We answer, believers; for such is our | if an unbaptized child is likely to die, Lord's command. He commanded his disciples to baptize those that believe. And this command the disciples literally obeyed, for they baptized none but those who professed to believe. Thus it is said of the Samaritans, Acts viii. 12, that "when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. There were no children baptized, you observe; though we may well suppose that some of these men and women had children; but if they were fathers and mothers, it is clear that their infants were not baptized with them. In Acts xviii. 8, we read that "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house; and that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Here you see a whole house believed; no wonder, then, that whole houses were baptized; and we are sure that there was not one infant among them, for they all believed. But if, as the scriptures teach, believers only ought to be baptized, why are infants also baptized? Infant baptism is nothing but a human ordinance, founded, not on scripture, but on tradition; and now, as in our Lord's days, the command of God is made of no effect by the traditions of men. No one can show us any precept in the scriptures for infant baptism; nor can any one show us in scripture a single instance of its practice. But why, then, you ask, was infant baptism introduced? The reason appears to have been this. Many thought baptism a saving ordinance. But this is an error; baptism does not save; it does not regenerate; but those who thought it had that power wished, of course, to have their children baptized, that they might be saved. The case is the same now; those who think that baptism saves or regenerates, as the Prayer Book teaches, are desirous of having their children baptized; and what fear in the minds of the parents! and what running for the minister! that he may sprinkle a few drops of water in its face before it draws its last breath! We pity the parents in their distress, and very much wish that they were better informed. But when was infant baptism introduced? Not in the apostles' days, nor until they had long slept with their fathers. Infant baptism made its first appearance in the beginning of the third century. There is no account of it in the first and second centuries. And where did it first appear ? Not among the best informed and most spiritually-minded of christians; but among the half-christianized Africans. But infant baptism, once introduced, very soon spread, as error usually does; but it has never become universal. Nor did this error become, for a long time, even general. There are some facts in church history which may surprise those who think that infant baptism has always been almost universal. Allow me to introduce a few statements from Westlake's little book on baptism. Augustine, a name well known in church history, was a very wicked young man. He lived at Milan, he had a very pious mother, whose name was Monica; she prayed much for the conversion of her son. At last the Lord heard her prayers, and her son became a pious man. He was baptized about the year 397, when he was about thirty years fage. Here observe the date of his baptism; about the year 397; and the age at which he was baptized, when he was about thirty; hence, you can observe, that infant baptism was not universal at the end of the fourth century. His mother, too, you observe, though a very pious woman, who prayed much for the conversion of her son, did not have him baptized. How much did she act like a baptist! Yes! just like a baptist; the baptists pray for the conversion of their children, but never have them baptized till they profess to be believers in Jesus. Yes! sister Monica, it is evident that you were a baptist; and were you here, we would most gladly receive you among us. Ambrose was born of christian parents, was instructed in christianity, but was not baptized till he was chosen bishop of Milan. It was in the fourth century that he was chosen bishop and baptized; so, it seems, from the circumstances above stated, that his parents too were baptists. This Ambrose, it is said, baptized Augustine, the person we have just mentioned; and the baptistery in which he was baptized, at Milan, is said to be yet in existence in one of the churches there. and great-grandfather, were christians, was not baptized till the twenty-eighth year of his age. Who but baptists would thus have delayed the baptism of their children? Yes, we must believe that those who did this were baptists; and we must also believe that there were many baptists in those days, and but few pædobaptists. But from the fourth century and downwards, infant baptism, like other corruptions, has very much prevailed. But some will say, If infant baptism is not commanded, yet it does no harm, and it may do some good. "It does no harm," you say; but if it is not commanded, it is a work of supererogation; and if we think ill of works of supererogation among the Romanists, why should we not think ill of them among Protestants? You consider the baptism of your infants a religious service; but God says: "Who has required this at your hand?" You say that infant baptism does no harm; but it is a human tradition, and where it prevails it sets aside the immersion Jerome, a very noted man among the christians, was born of christian parents, but not baptized till he was about thirty years of age. He also was a man of the fourth century. The case of Nectarius is similar to that of Ambrose, in that he was