then the kingdom of God mean, as I believe it does mean, in Mark x. 14, "the visible Church," should we not pause before we venture to exclude the little ones from admission into that church? But baptism is the door of entrance into the visible church, therefore infants ought to be baptized. Nor can any thing short of an express Fommand justify their exclusion from the visible church. "And woe be unto him that offendeth one of these little Ches."

Thirdly.-Infants are capable of being admitted into the kingdom of glory, when fitted by divine grace, and herefore we conclude that they are capable of admission to the kingdom of God on earth, even into his visible church.

Fourthly. The objections to the admission of children e groundless, and without any foundation in scripture. sider those objections. One of them is this: "That all Persons who have a right to a positive institute of Christ st be expressly specified in the word of God as having at right." To this we briefly reply-Point out to us an press warrant for female communion; a passage where emen are expressly specified as having the right of mission to the Lord's table. Inference will not suffice; thing less than express command can meet the case. Such an express command cannot be adduced, consequently objection goes for nothing. For our opponents emselves violate it by admitting women to the mmunion. Another objection is, "That faith and Tentance are in all cases absolutely necessary before administration of baptism."

I have before stated that such passages of Scripture as er to adults must be excluded from this discussion of ant baptism. Hence we believe that the passages ally brought forward to maintain this objection have hing to do with the question. That they do not refer ALL cases-but only to some cases. When passages

occur in the Bible, enforcing faith and repentance, we admit their force, feel their importance, and press them upon those to whom they are applicable. Our opponents when considering such texts draw more into their conclusion than they are warranted in doing from their premises. In other words, they attempt to prove too much. Take St. Mark xvi. 16 as an instance, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16. From this passage an attempt has been made to prove that infants ought not to be baptized; for, say the objectors, Christ says"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"-you perceive Jesus says, believe first, then be baptized; but infants cannot believe, therefore they ought not to be baptized. But follow out this mode of reasoning in the whole passage. Christ also says, "he that believeth not shall be damned;" but infants cannot believe. Now if they are included in this passage, they must all be damned. If the text refers to infants, the same reason which excludes them from baptism excludes them from salvation. Let the text be used in its plain obvious meaning, and apply it to those who are capable of believing, and all is easy-all is simple. He that is capable of believing, must first believe, and then be baptized; he that is capable of believing must first do so, or he must be damned.'

To exhibit this still more clearly, let us refer to a passage in 2 Thess. iii. 10-"If any will not work, neither shall he eat." Adopt the mode of reasoning with this text, (the fallacy of which I have pointed out above) and how will the case stand-"They who will not work must not eat. Infants will not work, therefore they must not eat." A hard case this-yet you can only escape from this conclusion, by adopting the method I have adopted in explaining Mark xvi. 16, and then all is natural. Those who are capable of working and will not

do so, must not eat; but infants are not capable of working, therefore the passage cannot refer to them.

Look at the instance of Abraham-He believed first, and then received circumcision as a sign and a seal of the faith he had; yet Isaac his son, eight days old, was to be circumcised, and thereby became "debtor to do the whole lar" as St. Paul says, Gal. v. 3, Isaac* became a debtor to repent, and believe, and obey, as his father had repented, believed, and obeyed. Nor did He who promised to be a God to Abraham's seed, forget the seed of believers in the Gospel Church; for on that memorable day, when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, Peter, under the Spirit's guidance, declared, the promise of forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost is to you and to your children-"else were your children unclean, but now are they HOLY." Evidently, not actually or really holy, but relatively, federally, holy. 1 Cor. vii. 14. "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say." Baptism is a divine ordinance; value it; thank God for its institution, and use it aright for yourselves and for your children-considering what you are bound to be, and what you are bound to teach them that they ought to be: Remembering always that baptism doth represent unto is our profession, which is to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him, that as he

So we believe every baptized person is under special obligations to do the We will of Christ. And the Church of England is so careful that this d be fully understood-that the Sponsors answer the questions (proposed Baptism) in the name of the Child. SO THAT THE CHILD MAKES THE SES through the Sponsors.

Few, I trust, are now so ignorant as to be led away by the vulgar opinion, sponsors take the sin of the child until it is confirmed."

Read over the concluding addresses to the Sponsors, in the Baptismal service, you may at once see what is the interesting design of the Church in this

As a Christian parent I feel thankful to have pious Sponsors, interested in welfare of my own dear children.

