the first-fruits of them that slept;" "Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming." Then He "shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto himself." It may here be mentioned that we do not maintain the necessity of baptism taking place on the Lord's day, or before a large congregation, the publicity of the ordinance being increased, as is sometimes the case, by an announcement on the previous Lord's day. Some advantages, and greater evils, we believe to result from the unnecessary publicity and parade which some Baptists give to this ordinance. Apostolic baptisms appear to have taken place at the earliest convenient place and time. There is a medium betwixt being ashamed of Christ, and making an exhibition of our taking upon us a scriptural profession of Christianity. The "fancy" of Mr. Stacey that baptism is, first, a monument of the Christian Pentecost, and, thirdly, a seal of the everlasting covenant, we reject for the total want of inspired evidence. His secondly, that haptism is a symbol of saving truth, we have admitted, without consenting to what Mr. S., on this, has said in detail.

It may be asked, Do you never baptize hypocrites? To which we answer, that very probably we do, but not knowingly; and we do not believe that God requires from us that we should search the heart, and invade His prerogative. We believe that Pædobaptists, as well as ourselves, admit hypocrites to the Lord's Supper, and possibly also into the pulpit.

It may be said that we make too much of the design of baptism, as we do of baptism altogether. Can this come from Pædobaptist lips? The probability is that we make too little of baptism. We make infinitely less of baptism than do the great bulk of Pædobaptists. We who confine baptism to the professing believer, do practically make less of baptism than any of the Pædobaptists, although we never speak of the Divine ordinance in terms so contemptuous and reprehensible as do some of them. We do not wish, however, to draw our creed from the formularies of Rome, or of the Church of England, or from the catechisms of Protestant Dissenters. Dr. H. maintains that "a burial in water must have appeared to the ancients the most incongruous of symbols" (p. 263*); that "the representation of a burial is inconsistent with the symbol of the sanctification of the spirit" (p. 263); "that in baptism there is no representation of the burial of a believer with Christ;" yea more, he says, "We must maintain that baptism is nothing else than the use of water (use it how you please) as the sign of the sanctification of the soul, because we believe that to represent it in any other view leads to lamentable perversion, or gross caricature of evangelical truth" (p. 268). We firmly believe that Dr. H., or any other, holding the sentiments that the only truth symbolized in baptism must be the sanctification of the soul, and that baptism must be the use of water in any way you like, would never have written, in the words of the apostle, "We are buried with Him by haptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the

* In the same page he says, "The Fathers, it is true, early adopted this opinion of a burial by immersion."

glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." We further believe that the wide difference between the sentiments above-quoted from Dr. H., and those quoted from the apostle of the Gentiles, necessarily "leads to lamentable perversion and gross caricature of evangelical truth." And, notwithstanding the "convenience" of believing that if we pour, sprinkle, sponge, wash, or wet in any way, and to any extent, the face or head, the heel or hand, the nose or ear, the toe or finger, it is Christian baptism; for in using water as we please, any of these might be Christian baptism; and, notwithstanding the "ease" to the memory in remembering that Christian baptism is intended exclusively "as the sign of the sanctification of the soul," we intend, the Lord helping, to adhere to the apostle of the Gentiles, and to the other inspired writers, both in regard to the exclusive import of the term, unaltered when adopted by the sacred writers, and in regard to the instructive and enlarged significance of the ordinance. We regard our friends as chargeable with credulity in believing without the least evidence in so great a transmutation of the meaning of a common word, used not in exclusive application to a Christian ordinance; and though we admit with Baxter, that "we must not take liberty, upon our own fancies, to add new ends to God's ordinances," we regard those of our opponents who believe, in opposition to Rom. vi. 2-5, that baptism is significant only of cleansing from sin, as chargeable with incredulity. A changing of the subjects of baptism, and the substitution of another action for that which God has ordained, render the present application of Holy Writ inconvenient even to our learned opponents till "after patient inquiry." To those of ordinary leisure and common attainments, we presume that in this world there is never effected a reconciliation of Pædobaptist sentiments and practice with the baptisms by John and Philip; with the language of Rom. vi. 2-5, and Col. ii. 12; or with Paul's language, when he says, " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" or with Peter's language, when he speaks of baptism as "the answer of a good conscience toward God."

SECTION II.

ON THE UTILITY OF BAPTISM.

J. A. HALDANE." Our obligation to observe" Divine ordinances "does not rest on our opinion of their suitableness or of the benefit which we are likely to receive from them. They are all enjoined by the Lord, and if we observe them from regard to His authority, we shall experience the blessing connected with them. If a man love me,' said Jesus, 'he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him' (John xiv. 23). Thus He has connected our growth in grace, and our experience of His power to save, with obedience to His commandments."-Soc. Wor., p. 435.

Canon STOWELL.-"The minds of multitudes are utterly at sea as to the purpose, the nature, and the benefit of baptism."-In Tes. of Em. Pæd., pp. 68, 69.

