from which all church-people, no matter how pious they may be, are carefully excluded. Hence our relation to the Baptist Society must necessarily be disagreeable and unpleasant. For the difference between us is indeed not about unimportant, accidental matters, but it regards principle. Infant Baptism, which we consider and cherish as a sacred rite, is treated by them with blasphemous ridicule! Whilst some of their great preachers, with brazen faced boldness, proclaim publicly "that of all the heresies in the world, Infant Baptism is the most damnable," the prejudiced followers of those champions privately endeavor to undermine the people's faith in this blessed and venerable institution, by calling it "baby sprinkling." This lying declaration and ridiculing wit are the most offensive, and perhaps also the most powerful instruments in the hands of Baptists; for it is certain that in the diligent use of them lies the secret of their great success. I have been in several places of this State where members of our own and of other denominations, through their frequent intercourse with cunning Baptists, had been influenced to such a deplorable extent, that they habitually applied the disrespectful term "baby sprinkling" to the sacred institution of Infant Baptism. Of course, wherever such religious meanness becomes prevalent, the faith of churchly parents is greatly endangered, and as soon as Satan can persuade them that Infant Baptism is nothing more than "baby sprinkling," they will prefer letting their children grow up unbaptized. No wonder, therefore, that comparatively so few children are dedicated to God in holy Baptism. It is but the natural result of the cunning Baptist operations, in connection with the prevailing tendency to churchly indifferentism. If church members would act consistently with their confession of faith, they must frown with holy indignation upon every Baptist who, in their presence, is so impious as to apply the degrading term "baby sprinkling" to Infant Baptism!

In the light of Scripture we must regard the sacraments as objects of faith, and can therefore not agree with the Baptist manner of reasoning, by which they are stripped of all mystery and reduced to objects of mere common sense. Whilst they

put all stress on the mode of Baptism and make its efficacy entirely dependent on this; we feel it our duty to exercise faith in the intrinsical power of the sacrament, as a means of grace, through which the Lord is pleased to confirm his spiritual blessings to his children. In child-like obedience to the Saviour's admonition: "Suffer little children to come unto me," &c., we consider it a blessed privilege, as well as our solemn duty, to dedicate them to God in their Infancy, through the sacrament of Baptism. Christ has taken upon himself human nature in Infancy, in order that human Infants might become heirs of immortal glory, and hence we consider it not only wrong, but unchristian, when Baptists, by the dictates of their cold understanding, exclude all the little children from the means of grace in the visible Church. If Christian Infants are not fit subjects for Baptism, then old sinners, covered with guilt, should never be baptized, and if Christian children are unfit to be received into the Church on earth, then they are certainly never fit to enter the kingdom of heaven, and hence, when children die in their infancy, parents can have no hope of their salvation, but must give them up in despair to a cold, comfortless grave! Where is there a tender hearted Christian mother, that could feel satisfied with such comfortless doctrine? Away with your Baptistic rationalism; let us keep our simple faith in the Redeemer's promise: "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."

able to underThis is making

But Baptists contend that we must first be stand before Baptism can be of any use to us. its efficacy dependent on human understanding, which we consider a grave error. For does not our reason, experience and observation convince us, that the Almighty is willing and able to bestow his blessings even upon the cold, unfeeling earth! And should that same God, who, through Christ, has become our kind and gracious Father, not also be willing and able to bless a living Infant, created for a blissful immortality? If Christian parents feel naturally dependent on God "for all they have and all they are," and with grateful hearts for his precious gifts consecrate themselves anew to his service, at the dedication of their beloved infants; can they have no assurance

