that objection to the baptism of infants which is derived from their want of scriptural qualification for the rite.

Here then we might terminate this article, were we mere controvertists; but as lovers of truth, willing to hear and to increase learning, we are ready to attend to Dr. Halley's reasoning with openness and candour. It may be the more easy to examine them impartially inasmuch as we see that the admission of their truth would not affect the great practical question respecting the baptism of those who are not yet old enough to be "applicants" or in any way to evince their willingness to learn. Is it so then that baptism is "a registration " of those who are admitted to a course "of instruction preparatory to their

"tian church?" Has Christ, or have any of his inspired servants taught us this?

"infant baptism." In proving, to his own satisfaction, that neither faith nor a profession of faith, neither repentance nor a profession of repentance is necessary to entitle to baptism, he evidently thinks that he has removed formidable objections to that practice. "If enough "has been said to prove that baptism 66 was not restricted to accredited be"lievers, but administered to other "applicants as disciples or learners, "these remarks may be sufficient to "show that the children of believers "are entitled to the same recognition as belonging to the kingdom of God." But in this part of the lecture he seems to us to lose sight of his own doctrine, and to proceed upon the supposition of something very different from that for which he had been arguing. Apparently" reception into the fellowship of a Chrisit never occurred to him that so long as he admitted that the recipients of baptism were to be previously those who "hearing this truth," that Jesus the Christ was crucified for our sins and raised for our justification-were "willing to become learners of the "Christian doctrine," or, according to the phraseology of the last quotation, "ap-reserving any mysteries for a select plicants," so long he had done nothing at all to vindicate the baptism of an unconscious babe. The child of six weeks old, though it be the child of members of a Christian church, is no more an "applicant" than it is "a believer;" such infants, of whomsoever born, are no more "willing to become "learners of the Christian doctrine" than they are professors of the truth; and can no more be "baptized disciples in "the sense of learners" than in the sense "of converts." We are not saying that Dr. Halley has brought forward no arguments in favour of infant baptism: he has produced some, though none that appear to us to be weighty; but we do say that if he had demonstrated the truth of his principal position, he would have effected nothing towards removing

66

Dr. Halley must forgive us if we stumble at the outset. This word "admitted" produces perplexity in our minds. It has been our practice to give instruction freely to all comers, not

class. Can Dr. Halley mean that he admits to a course of instruction of a certain kind, only the baptized? Is he so rigid a strict communionist as this? Does he not only repel from the fellowship of a Christian church, the unbaptized among his devout acquaintance, but even repel them from preparatory instruction? If not, in what sense can baptism be practically, a registration of those who are admitted to a course of instruction preparatory to their reception into the fellowship of a Christian church? What is there, we wonder, that he would be unwilling to teach our children, which he would readily consent to make known to the baptized children, of his own flock? What is there in the Christian system which he would have concealed from the late

ON THE SACRAMENTS.

Joseph John Gurney had he asked him | It may be advantageous if we point out some particulars in which we coincide with him, before we proceed to assign reasons for regarding his main theory as unscriptural.

to explain it, but would unfold cheerfully to a youth who had been favoured "registrain infancy with baptismal "tion"? We do not believe that the frank and open-hearted author can mean this, though his words seem to us necessarily to imply as much. We suppose that though he has not expressed himself with sufficient exactness to preclude misapprehension, what he means is that baptism is a registration of those who are to be recognized as on probation for church fellowship, and to be instructed therefore in its obligations, privileges, and duties.

We agree with Dr. Halley, in the first place, that every person who is baptized should be subsequently a disciple in the sense of a learner. Whether he know little or much before, he is pledged by his baptism to receive the instructions of the great Prophet of the church, and submit entirely to his guidance. He has professed to be a disciple; he has avowedly taken Christ's yoke upon him, and he is bound therefore to learn Be this as it may, it is evident that of Him, not only till he enters on the reDr. Halley deliberately intends to teach sponsibilities and advantages of church that it may be right to baptize a man, fellowship, but to the very end of his woman, or child who has "no know- course. Nay, we concede to Dr. Halley ledge of the evangelical doctrine." The most cheerfully, if it be a concession, opinion he maintains "accounts," he that baptism is the first duty of a tells us, "for the baptism of so very believer, and that he is bound to attend "ignorant a man as Simon Magus." to it, as his first duty, whether he is in He enlarges on the "extreme ignorance a position which allows of his availing of the rudiments and first principles himself of the advantages of church So convinced are of the Christian religion" displayed by fellowship or not. this impostor after his baptism. He we of the importance of making it evisays, "So great ignorance shows that he dent that baptism and church fellow"had been subject, previous to his bap-ship are very distinct things, that it "tism, to no catechetical instruction. "After his baptism, not before it, he "would have had to learn his cate"chism, if he had to learn it at all. "Nor could Philip have made any in"inquiry respecting his knowledge of "the gospel, without detecting his gross "ignorance of its elementary lessons." p. 16. "Philip would disciple Simon Magus by baptizing and teaching him, "and therefore baptized him in his ex"treme ignorance. So we," adds Dr. Halley, "would make disciples by bap“ fizing and teaching all who will sub

has been our uniform practice for more than twenty years, when conversing with an applicant for baptism, to say

After you have been baptized I will talk with you about uniting with the church; when I have baptized you, it will be my duty to teach you to observe all things whatsoever our Lord commanded.' If haptists contend, contrary to the opinion of our author, that some instruction should precede baptism, they also maintain, in accordance with him that instruction should follow it. The late Mr. Booth, referring to the two

and teaching. in Matt.

