fied, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. And to the Galatians he says, 'Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus-for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ'" (p. 17). But we maintain that this was the profession of those who were then baptized, and deny that their "reconcilement to God" and its consequent privileges are anywhere spoken of by the apostle as being conveyed to them in baptism. The Saviour himself made and (then) baptized disciples. So He commanded. So the apostles taught to repent and be baptized, and so at that time, they that received the inspired word were baptized; "when they believed they were baptized, both men and women.' Nothing was then known of unconscious beings being made Christians by a form of profession, being made soldiers by the imposition of a portion of the accoutrements or insignia of a soldier.

The profession of Abp. Whateley is: "We had rather put ourselves under the teaching of apostolic practice, where it is to be had, than adopt and act upon the inferences drawn by any theological theory of our own" (p. 31). He says "with respect to infant baptism," that "there is not in Scripture any express injunction or prohibition respecting it;" but yet from the supposition that there existed a Jewish church, and that into this infants were admitted, and some of them by an initiatory rite, he concludes that apostolic practice must have been, without a prohibition, what God's word does not teach that it was, and, therefore, that the sign which conveys regeneration may properly be given to infants; but not for the same reason and in the same way to the full-grown son, or the servant bought with the convert's money. He does not point out to us, for our guidance, what the apostles and primitive Christians did; but he presents to us, instead, a lame theory of what he thinks they would be likely to do, under the promptings of Jewish custom" (Macallan, p. 111). But though the supposed Jewish custom is to compel the belief that baptism was administered to infants, it is to afford no countenance to the idea that the apostles would administer the Lord's Supper to infants, although the Passover is believed to have embraced the whole household "according to the number of souls" it contained.

66

Dr. W. SMITH, in opposition to the opinion of Dr. D. Thomas that baptism is only teaching," evidently regards baptism as symbolic of a change which ought to distinguish all the baptized. Hence, speaking of "the Baptist," he says: "The outward sign which marked those who became his disciples, the rite from which he obtained his characteristic name, the Baptist, taught most impressively the putting away the evils by which the whole life of the people was corrupted."-New Tes. His., p. 168.

That baptism was symbolic of being washed from sin, I do not doubt; and that it was a badge of discipleship to the Lord Jesus I will not deny: but while I believe that in baptism there was an expressed or implied profession of faith in Christ and devotedness to Him, I prefer to think of love and holiness springing from faith as the subsequent badge of Christian discipleship.

SECTION XXI.

ON BAPTISM AS INFANT AND REGENERATING.

C. STOVEL." Birth is the act by which a human being is brought forth to be registered in society, and from which we begin to reckon his age." "To be born again is to pass through another event, from which a new age may be reckoned, and of which a new register may be taken."-Disc., p. 358.

T. FINCH.-Till children can judge between right and wrong, they have neither the mental powers, nor the moral consciousness, where, and by means of which alone, regeneration can take place." "Intellectual and moral faculties must be developed by one class of thoughts and feelings before they can be superseded or improved by another."-True Church, pp. 96, 97.

By disciples of Jesus I mean His followers. The making of disciples as enjoined by Christ, I understand to be the making of Christians. That

some are and that some have been professed and not real disciples, no more alters the meaning of this word than counterfeit gold alters the import of gold. There is nothing written on which I would utter words of more explicit condemnation, than on changing the import of a disciple of Christ, so clearly defined by Christ Himself, because all who profess discipleship are not really disciples. Without an altered import of discipleship to Christ, such honoured brethren as Drs. Halley, Stacey, and others, would not have uttered a syllable on behalf of discipling by baptism. If the outward action, with the utterance of prescribed words, could make disciples, and were the ordained way, the apostles were of all men the most foolish, and disobedient to Christ, in not speaking and arguing directly and primarily on behalf of the one prescribed ablution, which, whether it was new or old, is now efficacious for the world's salvation. Were it true that "our Lord commands to disciple by baptizing" (Dr. H., vol. xv, p. 39), that "the command to disciple by baptism is followed by the injunction to teach" (Dr. S., p. 115), something might be said by others along with our broad Churchmen, in favour of baptizing every one; only that while Dean Stanley and his brethren of the broad section would baptize all because all are saved, some of our Nonconformist evangelicals would, with Dr. Pusey, the pope, and others, baptize all that all might be made the disciples of Christ; I say "some" in the knowledge that this is sternly opposed by some who have subscribed to the Prayer-book of the Anglican church, and by a greater number of Nonconformists.