that the Lord will hear and answer their fervent prayers, and receive their child under his parental care? Is there no efficacy in the transaction of the sacrament by the gospel minister, and are his earnest supplications at a throne of grace of no avail? If the blood of Christ is all sufficient to cleanse the polluted soul of a malefactor, should it not be able to cleanse the comparatively innocent soul of an infant sinner? It is argued that a person must first believe, and then be baptized. But who would dare to call any infant an unbeliever? The subjective principle of religious faith, the main distinguishing feature of man from the mere animal, is not implanted from without, but is inborn in the child, and all that is wanting is its proper development under the regenerating influence of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore we consider infants proper subjects for Baptism. Our Church does, however, not hold the erroneous doctrine of Baptismal regeneration, as it obtains in the Catholic and old Lutheran sects. (See Heid. Cat., Quest. 73 and 74.) But neither can we agree with Dr. Ebrard on this subject, who wishes to substitute for Infant Baptism the laying on of hands, and thinks that the best practice would be to leave it entirely free to Christian parents, whether they will get their children baptized or not. (See his Dogmatic, page 628-9.) If others abuse the institution of Infant Baptism, that is no reason why we should do away with its proper use. Let our doctrine on this subject be the guide to our practice, and we will be sure to go right. Infant Baptism is not only a solemn pledge on the part of parents, but also the proper foundation for a Christian education of their children. Without such an education, Infant Baptism would indeed be a mere mockery, just as much so, as a Christian education is without Baptism; for whilst the former wants the superstructure, the latter is destitute of the proper foundation, resting on the flimsy groundwork of private opinion, as is the case with Baptist training. According to the solemn promise of Christian parents, their child must be carefully educated upon the foundation of its Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, until he is prepared, conscientiously, to meet with them at the altar of God, to make a solemn profession of his

faith in the doctrines of the Gospel, to take upon himself the baptismal vows of his parents, and through the rite of confirmation be introduced to the privileges of the Christian Church, where, by diligent use of the means of grace, he may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ into life eternal. We consider it therefore a dangerous error to regard Infant Baptism complete in itself, as the source of regeneration, independent of religious instruction and confirmation. Yet this error is very prevalent among church-members, as the indifferent training of their children abundantly proves. It is this faithlessness to their solemn vows, this shameful neglect of religious instruction, which produces so many ungodly youth, to whom Baptists are wont to point in triumph as a sufficient ground for their unbelief in Infant Baptism. But whilst we must acknowledge the sad fact that thousands of children have apparently received no benefit from their baptism, we must, at the same time, deny the conclusion that Infant Baptism is without effect and useless. If the midsummer's sun in his fiery chariot passes over our fields, causing everything to droop and wither, or if a destructive hail-storm prostrates our promising crops to the ground, is this a proof that the preceding genial spring was no blessing, and that its productions were useless?

The Baptist sect is unchurchly by nature and constitution, and hence it is destitute also of the restorative, self-correcting principle, possessed by all churchly denominations. Self-conceit and arrogance, the natural product of blind prejudice and opposition, have led the Baptists to exercise Popish exclusiveness toward all true church members. And as there is no hope for their return to the Church, we must expect that they will only grow stronger and more determinate in the element. of Popish arrogance and exclusiveness, as their recent movements plainly indicate. Hitherto they have still condescended to let other ministers preach in their pulpits, but this privilege is now being denied. Thank God that we are dependent for our salvation neither on the Pope at Rome, nor the Popish liberality of Baptists in America! That there are many noble minded men and true Christians in the Baptist society, we

readily acknowledge, and rejoice in the fact. We feel persuaded also that the Lord in his providence has permitted this sect to perform its mission to the honor and glory of his great name. Therefore, whilst we are distinct and separated in principle and practice, let us exercise charity toward them, and not return evil for evil. He, who has received all judgment from his Father, is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and he will make it well with us if we put our trust in Him. But our love of truth does not permit us to look with indifference upon the cunning operations of Baptists. We are obliged to use the sword of the Spirit also in this case, and we will try to do it faithfully at every suitable opportunity. But whenever we are in a place, where we cannot defend ourselves, and hear a Baptist preacher trying to shake our people's faith in Infant Baptism, by explaining, "Baptizo," and Greek particles, let us say to him in our mind: The Lord have mercy on thee, thou deluded simpleton! Cincinnati, Ohio. H. R.

ART. III.-AMERICA.

THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNITED STATES.

Two discourses by DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, Professor of Theology at Mercersburg, Pa., delivered before the Evangelical Union at Berlin, March 20, 1854.

[Continued.]

4. SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.*
*

It would be very unfair and unreasonable to demand already as much scientific and aesthetic culture from so youthful a country as America, as from the countries of the old world, that stand

* It may be proper to inform the reader, that the lectures of Dr. Schaff on America at Berlin have been expanded, and published in a volume of nearly three hundred pages. They were prepared for publication in Germany at the solicitation of various persons, theologians, clergymen and others, who had heard them when they were delivered. They now form a very readable book, abounding in just and striking views of American life, and calculated to in