Dr. J. CAMPBELL." As things now generally stand, the Padobaptist theory... is every way unprofitable, and nothing supports it but blind custom."-Jethro, p. 221.

Dr. TWEEDIE.-"What are the benefits that are actually derived from baptism? Let it be scrupulously observed that no benefits can be enjoyed by any but believers."--On Bap., pp. 25, 26. It is difficult for error to be consistent."--On The Sac., p. 87.

inquiry should be, What is God's will? not, Why is it His will?"

WITHOUT denying the truth of Dr. Henry Ward Beecher's declaration that "when laws, customs, or institutions cease to be beneficial to man, they cease to be obligatory" (Life Thoughts, p. 34), we may assert our conviction that an ordinance which God has ordained for our observance "unto the end of the world," will never cease to be beneficial. Baptism is useful as a profession of Christianity, in which ordinance there are a recognition and worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as one God, and a most significant and impressive confession of defilement and sin, of an entire and loathing renunciation of self, of a cordial reception of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, and of an entire consecration to the triune Jehovah. Baptism is useful as a test of obedience to Christ, and as a separation of the church from the world. It can only, however, be useful to all this extent, when the profession of faith in the Lord Jesus is regarded as a pre-requisite to baptism. The Divine immersion is more self-denying, more solemn and impressive, more significant and more promotive of watchfulness, steadfastness, and consistency, than the human sprinkling. On the utility of baptism in all the respects mentioned, we shall not enlarge. Our Pædobaptist friends go far beyond ourselves on the utility of baptism. Its necessity to salvation is maintained by the Romanist. The Established Church of England teaches that it regenerates and is generally necessary to salvation; and, in the Burial Service, classes the unbaptized with the excommunicate and selfmurderers. Among Pædobaptist Dissenters there is the greatest variety of sentiment: some extolling baptism in the strongest terms, and others speaking of it in a degrading and contemptuous manner.

Dr. WILLIAMS has spoken of it as "the cleansing rite," "the Christian purification," "a confirmation of the testamentary grant,” “a seal of the first promise, "a confirming token of initiation into that state wherein we may say, 'The Lord is our God, and we are His people,'" and "God's confirming seal to the truth and contents of the Gospel." Speaking of salvation, he describes baptism as "the seal which authenticates that salvation in the most unequivocal form;" yea, he says concerning himself: "This invaluable blessing is directed to me by name, ever since I have borne the name of my Saviour, received at my baptism:" "Am I a baptized person? He hath put His own name upon me; and His language in effect is, I will be thy God, thy Father, thy everlasting portion.'' Again: The holy God is the God of thy infancy; the holy Saviour is the Saviour of thy infancy; the holy church is the house of thy infancy; the holy angels are the guards of thy infancy; and thy holy baptism was a solemn and express entrance on all these holy relations and connections." * What privileges and honours immediately accrue to babies on being baptized! Well may Dr. W. applaud the language of M. Henry to a Christian parent: "Be thankful that you have a child admitted from its birth into the bosom of the church, and under the wing of the Divine Majesty." He says: "Our children, as the children of the covenant and baptized, have a peculiar right to the means of conversion." We should not have expected conversion to be needed after an admission to the privileges and relations spoken of: but it is a great blessing to children, through their parents, to "have a peculiar right to the means of conversion"! Those parents are privileged in no ordinary degree-if the principle on which they reckon has but the authority of Divine revelation-who can say: "Our infants, therefore, being, according to our principle, in covenant with God, are entitled to the Bible and all the contents thereof "!"Our children, even from infancy, by our principles, are entitled by a covenant-right to all those

* See these, and more resembling them, in Antipo, vol. i., pp. 136, 225, 265, 281, 342, 367, 401; vol. ii., pp. 242, 243, 259, 268, 269, 274, 286, 307, 309, 313, 323, 324, 330, 335, 341.

precious emoluments which accrue therefrom"! (See vol. ii., pp. 255, 256, 283, 324, 325.) He does not apparently conceive of the blessings being granted to him years after his baptism when an infant, and certainly not of the blessings sealed to him by baptism, as terminating in infancy: "Was I baptized in infancy? How highly have I been honoured, how greatly benefited! For from that early period has the pardon of sin, free salvation, eternal life, with every new covenant blessing, been sealed to me"! He speaks of baptism as conferring a legal right to spiritual and everlasting blessings by a deed of gift directed, signed, sealed, and delivered to the baptized finant! Speaking of his own baptism in infancy, he says: "I was added to the church; I was then constituted a visible member of Christ; I was then put in the way I should go; I was then visibly engrafted into Christ"!" Are not these high privileges? This time of my espousals was, indeed, a time of unmerited, unsolicited love. From a state of distance I was brought near; from a stranger Í was made a fellow-citizen with the saints, and of the household of God." (See vol. i., pp. 131-139.)

