. He says, referring to the close of earthly affairs and the light that in eternity will be thrown on them: "We shall see that nothing was defective, nothing superfluous, nothing insignificant: that everything was necessary-nothing could be added to it-nothing could be taken from it. If we can ascertain that God has pursued any particular mode of action, we may immediately infer the rectitude of it from the acknowledged perfections of the Divine character; and there is no medium between this, and charging Him foolishly.””— Works, vol. ix., p. 103.

We do not assert our infallibility in the interpretation of God's Word, but in our inflexible adherence to immersion we do not accept the companionship given us by Dr. N. Macleod when, amidst much we can applaud, he says, on Paul's words: "I thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius;" "Strange words from a High Churchman'! or we may add, an equally 'High' Baptist." We dare not oppose the sentiment of the inspired John, or of his Lord and ours. "This is love, that we walk after His commandments" (2 Epis., ver. 6). "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (ver. 9). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John x. 27). "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John xv. 14).

$35.-FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION, THAT BAPTISTS ALLOW OF DEVIATIONS FROM GOD'S WORD IN POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS.

JOHN, THE APOSTLE.-"If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."-1st Epis., iii. 20.

Dr. WARDLAW. The case affords no ground of argument at all; and would never have been appealed to but for the want of better material "-Ch. Lec., p. 17.

J. A. JAMES. "There is no error so palpable even to common sense, but what may be defended with arguments so ingenious as to defy ordinary minds in the attempt to detect their fallacies and expose their sophistries. Truth is often with the weaker party, I mean weaker in the use of dialectic weapons. A skilful polemic may often make error appear more plausible than truth."Young Man's Guide, p. 109.

JOHN FOSTER.We should diligently aim at a true judgment of things, because our judgment is the rule by which conscience will proceed."-Lec., p. 271.

W. ARTHUR-Well may we raise the standard, emblazoned with the watchword, 'The church of Christ-Christ himself the great Head of the church-expects every man, every professing member and disciple to do his duty.'"-Ex. Hall Lec., p. 158. 1851.

Ox the "deflections" of the Baptists "from the literality of positive institutions" Dr. Halley dwells at some length; and Mr. Stacey affirms -as if we disputed with Pædobaptists on the mode and not the reality of baptism-that "it would be quite as easy to maintain that time enters into a scriptural participation of the Lord's Supper, as that mode belongs inseparably and essentially to baptism" (pp. 176, 177). Mr. Jerram also speaks of his "Baptist friends" as "substituting for a supper, a small piece of bread and a mouthful of wine" (p. 136). Also by some are mentioned the phylacteries of the Pharisees, as arising out of the literal observance of a Divine precept, and yet receiving the censure of our Lord; and the enactment of Holy Writ in reference to the Sabbath, whilst by Baptists generally, as well as by others, the first day of the week is observed; and the fact of baptism in apostolic times immediately succeeding the profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. As to the "holy kiss," the "kiss of charity," the words of the apostle may be understood, first, as enjoining it. If so, we are verily guilty, along with our Pædobaptist brethren; but our inconsistency in

sinfully becoming their associates in this particular, will never constitute their justification. Or, secondly, the apostle's words may be understood as simply intending that the salutation which was in use should be affectionate and holy, not sensual in its character. Thus the Pædobaptist Mr. Alsop writes: "The feasts of love and the holy kiss were not at all institutions of the apostles. All that the apostle determined about them was that, supposing in their civil congresses and converses they salute each other, they should be sure to avoid all levity, wantonness, all appearance of evil: for religion teaches us not only to worship God, but to regulate our civil actions in subordination to the great ends of holiness, the adorning of the Gospel, and thereby the glorifying of our God and Saviour" (Sober Inquiry, p. 285). Thus in substance numerous commentators, whom we deem it unnecessary to quote.

In regard to the Lord's Supper, the example of the evening as the time of its institution, is not a parallel case to immersion as compared with pouring or sprinkling. We say that immersion is enjoined, and that sprinkling or pouring is the adoption of a human substitute in disobedience to the Divine command. Had Christ commanded the commemoration of His death to take place in the evening of the day, it would have been on the same footing with immersion. We know not that any of our opponents believe in a Divine injunction to celebrate Christ's death in the evening. The adducing of a case which is so far from being parallel, and the calling of it an argumentum ad hominem, shows the nakedness of the land-its extreme poverty in regard to solid arguments against immersion. But we are further told, and by Dr. Halley: "A supper is a meal, so much food as is sufficient to refresh the body. The small quantity of bread and wine usually taken by each communicant is quite as much a pretence to a supper, a shadow of a meal, as is sprinkling a pretence to immersion, a shadow of a washing. If so small a quantity of bread is yet sufficient for a ritual observance called the supper, why is not so small a quantity of water as we commonly use sufficient for a ritual observance called baptism?" (p. 249.) What logic! The Lord's Supper, except when abused, was never in the common acceptation of the word a supper at all-never a meal. It was instituted and first partaken of after a meal, after the passover. In accordance with its first observance and its commemorative design are Paul's instructions and rebukes to the Corinthians. What is taught in the indignant question, "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" It may have been called a supper, from the time when it was instituted; and that name we prefer to either breakfast or dinner, sacrament or eucharist; whilst some prefer feast as the rendering of the original, deeming it more correct. But how blinding are prepossessions which can lead intelligent men to speak of the Lord's Supper being "no longer observed as a meal"!