diddoKOVTEC [DIDASKONTES] relates to baptized disciples, who are called out of the nations. The subject of the former is the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ that of the latter, is whatever he has cómmanded; or the institutions of his worship, and the laws of his kingdom. By the one disciples are made; by the other they are instructed to keep his commands. By that they are taught what they must believe; by this they are informed what they should practise in consequence of believing." The language of Booth would be received by Dr. Halley himself, with as much attention as that of Jerome; but as some who read these pages may not be in the habit of exercising equal candour towards modern baptists, it may not be amiss to subjoin the similar language of that ancient writer, who having observed that the order of words in the commission is excellent, illustrates it thus:-" He commands the apostles first to teach all nations; then to dip them with the sacrament of faith: and then to show them how they should behave themselves after their faith and baptism." Many worse things than this proceeded at different times from Jerome's pen.

dividual. It is the prerogative of Him whose eyes are as a flame of fire to know the hearts of the children of men. The administrator is responsible for the correctness of the profession, but not for its sincerity. He implies, by his conduct, that he knows nothing to nullify it, but not that he can guarantee the vitality of that faith which is avowed. But, on this point, we have found it remarkably difficult to make ourselves understood by some of our pædobaptist brethren. They are so accustomed to regard baptism as an act performed on a passive object of Christian benevolence-one who takes no part in the business-who expresses no intentionwho is perfectly involuntary in the whole-who is acted upon instead of acting-that they can scarcely realize its meaning and implications in the case of one whose personal convictions have led him to the water, and who regards himself as performing a solemn act of worship. As it presents itself to their minds, in the general practice, the profession made must be the profession of other parties, not of the infant baptized. The parents may profess something: according to Dr. Halley, "the parents "in bringing their children to baptism, "virtually profess their intention to " train their children in the nurture "and admonition of the Lord." p. 45. The administrator may profess something: Dr. Halley asks, "Is not the pastor equally a party to the engage

66

ment, and is not the church, whose "minister he is, concerned to provide "that his successor should undertake "the continuance of his pastoral en

Again, we agree with Dr. Halley in this, that baptism is not a certificate of safety. We are as averse as he is to its being regarded as "an attestation or discrimination of true believers." If any persons whom we have baptized, have taken this as evidence that they were in a state of acceptance with God, it has been in spite of our cautions, and declarations that we could give them no such assurance. We regard baptism"gagements." p. 46. But the babe, the as a profession of faith-that faith baptized one, professes nothing. Acwhich none but the regenerate exercise customed to this view of the case, our -that faith which is invariably con- brethren cannot easily drop the thought nected with final salvation—but the ad- that the profession made is the profesministrator is not responsible for the sion of others rather than of the neogenuineness of that faith, and conse- phyte. We have to do, on the other: quently for the true piety of the in-hand, with a voluntary agent, one who

directed to visit. It consisted of three clauses, the latter ones indicating the mode in which the former was to be brought about. The second and third of these clauses contain nothing tending to the production of that faith through which a sinner is justified. If the first clause has no effect independently of the second and third, but these describe the mode of making the disciples mentioned in the first, which of these latter clauses is it which brings about reconciliation with God and peace of conscience? Will the second clause bring them to exercise that faith through which men are justified, but which they had not, according to the theory, previously to their baptism? Is

interposition for their removal. Some things which he urges, it appears to us that he would not have adduced had he distinguished more carefully the peculiarities of the baptism which our Lord enjoined his apostles to administer after his ascension, from the characteristics of the baptism administered by the herald who had been sent previously to proclaim the near approach of his reign. But the argument which seems to us to be the most important is that which is founded on "the literal translation of our Lord's commission to administer baptism." He says, "That literal trans"lation is, 'Going, disciple all nations, "baptizing them in the name of the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, "teaching them to observe all things it by baptism that faith is to be pro"whatsover I have commanded you.'"duced? Or will the third clause be .... "It has been shown, as the words more effectual? Will teaching him to 66 imply, that we are to make disciples by observe what Christ has commanded baptizing and teaching, not to make secure the conversion of an ignorant "disciples first and baptize them after- man? "So very ignorant a man," for "wards." Baptizing and teaching are, example, "as Simon Magus"-a man he contends, "the mode of making dis- of "extreme ignorance of the rudiments "ciples prescribed by the commission."" and first principles of the Christian

p. 17.

But in what sense is the word "disciples" used in this case? To advert to his own distinction, is it "in the sense of learners," or of "converts?" Not of converts, as his whole argument is intended to prove, but of learners. "Our catechumens, recognized as learn"ers, and discipled by our baptizing and "teaching them, if they continue in the "word of Christ will know the truth, be made free by its purifying influence, "and becoming disciples indeed, be ac"credited as spiritual (vevμarikoí) and

religion?" Or, if those whom our Lord calls "disciples indeed" be meant,— believers, genuine Christians,—the last two clauses of the commission do not show "the mode of making disciples;" but that is done, we maintain, under the operation of the first clause. If it be not, it is not done at all. It is neither being baptized, nor obeying Christ's precepts generally, that justifies a sinner; it is faith in the exalted Redeemer. It is the doctrine of the cross, the gospel of Christ, that is "the power of God unto the salvation of every one that believeth."

And why is it that the two latter clauses of this sentence are to be taken as descriptive of the mode of doing that which is enjoined in the first? respected lecturer refers to what he had previously published, the former volume of Lectures and the vindication of those

The