The parent's repentance and faith, and not the child's, are the pre-requisites in this case, and though the same solemn confession and vows are not made, is there not sponsorship nevertheless?

I do not wonder that a shrewd, intelligent boy, when he had been taught by his schoolmaster that repentance and faith were required of persons to be baptised, and was then asked, in the language of the Church Catechism, "Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?" adroitly answered, "Why indeed, Sir!" Is it not at once more scriptural and more rational to defer baptism, as in all but the Greek Church it is customary to defer the reception of the Lord's Supper, until the candidate knows what he is doing, and can make it his own voluntary and intelligent act? Baptism is then "the answer of a good conscience," the witnessing of "a good confession." It is the initial step in an open, shameless Christian life, which may be consistently followed by the observance of whatsoever Christ has commanded besides. Then the candidate may be urged to a holy and obedient life, not on the ground of what others, unauthorised, vowed and promised for him, but on the ground of what he has himself openly professed. He may be reminded that he has avowed himself a disciple of Christ, and should uniformly follow Him; that he has declared himself a subject of Christ, and should ever obey His laws, and strive to promote the honour of His kingdom. It is thus the Apostles' appeal to their Christian hearers and readers. They remind none of them, as we hear many of the clergy doing to-day, that solemn Vows were made for them, and that they should now relieve their sponsors and fulfil these promises made for them. They say, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ"; and urge them to a new and heavenly life because they have been "buried with Christ in baptism," and have risen, professedly, "to a newness of life." They are never reminded that their parents or others believed for them when they were unable through their tender age to believe for themselves, as we might have expected, if some of them had been baptized simply because of the faith of their parents. They are all alike addressed as those who have made a voluntary personal profession, and are required to act consistently with it.

Here, then, is one very important difference between us and most Pædobaptists, who sometimes playfully tell us that the

main difference between us and them is a question of whether there should be a little more or a little less water used in baptism. If this were all it would scarcely be worth contending for; but it is of some consequence whether one may repent and believe for another, and whether that other is to be baptized and admitted into the Christian Church because his parents or sponsors profess faith on his behalf, or promise it for him; or whether he is to be required to yield himself to the ordinance as an act of loyalty to Christ and an evidence that he is not ashamed of his Lord and Master, his fellow disciples, and the ordinance. For ourselves we do not hesitate which to prefer.

IX.-AUTHORITY IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITII.

"That the authority of men should prevail with men against or above reason, is no part of our belief. Companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto reason, the weight thereof is no whit prejudiced by the simplicity of his person who doth allege it, but being found to be sound and good, the bare opinion of men to the contrary, must of necessity stoop and give place."-HOOKER.

The Twentieth Article of the Church of England asserts that the Church hath "authority in controversies of faith." Is not this essentially Popish? Does it not require the infallibility which the Church of Rome alone openly professes. The same Article does indeed say that it is not lawful to ordain anything contrary to Scripture, and that it may not "so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." But what of that? If she has authority in controversies of faith, she has power to say what is or is not contrary to Scripture, who shall dare to covince her that her interpretations are inconsistent? When authority steps in, she leaves no more room for discussion and inquiry. What then becomes of the right of private judgement? If we admit the authority we must bow to it, whether we are satisfied with its decision or not. It will, however, only silence us, or perhaps prevent that further study which is favourable to intelligence and good understanding.

No Church has shown itself fit hitherto to exercise authority in controversies of faith. And those which have claimed it have damaged themselves, discouraged the spirit of inquiry,

and injured the truth which they professed a desire to promote. The Church of Rome and the Church of England have both been guilty of many horrible and revolting cruelties, and shed rivers of blood in enforcing their own decisions. And yet, by all their violence they were not able to prevent differences of opinion, nor to put an end to controversies. The manner in which this authority has been exercised might find many illustrations which are calculated to shock any man with a sense of what is just and right. Sometimes argument has been tried first, and when that has been proved too weak, stronger weapons have been assumed.