Let parents seek for devout communicants to act as Sponsors,—(And this is wish of the Church). Let Sponsors undertake their charge in faith, and se and in a spirit of prayer. This will be the best way to silence objectors. thus may we hope for a greater blessing in connexion with, and after, the ssion of the Lambs of Christ's flock into his visible fold.

died and rose again for us, so should we, who are baptized die from sin, and rise again unto righteousness, continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living." (Baptismal Service.)

The mode of administering baptism, that is, as it regards the quantity of water to be used, I consider to be a point of very little moment. This is unquestionably the opinion maintained by the Church of England. To baptize with water, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is the command of her Lord. To this she adheres. I must not enlarge, but I beg your attentive perusal of the note at the bottom of the page,t as it may serve to supply you

Our Lord says that his Apostles were to be baptized WITH the Holy Ghost, yet where the promise was fulfilled, St. Peter says, "He hath SHED or POURED out this which ye do see and hear.

+ The professing visible church is always called in the word of God, by the name of the real, spiritual, but invisible church.

Hence, what is strictly speaking, true of the elect only, is often declared of the whole body, the visible society, out of which the elect family is gathered. In this way alone can we account for the fact, that ALL the Jewish people were called holy, and that, even when severely reproving them, God calls them his people. St Paul too says, "To whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants. That this was not, strictly speaking, true of ALL no one will deny. That ALL were bound to be, what ALL were called, and what the elect really were, every one must admit.

Nor is this view confined to the old covenant, but is equally true of the church under the new covenant. Hence our Lord's parables describe the church in a way which proves that the Gospel church was to have within its pale, two distinct classes known by one name.

In the Epistles, this point seems to be put beyond all dispute. Refer to 1 Cor. i 2. In that passage Paul writes, "To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." Again, in chap. xii. 13, he says, "By one spirit we are all baptized into one body; now ye are the body of Christ, and members one of another." Stronger language could not be used; yet it is addressed to ALL the professing church at Corinth; although we know that it was not strictly speaking, true of ALL. But the whole body is called by the name of the sound part.

In this way we can find a complete justification of the language of the Church of England, in her baptismal services. Adults, who profess repentance and faith, the church supposes to be sincere, and admits them to baptism; then judging of them by their profession, she speaks of them as" Baptized by one spirit into one body, as the body of Christ, and members one of another.” And being fully satisfied on scriptural grounds, that infants are to be admitted into the visible church by Christ's own ordinance, the church can only speak of them in the way her rule of taith speaks of members of the visible church; and she therefore declares that they "are baptized by one spirit into one body." But that they are savingly partakers of the Holy Ghost is to be proved in the same way that adults are to prove the sincerity of their profession-by

with an answer to some of the objections raised against our Baptismal Services.

On the other sacrament, that of the Lord's supper, I feel I must not dwell at any length. The object of that holy institution is well expressed in our Catechism, "For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby." The simplicity and spirituality of the office for the holy communion are very remarkable. The nature of the ordinance, the blessings to be sought, the state of mind in which we ought to draw near, are scripturally set before us. Oh! that every communicant may approach the table of the Lord in the way the Church expects, and thus "feed upon Christ in his heart by faith, with thanksgiving." In the Lord's supper indeed there is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, offered from the heart of the ruly penitent believer, and the surrender of ourselves, body, soul, and spirit to our Lord. But our Church xpressly guards us against the Popish heretical notion of the Lord's supper being a sacrifice. For she calls it the membrance of a sacrifice, therefore it is not a sacrifice.*

the fruits afterwards exhibited; by repenting of sin, and simply trusting in

Jesus.

In the Homily for Whitsunday, this is distinctly maintained.

The article on the Sacraments states-"That in such only, as worthily RECEIVE the Sacraments, have they a wholesome effect or operation." And, wain, in the 27th of Baptism, the church asserts, that it is only" they who RECEIVE BAPTISM RIGHTLY," that fully enjoy its privileges.

The mind of the Reformers, may be known by a reference to the article, as published in 1536; and comparing it with our 27th Article, as it now stands BLISHED, 1562.

See Bickersteth's Divine Warning to the Church, Appendix-page 307, and you will find the articles referred to.

*"Seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the church ministry, how ld the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied? 'It hath now properly no sacrifice."-Hooker. Book 5, parag. 78.

May not priest be the English for presbyter? Or as Hooker says, again 5 the same paragraph referred to above, "As for the people when they hear e name of priest, it draweth their minds no more to the cogitation of crifice, than the name of a senator or of an alderman, leadeth them to ak of old age; or to imagine that every one, so termed, must needs be ment, because years were respected in the first nomination of both." "Yet, truth, the word presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech Lore agreeable than priest, with the drift of the whole of the Gospel of Jesus Arist."-Hooker.