believe to be sanctioned by his example and commandments, or those of his inspired apostles.

The only two points on which they disagree are, the mode and the meaning of the rite of baptism. On the one side it is maintained, that the ceremonial baptisms of the Bible were purifications by water, without restriction to any particular mode; on the other, that they were purifications by immersion only. By one party it is contended that the Christian rite, like all similar rites, was a symbol of spiritual purity which the baptized person was to seek; by the other, that it was a sign of that which he had already attained. Many additional opinions may be occasionally associated; but these alone are the essential and universal tenets which distinguish these two sections of the church of Christ. Among Congregational churches, baptism is not regarded as a sign that the subject of the rite shares the character and condition of those who possess repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; and, therefore, its application is not limited to such persons. Among Baptist churches it is regarded as a sign of this character and condition; and consequently, its use is restricted to those who have been examined and approved, as converted, renewed, and sanctified, by the Gospel and Spirit of Christ. With us, baptized persons are viewed simply as disciples, or learners in the kingdom of Christ. They may not have begun to receive instruction, but they are recognised as those who are placed, by the kind providence of God, where the privileges and responsibilities of Christian discipline will be in some measure possessed. With our brethren, on the contrary, baptized persons are viewed as disciples in a much higher sense of the term. They are those who have not only learned the essential truths of the Gospel, but who have also experienced its transforming power on their hearts, and manifested its influence in their lives. We can see no reason why all who are the subjects of Christian discipline should not be called disciples. Others think that only those who will be saved by this discipline should be so designated. But the meaning of the word being explained, this diversity can be of no consequence. By some, baptism is regarded as the sign simply of Christian discipleship; by others, it is regarded as the sign also of the special advantages which belong to the children of the people of God. But the former acknowledge the reality and importance of these advantages, though they see not their connexion with baptism; and the latter do not regard the rite as the means of producing, or attesting, any change which can in the least diminish the obligations to penitence and faith, which belong alike to all who become acquainted with the Gospel. We may appeal to the whole literature of our denomination, and to the practice of all our churches, in support of these statements. A Baptist may assert, that the rite of Christian

baptism is administered among Congregational churches in a wrong manner; and that it is used for a purpose different from that for which it was appointed. This of course is his opinion, and on these two points we are at issue; but only on these.

We should have supposed that, to all who had advanced beyond the elements of Christian instruction, the precise mode in which any ceremony was performed, and the particular use to which it was applied, would appear to be comparatively of little moment. If all the same truths are received and taught, though some may use baptism to exhibit one truth, and some another; and if all the same ends are pursued, though some employ the rite for one end, and some for another, the difference will appear to be very slight, if we apply to it any Christian standard. To disobey any known command of our Lord respecting a ceremony, would be a moral offence. But to mistake his will in reference to the mode and meaning of a ceremony is no moral offence; and he has said nothing of ceremonial transgressions. Anti-pædo-Baptists believe that the privileges and responsibilities of Christian discipline belong to their children; though they use only language to exhibit this truth. And Pædo-Baptists believe that only persons possessing penitence and faith should be acknowledged as Christian brethren, though they use only the communion of the Lord's supper to manifest this relation, in addition to the words and actions which become Christian fellowship. He who sprinkles water on an infant thinks that there is an advantage in the use of a simple and expressive rite to denote an important truth, which he believes it was designed to teach. And he who immerses a believer in water thinks that there is an advantage in the use of a more arduous and impressive ceremony to denote another important truth, which he believes it was intended to set forth. If what they do they do for the Lord, they are both equally accepted by him. It is not ceremonial correctness, but integrity of heart that he regards. The truth is surely of more value than any one mode of exhibiting it, and the end of more importance than any one way of seeking it. We therefore freely admit that the will of Christ is more faithfully observed where infant baptism is omitted, if more attention be given to the privileges and responsibilities of Christian education. And we claim that it should be allowed by those who maintain believers' baptism, that the will of Christ is more faithfully observed where this rite is omitted, if more attention be given to the qualifications and duties of Christian fellowship.

It is supposed by some that the mode of observing the rite of baptism, and the use to which it is applied, must be of great importance. We think that the whole character of the Gospel dispensation, and the diversity of opinion which exists among persons equally able, learned, and pious, must condemn such an assump

tion. If these matters be regarded as of such moment, that to imagine the evidence respecting them to be at all obscure or doubtful, is to impeach the character of our Divine Lawgiver, then we have no alternative, but to accuse of very culpable blindness those whose judgment may differ from our own. We do not envy any who are in this position, but rejoice that our views of this Christian ordinance will admit of our honouring the Lord, without dishonouring our brethren. We write this, having gone carefully through Mr. Stovel's work, to the last sentence, which declares that the peculiar tenets of his denomination 'have been placed, if not beyond resistance, yet certainly beyond all plausible dispute.' Notwithstanding Mr. S.'s demonstration, we think it not improbable that wise and good men will continue to adopt different conclusions. We are not acquainted with any diversities of opinion and practice among Christians in the present day, to which the principles laid down by St. Paul, in reference to the controversies of the first Christians, may be more justly applied, than those respecting infant baptism and the baptism of believers. Concerning both rites, it may be said with equal propriety,' He who observes the rite, observes it for the Lord: and he who does not observe it, for the Lord he does not observe it. Why dost thou condemn thy brother? And why dost thou despise thy brother ?'*

