Cause they promise repentance and faith by their sureties-is by many pædobaptists considered to be not only unscriptural, but absurd.

Similar differences prevail among Pædobaptists concerning the design and benefits of baptism. Some maintain that it is regenerating, and others as strongly deny it, and denounce the doctrines of baptismal regeneration as a great perversion of Christianity. Thus, F. W. Roberston says, "It is materialism of the grossest kind," and "is degrading God," who "must," according to this theory of regeneration, "await attendance on the caprice of a careless parent, ten thousand accidents, nay, the leisure of an indolent or an immoral priest." He then asks, "Will you dare insult the Majesty on high by such a mockery as this result?" Alas, many, and an increasing number in Mr. Robertson's own church, do.

Some hold that baptism makes the baptized person a child of God; others that it only reveals and authoritatively declares a previously existing fact and relationship. Some assert that it washes away original and actual sin; and others that it only symbolises such a purification; some, that it introduces into the Church and all its spiritual blessings; and others that it initiates only to the external privileges of the Church, which baptized persons may either use to their salvation, or neglect and abuse to their ruin.

Thus there is no position taken up by a Pædobaptist that is not disputed by other Pædobaptists. Each of our opponents is answered by his own brethren. Some concede one point for which we contend, and some another, until everything is conceded which we deem of importance in favour of our own views and practice. We can consequently produce the testimony of Pædobaptists that the primary meaning of the Greek for baptism is immersion; that immersion was practised in the ancient church, and is retained in the modern Greek Church; that burial with Christ in baptism is an allusion to immersion; that there is no connection or analogy between circumcision and baptism; no warrant to baptize infants in the Great Commission; no proof that infants were baptized in the households mentioned in the New Testament; no justification of infant baptism in the federal holiness of the children of believers; in short, no precept, nor precedent, nor principle in the New Testament which requires infant baptism; while others admit that the Church has no power to decree rites and ceremonies, and that nothing can be binding upon us as Christians that is not taught in Scripture. Thus, too, all for which we contend

concerning the design of baptism has been conceded at different times and by different persons, namely, that it is symbolic, educational, an ordinance of profession, an act of loyalty to Christ, and of no value except as it is accompanied by faith.

But among Baptists there are no such differences. They not only agree in practice, but in their views of the nature of the ordinance, the pre-requisites, the proper subjects, the truth it symbolises, the faith it is intended to manifest, the obedience and love to Christ from which it should spring, and the life by which it must be consistently followed. Almost the only difference among them is, as far as we know, in the question whether it is absolutely requisite as a condition of communion, a dispute which is by no means confined to the Baptists, and one which, perhaps, has more to do with the qualifications for admission to the Lord's Supper.

We do not say that the disagreement of our Pædobaptist brethren proves them to be all wrong, nor that the substantial agreement which prevails among ourselves proves us to be all right; but when we find so many laboured arguments employed by our opponents in justification of their practice of infant baptism, and see that the validity of these arguments is in every case strongly denied by those who agree with the practice attempted to be justified, we do think that we may set them to answer one another, and cannot help noticing, as favourable to our own views, that it is much easier for them to expose the defects and fallacies of other theories than to consistently maintain a theory of their own. We commend this consideration, not so much to those who have taken up a position, and have been long engaged in seeking to strengthen it, as to those who are just commencing their inquiries into the theories held, and the arguments by which they are defended. It can but strengthen our confidence in our own views of baptism when we find that our opponents so thoroughly answer one another, that no justification of infant baptism has yet been attempted but it has been shown by those who concur in the practice that justification is unsatisfactory.

XV.-CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.

"The ocean is the gathering together of the waters, though other things may be cast into it; the body of Christ is the gathering together of believers, though other men may be intruded."-CHARLES STOVEL.

The universal Church comprehends the whole body of belie

vers on earth and in heaven. This is the Church which Christ loved, and gave Himself for it. (Eph v. 2, 5.) This is "the Church which is His body," and of which in all things He is the head. (Eph. i. 22, 23.) In this there is to be glory to God by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. (Eph. iii. 21.) By this is to be made known into principalities and powers in heavenly places the manifold wisdom of God. (Eph. iii. 10.) Whenever a sinner believes in the Saviour, he becomes a member of this, and is invested with all the privileges of heavenly citizenship. (Eph. ii. 19.) No hypocrite has any part or lot in this. He may by profession be in it; but is not really of it.

The visible Church is that portion of the universal Church which, being on the earth, is visible. Not that we can truly and infallibly determine who does and who does not belong to it, because we cannot infallibly determine who are believers. But a Church has, in Scripture, a more limited meaning than this.