Take the case of Thomas Delanne, a gentleman who was much respected and esteemed by those who knew him, as a pious, learned, and exemplary man. Dr. Calamy, one of the royal chaplains to Charles II., published a sermon entitled "A Scrupulous Conscience," in which he challenged the Nonconformists to a discussion of the points of difference between them and the Church of England. Delanne accepted the challenge, and wrote his "Plea for the Nonconformists," handling the subject with consumate ability. Before the work was finished, however, it was seized by a King's messenger, and its author was lodged in among the common prisoners, with a bench for his bed and two bricks for his pillow. Thence he was removed to Newgate, which was so horrid a place and had such horrid company, that it reminded him of hell. While waiting his trial he wrote to Dr. Calamy, asking him for his friendly mediation. He reminded the doctor that he had invited discussion, and that the "Plea for Nonconformists" had been undertaken in response to his challenge, and stating that he would fain be persuaded by "something more like Divinity than Newgate," and that he had expected the Doctor would act the part of a divine, and visit him in his confinement to argue him out of his doubts, which, said he, your promised Scripture and reason might easily do, but not a mittimus or a Newgate. "To the former I can easily yield, to the latter it seems I must. This is a severe kind of logic, and will probably dispute me out of the world." But Calamy was deaf to his appeal, and exercised no influence on his behalf. Dalanne was tried at the Old Bailey in January, 1684, "for a certain false, seditious, and scandalous libel against the King and the Book of Common Prayer." He entreated that the charge should be fully investigated, that he should be judged, not by scraps and bits of sentences, but by a continued discourse, and promised to yield

if any of the leading men of the Church could confute him, but protested that otherwise it was very hard. But hard as it was Judge Jeffreys pronounced sentence against him. He was fined 100 marks, and ordered to be kept in prison for one year, to find sureties for his good behaviour for another year, and his books were to be burnt before the Royal Exchange. The sentence consigned him to a slow martyrdom. He was unable, in consequence of his expensive trial and long imprisonment, to pay the fine. He continued in close confinement fifteenmonths, and suffered great hardships by extreme poverty, which was only relieved by the contributions of kind friends, who came to see him. At length, worn out by his imprisonment and various distresses, he died in prison. His wife and two children, who, having no other means of subsistence, had been compelled to reside with him there, had died before him. And thus he found how serious a matter it was, in the days of Charles II., to exercise private judgment, in face of a church that claimed authority in controversies of faith. "I am sorry to say," says Defoe, "he is only one of 8,000 Protestant Dissenters that perished in prison in the days of that merciful prince, King Charles II., and that merely for dissenting from the Church in points for which they could give no such reasons as this plea assigns, and for no other cause were stifled, I had almost said murdered, in gaols, for their religion."

It is dangerous, then, to acknowledge that any Church possesses this authority, lest, when it has the power, it should use it thus arbitrarily and harshly. The right of private judgment, generally recognised and universally enjoyed, is liable to no such abuse. It may lead to diversity of opinion, but this is better than a stagnant, lifeless uniformity. Truth will be more likely to be promoted by free discussion than by an increasing and unreasonable authority. And we hold that all true Protestants should protest against the assumption of the latter by any Church whatever, as utterly inconsistent with that right of private judgment which is the foundation of all true Protestantism.

If the Church has authority in controversies of faith, she may well object to circulate the Scriptures without note or comment, and prefer to accompany it with notes which shall be as binding, and in a sense even more binding than the Scriptures themselves. Some clergymen in the Church of England act consistently with this Article in not supporting the British and Foreign Bible Society. They seem to have more faith in the

authority of the Church than in private judgment, simply aided by the Holy Spirit, given in answer to prayer. They only claim for their own Church that which the Reformers denied to the Church of Rome. But their Protestantism is less robust and consistent, and their service to the cause of religion less valuable than it would be if they simply appealed to each man's judgment and conscience, and made him feel that he was responsible to use his best endeavours to understand the Scriptures for himself.

X.-POWER TO DECREE CEREMONIES.

"It is equally presumptuous and vain, to trust for doctrines the commandments or inventions of men."-ARCH. HALL.

The Twentieth Article of the Church of England says, "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies." We ask what Church? the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, or any independent Church? If it is some of these, who is to decide which? No doubt each will think itself quite as much entitled to power as either of the others, perhaps a little more. And so unholy jealousy and contention may be encouraged. If each of them has power to decree, then one may decree what another may disallow, or even prohibit: then that will be right in one community which is wrong in another, simply on the authority of the several Churches. But if only one be allowed to possess the power, neither will concede it to the other. And if any one should claim it for the Church universal, then how is the voice of the Church to be ascertained? There never has been any council which fully represented the whole Church. The most that could be done would be to get together representatives of the Church of one time. But why should the Church of one age make decrees for all ages? Baptists deny that the Church has this power, whatever or wherever the Church may be. They assert that no rites and ceremonies are binding upon men but such as have the authority and sanction of the Scriptures. And this must surely follow from the sufficiency of the Scriptures to decide matters of faith and practice. We are forbidden to add to or take away from what is written in God's Word. In things not there enjoined there must be liberty. The reasoning of the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans is applicable to all