Mr. D. WALLACE, replying to Mr. A. G., says: "Referring to the Lord's Supper you tell us (p. 49), that the Greek deipnon was a substantial repast and an evening feast; and with Dr. Halley, you bid the Baptist first cast the beam out of his own eye, and not celebrate a breakfast instead of a supper. If you read the account of the institution of the ordinance, you will have no difficulty in seeing the use which Christ makes of deipnon. He applies it to a little bread and a little wine. Show us that Christ applied baptizo to a little water, and your argument will be of some

use.

We do not celebrate a breakfast instead of a supper. And any school-boy will let you know that the Greek deipnon was not our supper, but the principal meal of the day, and that Homer (Iliad, viii. 53) even gives it to his heroes in the forenoon. I deny that sprinkling expresses the thing signified' (p. 53) in baptism, and therefore think there is no parallel between it and the shaking of hands, in place of the holy kiss. We observe the institution of the supper literally, according to our Lord's example; and also, the washing of the disciples' feet, whenever it is needed. With the principle which you defend, that a man may treat with indifference what God commands, I have no sympathy, and can give it no countenance. I hold that whatever is certainly enjoined in Scripture ought to be exactly obeyed."-Vind., pp. 9, 10.

Mr. D. FRASER teaches that "no one thinks it necessary" "that there should be provided for it [the Lord's Supper], or used in it, the abundance of an ordinary meal." "And so it must be with regard to the sacrament of baptism. Although called a baptism, and although it could be proved that baptizo signifies to dip, yet still it is not to be supposed that an actual immersion is enjoined by it.' He teaches that "the reason why it [baptizo], and not another word, was chosen to designate the ordinance, appears to have been, because, while sufficiently indicating both the nature of the ordinance, and that it was to be administered by sprinkling, it had in it the further idea of abundance—such an abundance as might occasion even a submersion."-On Bap., pp. 26-28.

In reference to the phylacteries of the Pharisees we observe, first, that the Pharisees of our Saviour's time might not have been reproached for them, if their humble disposition and holy conduct had corresponded with God's law, instead of being in flagrant opposition thereto. It is indeed expressly asserted that they did all their works TO BE SEEN OF MEN (Matt. xxiii. 5). If the command of the Old Testament be understood as to be literally regarded, the reproof of Christ applies to the motives of the Pharisees, and not to the wearing of phylacteries, or even the making of them broad. Secondly, it is not evident that the Divine law to bind the words of God for a sign upon their hands, to have them as frontlets between their eyes, and to write them upon the posts of their houses, and on their gates, was ever intended to be literally and universally observed.

Dr. R. JAMIESON, on the example Christ has left us in washing the feet of His disciples, says: "The principle which, by His amiable conduct, He intended to inculcate upon them, was evidently this, that, as in those warm regions, to wash the feet of a friend on his arrival from a tedious and fatiguing journey, was one of the most grateful offices of real kindness, so they should manifest the spirit of love to their brethren, by their readiness to stoop to any service, however humble or mean, which the customs of the age and country, or other circumstances, have established as an act of generous and substantial regard.”—East. Man., N. T., p.

244.

In reference to a present observance of the first, and not the seventh day of the week, we maintain that Scripture, without enjoining this, gives it encouragement and sanction. For sprinkling or pouring as a substitute for immersion, we contend that there is none in any part of Holy Writ.

That baptism in apostolic times immediately succeeded the profession of faith in the Lord Jesus, we cannot deny. And the attempted justification of delay, from the difference betwixt the present and apostolic times, appears to us unsatisfactory, and from Baptists decidedly inconsistent. It is stated that when the profession of Christianity exposed to scorn and persecution, there was less probability of insincerity than

