their perversions and all their misapprehensions, must sink into insignificance when compared with those which daily and palpably issue from the assertion of the general efficacy of baptism in all who partake of that rite." "As Bishop Jewell asserts, Verily, to ascribe felicity or remission of sin, which is the inward work of the Holy Ghost, unto any manner of outward action whatsoever, it is a superstitious, a gross, and a Jewish error." "Thus confounding circumstantials with essentials, all the mischiefs of delusion follow, and the Christian body, thus feeding on wind instead of wholesome nutriment, is starved, and faints, and decays.”—Budd, 9, 10, 6. But so long as infant-baptism continues to be practised, this " gross superstition," this "mighty mischief," must continue, because it springs necessarily from the application of the scriptural statements respecting the baptism of believers to the baptism of infants; and while infant-baptism lasts, there being only one baptism enacted by Christ, they must be so applied.

a

CHAPTER V.

PRACTICAL INFERENCES.

SECTION I.-Some Reasons why a Person who renounces Pado-baptism, after having made a Profession of Religion, ought to be baptized.

THERE are two things in baptism, the form and he reality: the form is immersion in water; the reality is a profession of repentance and faith, of which the form is significant. One who was sprinkled in his infancy has not, in his passive reception of that rite, either complied with the form or fulfilled the reality of baptism: he has not been immersed, and he has made no baptismal profession of faith. He is, therefore, unbaptized: and any one who in these circumstances renounces the practice of pædo-baptism as erroneous, knows that he is so.

As there is no instance in the New Testament of any person who was converted to Christ after he commissioned his disciples to baptize, coming to the Lord's table unbaptized, a person who should do so

now would place himself in a situation unlike that of all the Christians during the ministry of the Apostles. It is safer to conform to the apostolic custom, and to attend the Lord's table as baptized rather than as unbaptized.

A person sprinkled in infancy may, indeed, have professed his faith in Christ by coming to the Lord's table, and in other ways; but he has never made a baptismal profession of faith according to Christ's commands both implied and expressed, Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark, xvi. 16; John, iii. 5; Acts, ii. 38. His confession of Christ in one appointed way seems to be no valid reason for neglecting to confess him in another concurrent way, which is no less unequivocally prescribed. Like the pædo-paptist, the Quaker might profess his faith in Christ, in word and deed, be avowedly a disciple of Christ, and openly seek fellowship with his people. Like Mr. J. J. Gurney, he may have defended the gospel by his pen, promoted it by his preaching, and illustrated it by his Christian virtues; and yet, when such a man recognises that Christ has enjoined upon all his followers to the end of time the baptism of water, as emblematic of the baptism of the Spirit, he is held by all evangelical churches bound to honour Christ by complying with his command to be baptized. Every Christian minister would advise him to be baptized; every convert to the doctrine of waterbaptism in such circumstances complies with the command. It is not because, then, for the first time he professes to believe in Christ. His faith may

have been active, his conduct devoted for years, but he has learned a command of Christ with which he was before unacquainted, and he wishes to fulfil it. He is baptized, although he has long professed his faith in Christ, because he wishes to honour the ordinance of Christ. Now what is the difference between his case and that of the person who, after a similar course of discipleship, renounces pædo-baptism? Both are equally unbaptized, and both have openly served Christ. There is no difference between them in this matter. Why should the one be baptized and the other remain unbaptized? Why should all ministers and all churches claim this act of obedience from the one disciple, and not equally demand it from the other?

Upon this point the reason which our Lord assigned for his baptism by the hands of John seems to me conclusive. The following is the narrative of the transaction: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," Matt. iii. 13-15.

"There was no particular precept in the Old Testament requiring this, but he chose to give the sanction of his example to the baptism of John as to a divine ordinance."-Barnes.

"Nor could it be more effectually shown how great an honour is due to the rites instituted by

God, than when Christ himself commended their use to us by his own example."—Grotius.

He came unto John to be baptized, "that he might honour John's ministry, acknowledge his commission to baptize, and might confirm the institution of baptism by water," saying, "Thus it becomes us, me, and my disciples according to my example, to fulfil all righteousness, to do whatsoever is just, fit, and requisite, in our circumstances. It becometh every messenger of God, and even every follower of mine, to observe every divine appointment and to honour every divine ordinance.”Benson.

"We may learn from this example of Christ that being baptized with the Holy Ghost will excuse none for contempt or neglect of baptism by water; because it is the revealed will of God that all the members of his church should come under that ordinance: so as there is a fulfilling of righteousness in our case, as well as in Christ's. . . . He that erreth through ignorance will correct his error upon better information."-Poole.

"They who are of greatest attainments in gifts and graces should yet bear their testimony to instituted ordinances by a humble and diligent attendance upon them, that they may give a good example to others."-Henry.

"We never find that Jesus spoke of himself in the plural number, and must, therefore, allow that he meant John also and all the servants of God in a subordinate sense. It became Christ, as our surety