chosen a bishop before he was baptized; yes! this Nectarius was chosen bishop of Constantinople before he was baptized. Another case, and that a remarkable of believers, which God has commandone, is that of Gregory Nazianzen, who was born in the year 318, of christian parents, whose father was a bishop, yet he was not baptized till he was nearly thirty years of age. Only think of this; a bishop, in the fourth century, did not have his son baptized. How different was his conduct from that of modern bishops! How different from a certain bishop of Calcutta, who not only had his infant baptized, but also gave a ball on the occasion! Chrysostom was born of christian parents, in the year 347; but he was not baptized till he was nearly twentyone years of age. Who would have thought that the famous Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed, as his name signifies, and the preacher in the church of St. Sophia, in Constantinople, was a baptist? Yet it seems he was so; and yet we are told by some, that the baptists are a new sect, never heard of till the Reformation. ed; thus, like the traditions among the Pharisees, it nullifies the command of God; and is there no harm in this? But many of the advocates of infant baptism plead that it is a saving ordinance; they say that it makes them children of God and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven. We feel it our duty to say that this doctrine is quite false and anti-scriptural; men are not born again by baptism, but by the word of God. “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter i. 23. If men are born again by the word of God, they must hear that word, and believe it, or it cannot produce in them that change which is called regeneration or the new birth. But infants, in baptism, neither hear the word of God nor believe it, therefore they are not born again in baptism. And is there no harm in thus Basil, whose father, grandfather, deceiving men, in telling them that they were born again in baptism, when they were not so born again? Is it not teaching them a falsehood- -a false hood that may ruin their souls? For if men think they are christians, when they are not, may not the result be their eternal destruction? How many now in the world of misery have to lament that they were thus deceived? And how many will for ever curse those who thus deceived them? Never, my friends, never teach your children that pernicious, that soul-destroying doctrine, that they were made the children of God by baptism. If infant baptism is false, what then should the true believer do who has been baptized only in his infancy? He should be baptized on a profession of his faith, and that without delay. Baptism is important, not because it saves, for it does not save; but it is important, and very important, because it is a command of Jesus Christ. Surely his commands are of sufficient importance to claim the obedience of all that love him! This is the light in which our friend here views the ordinance; and viewing it as a command of Jesus Christ, he desires to be baptized. Baptism is not to be deferred or neglected because some whom we love are averse to our being baptized. No one must say, 'My parents forbid me; my brothers and sisters are unwilling; my wife is unwilling." Jesus Christ says: "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." If we own Christ before men, he will own us at the last day. "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." [We found the above excellent address in the columns of the Oriental Baptist for November, 1852. The occasion of its delivery was the baptism of a candidate, on Sep. 5, 1852, who gave his reasons for being baptized before entering the water. What adds to its interest, in our estimation, is, that the initials "W. R." stand at the foot; and, therefore, we presume that it was delivered by the late venerable William Robinson, who, at his death, aged 70, on Sep. 2, 1853, just one year afterwards, was, we believe, the oldest Protestant Missionary in Bengal.] Spiritual Cabinet. preaching the gospel to sinners. They are represented as ministering to the heirs of salvation-as encamping round about those that fear the Lord as even conveying them, after the present life, to the paradise above. They evidently contemplate, with thrilling interest, the success of the gospel THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION.--"Hath committed to us the word of reconciliation." But why to us? Would not some other order of intelligence be fitter for the work? Could not angels do it much better? They have more physical power to overcome opposition in their discharge of the enterprise. They have a spiritual singing their loud and heavenly nature, which would exempt them anthems to God at the birth of the from persecution. They have greater Messiah-strengthening the blessed speed, by which to fly to the remotest Redeemer, when bending under the corners of the earth, without the cum-weight of his agony in the garden of brous machinery to which we are com- Gethsemane-rolling away the great pelled to resort. And above all, they stone from the mouth of the sepulchre are spotlessly holy, and could perform their duty without a stain or a blemish. And yet, in the face of these apparent advantages, the word of reconciliation is committed to us. It is worthy of special consideration that we never once read in the sacred page of angels and being the heralds of divine vengeance at the last great day, yet we never once hear of their being sent as ambassadors to proclaim