If to any of our readers these remarks should seem so obviously true as to require no mention, we must beg them to suspend their decision for a while. We fear that there are too many who still need this rudimentary instruction. The lectures delivered by Dr. Halley, at the Congregational rooms, on the Sacraments, have occasioned the lectures of Mr. Stovel, on Christian Discipleship and Baptism, which were delivered at the Baptist Mission-house. Mr. S. claims the honour of precedence, certain lectures which he delivered at Woolwich having, according to his account, so much alarmed the Congregational churches, that Dr. H. was summoned to their defence. We have reason to know that Dr. H. was quite unacquainted with these lectures; he should not, therefore, be censured for omitting to notice them. We believe, too, that Mr. S. has wholly mistaken the nature of the sentiment which his publication excited where it was read. The lectures of Dr. Halley have prefixed to them a clear declaration, that the lecturer alone is responsible for the opinions and arguments advanced in them; yet Mr. Stovel represents them as sanctioned by the whole denomination. A similar declaration is prefixed to his own volume; and we are unwilling to suppose that his opinions and arguments have received more than a very partial approbation, from the many respectable persons whose names stand connected with these lectures.

* Rom. xiv.

Their title may suggest to the reader the fallacy by which they are pervaded. The larger portion of the work is, as we might expect, on Christian discipleship, in the highest sense of the phrase. It is designed to show that it was the purpose of our Lord to separate from the world a people for his praise, whose holy character would commend the Gospel, whose sympathy would afford mutual support, and whose co-operation would contribute to the advancement of his kingdom. This of course none among us would deny; and it could not be the proper end of a work, composed in reply to Dr. Halley's lectures, to establish what he had never impugned, but, on the contrary, would be foremost to maintain. The propositions which Mr. Stovel really had to prove were, that only persons known to possess true penitence and faith could rightly be named the disciples or scholars of Christ,-and that to such persons only the rite of baptism ought to be administered. But the portion of the work which is directed to these points is very small. If the author should say, that the subjects first mentioned required to be noticed as preparatory to the other; we beg to reply, that he might as well have favoured us with a discourse on the inspiration of Scripture, or the truth of Christianity, or the existence of God. These subjects are, we presume, fundamental to the doctrine of believers' baptism; and they are quite as appropriate to this controversy, as those which he has chosen to introduce. The only use of this plan which we can imagine is, that it leaves on the reader's mind the impression, that Congregational churches are societies formed with no regard to Christian character, an impression which the general tenor of the book would only confirm; and which could not be corrected by a solitary passage, which incidentally admits that the practice of Congregational and Baptist churches, in respect to purity of communion, is really the

same.

Mr. Stovel seems to imagine that it is impossible to secure the association of true Christians in church fellowship, unless they are marked out by water-baptism. He says, 'If Christians are to be one, each one ought to have, and must have, some way of determining who the Christians are.'* Character and conduct, it seems, will not suffice, nor admission to the table of the Lord; nothing can secure this end but immersion in water. To administer baptism to others, according to him, 'breaks down the enclosure of Christian society, and reduces it to a level with the unconverted masses of mankind.'t Statements of a similar kind are to be found in all parts of the work, unsupported by any arguments from the word of God, or the history of the church, or the consti

tution of man. The only thing having the semblance of an argument which we can discern, is the reference to national churches, in the associations of which it is known that little regard is paid to Christian character. But even in them no one is entitled to the recognition of a Christian when an adult, simply because he was baptized in infancy. Where the grace which renews the soul is attributed to infant-baptism, it is naturally presumed that, under ordinary circumstances, the person will grow up to be a Christian. But this is in consequence of the efficacy assigned to the rite; and it would be most unreasonable to suppose that the same results must follow where this efficacy is maintained, and where it is universally denied. Mr. Stovel is evidently incapable of considering the practices of others, except in connexion with his own opinions. Because it would be wrong for them to act as they do, if they thought as he does, he pours forth his indignant condemnation on their conduct. He seems wholly to forget that the good or evil which result from any religious rite, must depend on the way in which it is understood by those among whom it is observed; and not on the way in which he may regard it. His opinions on baptism appear to be held by him, not merely as certain, but also as necessary truths. If for a moment they are stated as subjects for inquiry or discussion, it immediately appears that they are first to be acknowledged as true. His reasonings remind us of the arguments of those who seek to demonstrate their own existence, but who cannot take a single step without assuming what is to be proved. Mr. Stovel seems compelled by the law of his nature to argue in the same way for the immersion of believers. To admit that our Lord means what he says, will at once, in his judgment, decide the question. Nothing but immersion in water can secure the purity of Christian societies; nothing else can distinguish between natural and spiritual persons; nothing else can qualify the church of Christ to be his witness in the world. Few, we think, will be disposed to rank these with self-evident truths. And yet Mr. S. declares that this controversy involves the whole question, whether there shall be a people set apart for Christ, a kingdom of heaven upon earth or not.'*

Many at the present time earnestly desire that disputes among Christians should be conducted in a better style and spirit than they have been. The assumption of intellectual or spiritual superiority, the imputation of unworthy motives, and all that is needlessly offensive, might surely be laid aside, without any injury to truth. Mr. S., however, seems to prefer the old way. He begins his lectures by stating that it will relieve and enrich this tedious

* p. 217.