at the present time. Suppose that this is granted to its fullest extent, the following facts still exist. 1. If the decision of a church is that the candidate shall wait three or six months after the profession of repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, a candidate, if under the influence of sinister motives, could wear the mask till beyond the expiration of either of these periods. 2. God does not, and never did require that we should search the heart. 3. It is maintained by Baptists generally that we ought to observe the order which by our Saviour is believed to be observed in His commission. It is not doubted that the first duty is to make disciples; that this precedes baptizing them; and that they are further to be instructed to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. If there is no delay in teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, must they not necessarily be taught their duty to be baptized? Is not the neglect of this a violation of the Divine directory? 4. If it is said that, on account of the temptations to which they are exposed, it is well to test their decision and its firmness, their regeneration and its fruits; is not the course in its own nature cruel and suicidal? To make a twig hardy, do we let it remain exposed for some days after it has been severed from the tree, before we implant it and surround it with the earth from which moisture has to be derived, or before we engraft it into another tree? Are new-born babes kept from the breast in order that life and vigour may be tested? It is by no means maintained that in all things there is a parallel betwixt animal and spiritual life. But for the adoption of delay we know of no reason better than that expediency which has been justly reprobated. The Word of God does not, that we are aware of, give any intimation of a delay becoming expedient at any future time. 5. Also churches by this practice pronounce an opinion, at least by implication, which we believe to be beyond what the Word of God or the spiritual welfare of the candidate demands. Baptism does not appear to us to be in Scripture the church's testimony to the belief of piety in the person baptized. It is the candidate's own declaration of faith in Jesus who died for him and rose again; it is his own profession of death unto sin, of burial with Christ, and of resurrection to newness of life. We will not say that the practice of delay is an unmixed evil; but may it not tend eternally to deceive those who are deceiving themselves, and to confirm in feebleness those who are weak? It is certain that simple delay cannot keep the designing out of the church of Christ, and that an exclusion from ordinances originating in Divine wisdom and infinite love, adapted to confirm all that is good, and wisely and graciously intended for the nourishment and invigoration of the new-born soul, and of the elder sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, cannot in its natural tendency promote a growing up into Jesus Christ, the living Head, in all things. Instead of early baptism being inconsistent with the purity of the church, we incline to the belief that, if discipline was properly carried out, even with us such an early administration of the solemn, significant, and to some extent self-denying ordinance of immersion, would not lower the church's morality or lessen its dignity. We do not however deem it scriptural to baptize any but those who in the judgment of charity may be deemed sincere in their profession of repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

§ 36.-FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION FROM THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE LORD'S TABLE.

J. A. JAMES.-"The equal mental power with which opposing systems are maintained, is to a mind unskilled in dialectics, and unable to detect the fallacies which lurk, and the sophistries which abound, in erroneous ratiocination, often very trying."-Young Man's Guide, p. 108.

Dr. W. CUNNINGHAM.These are some of the means by which they prejudice the minds of well-meaning . people."-Lec. on Est., p. 17.

Dr. CARSON."I read the Word of God, not to find a sanction for the practice of any churchnot to find a sanction for my own practice; but to know what God requires, that to this I may conform my practice."-In Tes. of Em. Pæd., p. 8.

Dr. R. VAUGHAN."There is an aversion to change, by which some others are liable to be deterred from moving in the right path."-Cong. Lec., p. 26.

It is maintained by several of our opponents that for the admission of women to the Lord's Table we have neither express command nor express precedent in Holy Writ. That an argument so "worthless" should, in the circumstances of our brethren, and amid other assertions that have been noticed, be adduced, excites within us no astonishment. It is not denied that when the Samaritans "believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts viii. 12). It is not disbelieved that women became members of churches (1 Cor. xi., &c.); that Christians, male and female, "are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 28; Acts i. 14); and that men and women, members of Christ's body, were admitted to the Lord's table: but it is thought that the precedent is not expressly recorded in Holy Writ. We believe not only that the record of the baptism and membership of women, and of their oneness in Christ Jesus with the other sex, is evidence of their admission to the supper of the Lord; but that we have express precedent recorded. Let any one looking back to Acts i. 13, 14, say what is the antecedent to "they" and "all" in Acts ii. 42, 44, 46. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,

and in prayers." "And all that believed were together." "And they,

continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness," &c. Will our friends dare to deny the relevancy of the noun for which the pronoun stands; or of the record, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren"? (Acts i. 14.) Again, we maintain that in the apostle Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians there is a record of precedent, if not of precept also. The verb "show" in the twenty-sixth verse may be rendered in the indicative or the imperative mood, as the margin testifies to the English reader, the word being in Greek exactly the same for both. But that the apostle in the former part of the chapter is speaking of men and women is evident; and to us it appears that he is certainly referring to the same persons, when he says, "that ye come together" (ver. 17); "when ye come together in the church" (ver. 18); "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you' (ver. 23. For "any man," in the sixteenth verse, the original is simply tis, meaning any one, male or female). Though none but male disciples, the apostles, were present at the institution of this ordinance, the apostle applies the words of Christ, "Do this in remembrance of me," to the