reconciliation to fallen man. It would seem, too, as if the Divine Being wished for this fact to be particularly noticed. Look, for example, at the conversion | He has associated with a being of his of Cornelius. No doubt God could own nature, one who understands his have worked a saving faith in his experience, who can sympathise with heart by the direct and immediate every pang that rends his spirit, and influence of his own spirit, or through who knows practically more of human the instrumentality of an angel. And redemption than the highest archangel he did send an angel to Cornelius, in heaven. What soothing and ennot however to preach the gospel to couraging language is heard from his him, but to direct him to send for lips! What sentiments, which angels Peter, that he might hear the gospel dare not, cannot utter! What elofrom the lips of a fellow mortal. And quence, which angels cannot touch! he sent also to Peter a communication The enquirer is consoled and cheered. from heaven, to prepare him for the Encouragement and hope take the message; thus adding miracle to mira- place of dejection and sorrow, and cle, in order that the "word of recon- though he still has a burden on his ciliation" might be received by an back, with alacrity he hastens to the unconverted man, through the me- cross, crying, "Life! Life! Eternal dium of human effort. Life!" "I RECEIVED MERCY." Yes, THAT was the grand secret of Paul's tenderness over others. Probably on this principle it is that Peter in the Epistles, and Peter in the Gospels, are such totally different men. The boisterous impetuosity, the sturdy roughness, was softened down after he went out and wept bitterly." Now the design of christianity is, by an appeal to the moral sympathies, to bring man back again to God. And the point to be noted, is, that angels cannot sympathise with sinners. They cannot enter into their feelings. Conceive for a moment that you see a weary, distressed, heavy laden sinner, standing before one of these happy beings. Hear him stating all his trials, laying open all his cares and conflicts, and then see him exhibiting to view that mass of imperfections and sins which hang so heavily on his soul. Can you not behold the angelic messenger recoil, amazed and appalled that any reasonable creature, with such a load of iniquity, can indulge the least hope of mercy. You see that anxious enquirer retire with an aching heart. He has received no sympathy from the angel. But while walking solitary along, ever and anon ejaculating, "What must I do to be saved - How shall I escape the wrath to come," he is met by another personage, not a purely spiritual being as before, but a manBunyan's Evangelist," who himself has been just plucked as a "brand from the burning," and who from heartfelt experience can exclaim, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' How different this reception from the last! 66 On precisely the same principle is it, that the blessed volume of inspiration is so unspeakably more valuable to us than it would have been had it been penned by angels. It was because the prophets were men, because the evangelists were men, because the apostles were men, that with such intense feeling and photo graphic correctness, they could speak of the operations of sin on the heart, and of that blood which "cleanseth us from all sin." And on this ground is it, that the Redeemer himself is so incalculably precious as our intercessor. He can plead for us, he can feel for us, he can sympathise with every sorrow that afflicts his servants. Why? "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behoved him to be made in all things like unto his brethren." Why? That he might be a merciful and faithful high priest. For in that he himself was tempted; he is himself able also to succour them that are tempted. Jones's Sermon on Reconciliation. Poetry. THE CHRISTIAN'S FAREWELL TO EARTH. A PARODY ON, "ADIEU, my native land, adieu !" Thy joys no more delight my mind; Eternity is in my view; I leave thy luring sweets behind. "Delusive hopes can charm no more," Nor would I as an exile roam; My faith would stretch her wings and soar, And bear me to 'my peaceful home." "Adieu, my native land, adieu !" Farewell, dear relatives, farewell! I'd leave you all, and ever dwell, Where night shall never, never be. "Though frequent falls the dazzling tear," I scorn to shrink from "heaven's decree;" Oh death thy sting I need not fear, "Adieu, my native land, adieu !" In vain shall earth obstruct my way, With all its flattering hopes or toys; Nor can its frowns e'er cause dismay; Faith now beholds perpetual joys. "Rise! billows, rise!" and bear away! "Nor night, nor storms, nor death I fear !" I long for an eternal day, And peace which time denies me here. "Adieu, my native land, adieu !" JOHN EVANS. Carnarvonshire. PSALM XXIII. BENEATH a spreading tree, whose ample shade The thoughts which that calm scene had now awoke "ABIDE IN ME, AND I IN YOU." THAT mystic word of Thine, O Sovereign Lord! Abide in me, I pray, and I in Thee, From this good hour, O leave me never more? Then shall the discord cease, the wound be heal'd, The life-long bleeding of the soul be o'er. Abide in me-o'ershadow by Thy love As some rare perfume in a vase of clay Pervades it with a fragrance not its own, So, when Thou dwellest in a mortal soul, All heaven's own sweetness seems around it thrown. The soul alone, like a neglected harp, Grows out of tune, and needs that Hand divine; I pray Thee now fulfil my earnest prayer, Harriet Beecher Stower, |