The term is applied to a body of professed believers meeting in one place to worship God according to His own will, and to observe His ordinances. Hence we read of the Church of Corinth, the Church of Thessalonica, the Church in the house of Nymphas, and in the house of Philemon; and the seven Churches of Asia, etc.

Those who properly compose a Church are believers in Jesus Christ-those who have been regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. This is evident by the manner in which New Testament Churches are addressed. Thus Paul writes-"Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." (1. Cor. i. 2.) "To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. (Eph. i. 1.) "To the Saints and faithful brethren which are at Colosse." (Col. i. 2.) Such, and such only, are fit for Christian communion and Church fellowship. Others cannot worship God, who is a Spirit, in spirit and in truth: cannot offer "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." The principles, and desires, and affections, and aims of the unregenerate cannot be in harmony with the spiritual purposes for which churches are formed. To them Christ's will is not likely to be absolute and authoritative, Christ's glory supreme, Christ's service a delight. But such are the best evidences of regeneration that anyone can give, and they are qualifications for Church membership. Without them no one has any right to enter the Church. Those who are mani

festly destitute of them should not be admitted, though they apply. Nothing will do as a substitute for piety; not intellectual indowment, however superior: not conversational power, however fluent not social position, however exalted.

If there be not proper care in the admission of members the Church will lose its distinction from, and its spiritual power over, the world. It will indeed be nothing but a worldly organisation for religious purposes, and may soon use its machinery for inferior, if not for unlawful objects.

It is true we cannot infallibly judge character. Even the Apostles admitted some persons into the Churches on a profession of faith who afterwards proved to be "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity." We can only judge by the profession and the life.

While not too lax, we are not to be too severe and rigid in our judgment. Where there is a profession of faith in and love to Christ, and a desire to obey His commandments, and where there is nothing in the life that belies the profession, it must be accepted. We must not only receive the strong, but the weak also, if they are sincere disciples of Christ. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye; but not to doubtful disputations." By communion such may be strengthened and confirmed. They most need the help that may be obtained from the observance of the ordinances, from Christian worship, and Christian fellowship. They can least of all afford to dispense with pastorial oversight and brotherly caution, admonition and encouragement.

But perfection is one thing, and sincerity another. While we do not expect the former, we should demand the latter. If the unregenerate are admitted, they will be at best unprofitable members. They will be cold and formal, or worldly, or profane, or contentious. They will weaken and contradict in their lives the testimony given by other members who are "epistles written by God, known and read of all men, among whom they shine as lights in the world." They will only, in one way or other, hinder that spiritual work which is uncongenial to their unregenerate nature. They will be withered branches, marring the beauty of the tree, and rendering it less fruitful. They will be dead limbs on the living body, encumbering it, and requiring amputation. It will be no wonder if they should apostatise, and thus show, by going out from the Church, that they were not of it, any more than a dead branch tied on to the living vine can be said to be of it, though on it. "Christ's laws," as Dr. Carson has well said," "are not at all

calculated to govern the devil's subjects. Spiritual laws will take no hold of carnal men. If unregenerate members are admitted and retained, they will throw all into confusion. They will stop the equability of the Church's motion, and whenever the fire of temptation begins to burn, the house will fall with a crash in the midst of the flames."

That only such as gave credible evidence of regeneration were admitted into the Churches by the apostles is evident. Hence we are told, "The Lord added unto the Church those who were saved."

"Then they that gladly received His word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." "All that believed were together, and had all things common." But of some we are told that they "crept in unawares," which implies that had their true character been known their entrance would have been prevented.

If unregenerate men had been knowingly admitted into the. Churches the following language could not have been properly addressed to them. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the spirit of Christ dwelleth in you?" "Ye are also builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." We find much more to the same effect.

And

Is it not evident then that infants are not fit persons for membership? They cannot voluntarily meet for worship and the observance of the ordinances. They cannot profit by the ministry of the Word. The language of the Epistles of the New Testament cannot of course have been addressed to infants. It is too absurd for anyone to suppose that they were. yet infants are said by some to be made "members of Christ," and admitted into the Church by baptism. The Greek Christians, consistently with this, admit infants to the Lord's Supper also. They see that the objections to infant communion admit of similar answers to those which are made to the objections to infant baptism. In the ancient Church there is reason to believe that those who were admitted to one of these ordinances were admitted to the other also. If the one is necessary to salvation,. so is the other. If it is wrong to exclude children from the supposed benefits of the one, why not of the other also? But Christians in this country, though theoretically admitting the membership of infants, do not deal with them as members during their infancy. They do not include infants in the Communion. They exclude them when they say, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the cup of the communion of