Dr. D. Thomas, editor of the Homilist, advocates the idea that baptism is not regenerating, but a teaching ordinance, teaching by a symbol, and equally whether an unconscious babe or a believing adult is the subject. Nor will I deny that instruction to parents and spectators may not be and is not given, when this symbolic service is performed on babes. I contend, however, that the Divine intention as taught by Divine revelation is, that instruction should by symbol be given to him who receives the baptism, the washing away of his sins being symbolized, and a changed, a new life being henceforth expected from him. We find, however, that some learned Nonconformist theologians, as if resolved not to be out-done by the pope, can teach that baptism not only signs and seals new covenant blessings, but also actually disciples its subjects, and must therefore convey these inestimable blessings. Whether it does one before another, in some approved order, or the three are accomplished simultaneously, I am unable to say; but in regard to all infants we have from some the gratifying intelligence that previous to being signed, sealed, and discipled, they are undoubtedly of the kingdom of heaven, without doubt possessing the inward grace represented by the outward sign, and, therefore, are proper subjects of baptism; and from others we learn that this is the case with infants and little children having at least one believing parent! These infant disciples, according to some born in the church, and according to others born in the kingdom of God or of heaven, receive the discipling and initiatory ordinance of the church of Christ, and become members of the church as some maintain, but only remain members of the kingdom of God or of heaven, as others believe, and have thus, as Mr.

ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

Thorn seems to think, a canonical introduction to the privileges of the Christian dispensation!

Also, so far as I know, all who explicitly maintain discipling by baptism interpret baptizing into the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, in such a way as forbids the application of baptism to infants. The last applies equally to learned Episcopalians, and learned Nonconformists. In the Prayer-book of the Anglican church baptismal discipleship is as explicitly But there are in the maintained as in the missal of the Church of Rome. Anglican church those who maintain that "the blessing of regeneration is undoubtedly conveyed to some duly baptized infants; but, in the impossibility of our discriminating the cases, they pronounce the same charitable judgment upon all" (Lord Lyttleton, On Inf. Bap., p. 10)! Their utterances in connexion with the administration of the rite, as well as in the catechism to be subsequently learnt, are not, however, those of a charitable hope. There is a positive assertion, true or false; and its utterance is immoral, if the speaker is uncertain respecting the child's regeneration. Can the thanks presented on the baptized child's behalf be moral, if the child's regeneration has to be proved or disproved by its subsequent life? And while evidences of regeneration have been given before baptism in ten thousand instances, the grand fact furnished in corroboration of the hypothesis we oppose is, that John the Baptist " was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from the womb," a fact which transpired before Christian baptism was instituted, and by no possibility adding weight to the dogma of baptismal discipleship or regeneration. If the phraseology respecting John must be literally interpreted, which I admit not, its application to others, without Divine authority, is unwarrantable. The following may be more frequent than some suppose: "Even within our church, Mr. Orlando Forester, for instance, admitted that the reasoning seemed to lead him away from the doctrine of infant baptism entirely, to that of the Baptists, which is at least a perfectly consistent system. He said, however, that he thought it safer that infants should be baptized, though with no full understanding why it should be so." "It was, however," says Lord L., "according to that unreasoning and implicit acceptance of the order of the church to which I have before alluded" (p. 23). The order of St. Paul, that "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin," is a better guide than "the order of the church." Again, “ Mr. told me he thought my view very reasonable and probable in itself, but that he could not find it in Scripture. To this I must reply," says his Lordship, "that I assume on the authority of the Church of England, that warrant for infant baptism is to be found in Scripture, and therefore I do not go about to prove it" (p. 17). Does not the papist thus believe what his church believes? Is this a satisfactory foundation? Has infant discipling or regenerating a better foundation? Is it to be wondered that such a doctrine, held by Evangelical Clergymen with such shiftings, evasions, and contradictions of self and of Divine revelation, should lead direct to Rome ?

All who speak of baptism wherein and whereby the recipients are made members of Christ, are advocates of discipling by baptism, Most of these advocate the baptism of infants, maintaining that they are born in sin,

and that the sooner they cease to be heirs of wrath, and become children of God and heirs of unfading glory, and the better it is every way. Such as the Wesleyan Richard Watson, the Presbyterians generally, and most who maintain that baptism is more than a symbolic service, use language nearly equivalent to maintaining that it is a discipling service. Hence

Dr. BELFRAGE, in his Practical Exposition of the Shorter Catechism, says that "the sacraments become effectual means of salvation." His explanation of the mode in which they secure this inestimable blessing, is not consistent with the baptism of infants. He says, "Not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them" (p. 406). He also says that the sacraments are "like the fleece of Gideon, whose moisture or whose dryness were mere confirmations of the faith of this man, that the Lord would save Israel by his hand" (p. 407). Where is the consistency of being justified by faith, with baptism being the effectual means of salvation to the believer? A good man may be expected to blunder, who, in some way searching the Bible for his guidance, yet trusts to a Catechism, which says, "A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Chirst, wherein by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to the believer" (p. 409). Let the reader also judge of the consistency of the following with baptism as an "effectual means of salvation:" "It is the Lord Jesus who blesses the sacraments with efficacy to sanctify, to comfort, to animate, and to strengthen; and for this purpose He sends His Spirit to work in us to enable us to realize by faith the scenes which they exhibit, and to improve the objects which they represent, for inflaming our love, enlivening our hope, and invigorating our obedience" (p. 408). "He works not in the elememts, but in those who partake of them; and to Him the worshipper's prayer should be directed, and on Him his confidence should rest" (p. 408). "The word produces faith, the sacraments confirm it; and the word is preached to all, but the sacraments are the children's bread" (p. 408). Is this consistent with the baptism of infants? "Thus, too, are Christians assured in this exhibition of the purchase of redemption, that all its blessings shall be theirs; and thus, in the exercise of faith in His precious blood, they derive from it strength to their hopes, life to their devotion, and peace to their hearts" (p. 411). How accordant is all this with baptismal discipleship, in other words, with baptism as an effectual means of salvation! And as accordant with the baptism of infants is the following: "Baptism signifies and seals our engrafting into Christ, as the appointed token of that union to Him by faith, which makes believers partakers of His life and Spirit, and which is evinced by our bearing the fruits of holiness" (p. 418).