These blessings flow upon unconscious babes, incapable of moral agency, from the "ceremonial purification by water"! What awful guilt rests upon those parents who knowingly deprive their children of these inestimable privileges! It is not to be wondered that Dissenting ministers should be called from their beds to administer baptism to infants whose illness might have a fatal termination before the sun again rises. If this directing of persons to the use of water upon them when they were unconscious babes, is consistent with glorying only in the cross of Christ, and pointing only to the Lamb of God, we are mistaken; although we doubt not that on other occasions Dr. W. spoke most correctly of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The representation by Hooker, of baptized "infants as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion towards the actual habit of faith," is vastly outdone by Dr. W. He also teaches that "from Christian baptism results the obligation to repentance; to destroy the body of sin; of newness of life and heavenly-mindedness," &c. But enough from him who could also say, "Water baptism is very well in its place." Let any reader call to remembrance a Baptist who ever made so much of baptism.

The Rev. Richard Watson, justly esteemed by Wesleyans and others, has written on the design and utility of baptism that of which we cordially approve, and that from which we strongly dissent. He says:

"Baptism is an initiation into, and acceptance of, the covenant of grace, required of us by Christ as a visible expression and acceptance of that faith in Him which He has made a condition of that salvation." If he had said that baptism was a visible expression of our believing acceptance of Him, we should perfectly have accorded with him. He says that "the church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized, and who thereby make a visible profession of faith in His Divine mission, and in all the doctrines taught by Him and His inspired apostles." That baptism has such a design and benefit, we firmly believe; although the consistency of this with the baptism of infants and the unregenerate we have not yet perceived. He says, on which we choose to make no comment, that “baptism is the outward sign of our entrance into God's covenant of mercy, and that when it is an act of true faith it becomes an instrument of salvation; like that act of faith in Noah, who prepared an ark to the saving of his house." He also says that "baptism is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual blessings, and to take upon ourselves all its obligations."

We regard baptism not as the initiatory act by which we enter into God's covenant, but rather as the initiatory and external act by which we profess our entrance by faith, our believing acceptance of spiritual,

ADDITA.

inestimable, and unmerited blessings, and our obligations and decision henceforth to live to God. benefit said to result from baptism: "It secures, too, the gift of the Holy And we strongly dissent from the following Spirit in those secret spiritual influences by which the actual regeneration of those children who die in infancy is effected." (See Insti., vol. iii., p. 515.) Regeneration, not in baptism, but after and through baptism, on condition that they die in infancy! Where in God's Word is this recorded? Also, we dissent from Mr. Wesley's assertion that "baptism, administered to real penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon," notwithstanding that we are repeatedly charged with making too much of baptism.

POOLE speaks of "baptism, in which the external washing represents, seals, and exhibits the internal cleansing from both the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood of Christ."-Com., on Eph. v. 26.

MATTHEW HENRY says: "Such are the privileges which attend the ordinance, that if our Master had bid us do some great thing, would we not have done it, rather than come short of them? much more when He only saith unto us, Wash, and be clean; wash, and be Christians." out of the hands of the strong man armed, that the possession may be surrendered 'Baptism wrests the keys of the heart to Him whose right it is," &c.—Tre. on Bap., pp. 12, &c.

66

Dr. Halley and Mr. Stacey equally oppose the destructive error of expecting salvation through the efficacy of the sacraments. cludes his volume with a chapter on the Benefits of the Sacraments, in Mr. S. conwhich he beautifully expresses varied truth and some errors. He teaches that a despising of the sacraments "is much to be deplored. It dishonours the wisdom that ordained, and overlooks the mercy that attends them." He says "that the sacraments serve historically as confirmations of our belief in the truth of the Christian records. They belong to the great cloud of witnesses' which, with unimpeachable veracity, attest that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. They give evidence of the facts to which they relate as undeniable as that which is given by any national festival or periodic celebration to the single event it is specially set apart to keep in mind. No modern date can be assigned to their first observance" (p. 348). He also speaks of them as "badges of Christian profession." He condemns the careless manner in which children are given up to the ceremony of baptism. But how a person, whose baptism took place when he was an unconscious babe, can be reminded, on witnessing other baptisms, "of his engagement to put on Christ" (p. 351), we do not know. Nor were we previously aware that irreverence and indifference in regard to infant baptism by parents are the reason why any children are "of the number of those who are estranged from the womb, and go astray as soon as they be born'" (pp. 353, 354). The error of the Baptists, viewed in the light of this sentiment, has a very serious aspect, unless an entire neglect, with a conscientious contempt of the ceremony, is a less disadvantage than its improper observance. Also, in our simplicity, we have not been accustomed to think either that the children of the pious came into the world with another nature, distinct from that depraved one which belongs to other children, nor that infant baptism changed their nature. We have not regarded David as charging his mother or father with unre