at the hand of grace, and unfeignedly thankful for it. Hence it appears, that these two fruits of the Spirit must intermingle their exercise with all our devotional duties, and constitute a principal part of their spirituality. Such are the nature, the exercise, and the importance of repentance and faith, a profession of which is required previous to baptism.-Now a profession of this kind is no other than a solemn avowal of devotional principles existing in the heart of a candidate. The requisition of such previous declaration, therefore, must imply, that the reception of baptism is a solemn transaction with God; that the rite is an ordinance of divine worship; and that the subject of it should exercise devotional sentiments, profoundly adoring the great Supreme at the time of its administration. For it is absurd to suppose, that a solemn profession of possessing faith and repentance should be required as a qualification for baptism, and that there should be no obligation to exercise those graces when made a partaker of it. Baptism, therefore, is an ordinance of holy worship in respect of the subject, equally as of the administrator; nay, the former, by the very nature of the case, ought in a more particular manner, to exercise devout affections than the latter, as will be clear to every one who duly considers the matter.

From the form of administration. Baptism, by the express order of Christ, is to be administered in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Solemn is the language, and sublime the ideas! so sublime, and so solemn, that the administrator must either adore or insult his Maker, when pronouncing the words and performing the rite. A convincing proof that the sacred appointment is a branch of religious worship. Nor does this unparalleled form of words refer merely to that high authority by which the administrator acts: it also regards that profession of repentance and faith upon which the candidate is baptized. This divine rubric of baptism exhibits to view the Infinite Source of all our

happiness, and the glorious Object of all our worship. Here the blessed God is revealed-under the Paternal name, as the object of repentance and the fountain of mercy; under the Filial character, as the immediate object of confidence for pardon, peace, and protection; and under the denomination of the Holy Spirit, as the object of dependence for illumination, sanctification, and consolation. Into the name of these Eternal Three, who "bear witness in heaven," the disciple is baptized. To the disposal and honour of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he makes a solemn surrender of his whole person; and from them he looks for salvation, in a way of sovereign mercy: but if so, baptism is an ordinance of holy worship, in which the true God is revealed and adored under his personal and relative characters. The subject, therefore, as well as the administrator, must exercise devout affections when the rite is performed, or else it is far from being treated according to its nature and its design. Consequently, as mere infants are neither taught, nor capable of being taught; as they neither have, nor profess to have repentance and faith; as they neither do, nor can worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they are not included in this commission. For it is absurd to suppose, either that an ordinance of worship should be divinely appointed for any description of subjects, and they not be obliged to use it in a devotional manner; or that it should be intended for those who are naturally incapable of such devotion. And as the New Testament contains neither precept nor prece dent for Pædobaptism, it is yet more incongruous for us to imagine, that our divine Legislator designed an institute of this kind should be almost confined for a course of ages to infantile subjects; which, nevertheless, the present prevailing practice implies; because comparatively very few of those who have been baptized for a long time, were capable of making any profession, or

of performing any act of worship, when the ordinance

was administered.

"Du

Reflect. VIII. Were it allowable to interpret divine law upon the principle adopted and avowed by cardinal Cusanus, not only this capital text, but every other that stands in the way of prevailing practice, might soon be rendered quite compliant; rather no labour or management would be wanted: for he insists that the sense of scripture condescendingly varies according to the custom of the times.* But as this principle of interpretation was never perfectly agreeable to the generality of professed Christians, the abettors of infant sprinkling have found it necessary to adopt a different method-a method similar to that which is practised by commentators upon the Koran, as related by Mr. White. ring the first century of Mahometanism," says he, “the followers of the prophet-found in the words and letter of the Koran a law fully adequate to the purpose of regulating all their civil affairs: but when their number was considerably increased-the institutions contained in the mere letter of their law, were probably too vague and too general to preserve the order and well-being of civil society. It was then that commentators arose, whose object it was to supply the defects, without derogating from the authority of the original law, or alienating any part of that implicit obedience to which it was entitled. With this view innumerable volumes have been composed, on the most respectable of which every decision in the Mahometan courts is founded. All of these, however, professedly derive their sole force and claim to respect, from the venerable and infallible authority of the Koran." This, I think, mutatis mutandis, will apply to the case in hand. For in the first ages of Christianity, the declarations of Christ, and the example

* See his words, Vol. I. p. 122, 123.

+ Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, Notes, p.26.

of his apostles, were quite sufficient respecting the mode and subjects of baptism: but when Pædobaptism came into fashion, the institution of Christ, and the practice of his apostles, were too vague and too general to support it. Commentators therefore arose, whose object it was to supply the defects of divine law, relating to that affair. Those deficiencies they endeavour to supply from age to age, by having recourse to the absolute necessity of baptism-the faith of sponsors, or of the church-the covenant made with Abraham-the rite of circumcision—the church-membership of Jewish infants --and the proselyte baptism. Thus Moses and Ezekiel, Talmudical rabbies and Moses Maimonides, have all been subpoenaed as witnesses to the mind of Christ, in that original positive law, "Teach all nations, baptizing them." Yes, the friends of God, and the enemies of Christ; those who lived before the law in question was given, and those who hated the Lawgiver; are all summoned on this occasion to supply deficiencies, and to inform us what our divine Legislator meant.

The following remark of that well-known author, Mr. Chambers, when speaking of the German Baptists, will here apply. "What they chiefly supported their great doctrine on was, those words of our Saviour; 'He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved.' As none but adults are capable of believing, they argued, that no others are capable of baptism; especially, as there is no passage in all the New Testament, where the baptism of infants is clearly enjoined. Calvin, and other writers against them, are pretty much embarrassed to answer this argument; and are obliged to have recourse to tradition and the practice of the primitive church."*— Finally: As there is no doubt but the apostles knew the mind of Christ in this commission, so we may be assured they practised accordingly; and as their practice, in regard to baptism, was a comment on this command, so

* Cyclopædia, article Anabaptists.

their infallible writings must be considered as a faithful representation of that practice. As, therefore, this divine law says nothing of infant baptism, and as the records of apostolic practice are equally silent about it, we are warranted to conclude, that Pædobaptism was neither commanded by our Lord nor practised by his apostles.

§ 2.-Gen. xvii. 7. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

Dr. Twisse. "We think that the apostle's argument, (Rom. ix. 8,) to prove that the covenant of God with Abraham did not include all his posterity, is to be considered thus. Esau and Jacob were of Abraham's posterity; but God did not comprehend them both in his covenant with Abraham. All the posterity of Abraham, therefore, are not included in it; and it is proved, that God did not include them both in the covenant of grace, because Esau, the elder, was not comprehended in it, but Jacob, the younger." In Mr. Tombes's Examen. p. 49.

2. Estius." From this passage Calvin infers, that because a person is the seed of Abraham, the promise which was made to Abraham belongs to him. But the answer is plain; for that promise being understood of spiritual blessings, does not belong to the carnal, but spiritual seed of Abraham, even as the apostle himself interprets it, Rom. iv. and ix. For if you understand the carnal seed, that promise will not belong to any of the Gentiles, but only to those persons that are begotten of Abraham and Isaac, according to the flesh." Ut supra, p. 50.

3. Mr. Baxter." All that are baptized are Abraham's seed, (Gal. iii. 17, 18, 19;) therefore they all profess a justifying faith. The consequence is proved, in