66

Dr. J. MORISON.-"A more fatal mistake there cannot be, than to attribute to baptism that change, of which it is only the appointed sign in the Christian church." Also, "It is one thing to affirm that Christ has enjoined baptism as the initiatory rite of his kingdom; it is quite another thing, and an error of the most formidable dimensions, to assert that all baptized persons are born of the Spirit." Multitudes of careless, ungodly, and even profligate men, have been taught to rely on the virtues of their baptism; while an almost insuperable barrier has thereby been raised between the conscience of the sinner, and the quickening appeals of God's all-penetrating word."-Hom., pp. 265, 342, 349.

I believe, too, that "Christians are absolutely bound to admit, either an efficacy in baptism to produce faith, or an obligation resting on the church," or the baptizer, "to ascertain, as far as possible, the profession and reality of faith, before baptism is administered."-Stovel's Disc., pp. 358, 359.

Dr. BOGUE, as says Dr. Morison, "knew that unless a man is born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and he looked with abhorrence on the souldestroying heresy, which would make any external rite usurp the office of the Holy Ghost."-Fa. and Fou, of the Mis. Soc., p. 159.

Dr. M'ALL.-"Such was a Christian then: and has that solemn designation declined in any measure from the import which it once included? Has it come to signify a less exalted character, either of sentiment or obligation?" "Has it now become less energetically true that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His?' or can we justify its application to a meaner standard than that of having the same mind in us which was in Him?'"-Disc., vol. ii, pp. 193, 194.

Notwithstanding all that is asserted on baptism as discipling, as regen

erating, as sealing salvation, as sealing "our engrafting into Christ, our partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace,' as ratifying our engrafting into Christ, as conveying regeneration, &c., so much is by some made to depend on parental or other training, and on the future faith and holiness of the baptized, that it would have been wise on the part of these to say expressly with Archdeacon Hare, "that infant baptism admits only. to certain possibilities." And all these possibilities are as possible without the unscriptural baptism. Also, some who teach that infant baptism accompanied by sponsorial vows regenerates, attach some importance to its administration by one that is in the supposed apostolic succession ; but God's word which dwells on the relation between the ordinance and the hopes and purposes of the baptized believer, ignores all importance in the administrator, the records implying, in accordance with common sense, that it was administered by professing Christians.

SECTION XXII.

ON BAPTISM AS INFANT AND DEDICATORY.

Dr. CARSON.-"Let Christian parents pray for their children from their birth and before their birth; let them teach them as soon as they are capable of learning; but who hath required them to baptize them? Too much cannot be said to urge Christian parents to faithfulness to their offspring; but no advantage can be conferred by performing on them a rite which, in their case Jesus has not enjoined."-On Bap., p. 261.

J. C. MEANS." Some seem to uphold it [infant baptism] merely as a suitable mode of im-. pressing parents with a sense of their duty and responsibility: with others it is a commendation of their children in prayer to God; and with others again, a recognition of them as objects of the church's care."-Rel. of Bap., p. 23.

Dr. G. H. BALL.-"Those who are anxious to be right, and do the Master's will, will avoid doubtful ways, and cleave to that about which none have doubts."-Mor. Star, p. 209. 1869.

I have no doubt that scriptural baptism includes or implies a solemn and personal dedication or consecration, and a comprehensive, important, and interesting profession. It is not the dedication or consecration of the baptized by the church of Christ, by neighbours, friends, parents, guardians, sponsors, priests, or officiating ministers, but a dedication or consecration by the baptized, to the future service and glory of the Divine Being. This is implied in what the Scriptures record respecting John's baptism. There is not a hint that it was John himself who confessed sins when he baptized in the Jordan. There is not the shadow of evidence that it is the spectators that are meant where we read of John's baptism of repentance, whatever relation these sustained to the subjects of baptism. As John, so "Jesus made and baptized" disciples. This is the course enjoined in Christ's commission according to its natural and necessary import. If doubt existed, the example of the apostles clearly teaches that they knew no other custom, and must thus have understood their Master's injunction. One of the first utterances under the last and perfect dispensation was, Repent and be baptized." We might, from this, expect that

66