than we can afford to quote; whereof some appear to us valid and of weight, others scarcely so. But those of our readers who feel drawn to his view, will find his little volume one of small cost, and very readable.

The chief objection to it, in our mind, is, that it seems to us to fall into the common error of imagining, that there must be a "doctrine of regeneration" of some kind. Whereas, in Scripture, we find no "doctrine of regeneration" at all.

Men, in general, forget that the very word occurs but twice in the whole Bible:-"Ye which followed me in the regeneration," (Matt. xix. 28); and "He saved us, by the washing of regeneration." (Titus iii. 5.) The first of these no one applies to baptism. The second, therefore, stands alone-the one solitary text on which a doctrine is to be built, which is to disturb and perplex the whole Church! And yet, can any one seriously scrutinize it without seeing at a glance, that it is a mere phrase-an appellation--a passing expression, which, like "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," (1 Tim. iv. 14), or, "anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;" (James v. 14.) may be made by controversialists the foundation of a system, but which was never intended by the apostle as a definite statement of doctrine.* The necessity of repentance is declared in Scripture about one hundred times;-while even the term regeneration (as applied to the soul) can only be found in a solitary text!

Do we deny then, that the doctrine of the new birth is prominent in Scripture? Not in the least: but how can generation and birth be used as identical and synonymous terms? What we are expressing a repugnance to, is, the construction of a hundred theories, and a thousand books, upon a single, solitary, phrase of the apostle, "the washing of regeneration.' If men wish to discuss the doctrine of the new birth, let them say so. Let them frame their title

e-pages, and construct their arguments, in accordance with this idea. This, hitherto, they have not done. They write volumes after volumes concerning "the doctrine of regeneration;"-and, we are obliged to remind them, that from the first page of Genesis to the last of Revelation, they will find no such doctrine laid down in Holy Writ.

In the certainty that much of the obscurity which appears still to envelope the subject, is caused by the variety of authorities cited;-Scripture, Fathers, Reformers, Standards of the Church,

We would never lose sight of the essential doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture. But no one can deny that, in condescension to human frailty, language is often used which must not be taken strictly. As, for instance, Rom. ix. 3. And the ascription of "nostrils," to HIM, who is "without body, parts, or passions."

&c., &c.,-we have been inclined of late to wish that some one would endeavour to disentangle it, by compiling a history of baptism; in which the mere review of facts would do much to clear up the mistiness which modern theories cast over the matter. A very brief outline will explain our meaning.

1. Baptism, as every one knows,-though men often talk and write as though they had forgotten it,-was not a rite or custom first instituted by our Lord or his disciples. Its origin is lost in the gloom of extreme antiquity. "No question has been more strenuously debated than the origin of the rite of baptism. The practice of the external washing of the body, as emblematic of the inward purification of the soul, is almost universal. The sacred Ganges cleanses all moral pollution from the Indian; among the Greeks and Romans even the murderer might, it was supposed, wash the blood clean from his hands;' and in many of their religious rites, lustrations or oblations, either in the running stream or in the sea, purified the candidate for divine favour, and made him fit to approach the shrines of the gods. The perpetual similitude and connection between the uncleanness of the body and of the soul, which ran through the Mosaic law, and had become completely interwoven with the common language and sentiment; the formal enactment of ablutions in many cases, which either required the cleansing of some unhealthy taint, or more than usual purity, must have familiarised the mind with the mysterious effects attributed to such a rite and of all the Jewish sects, that of the Essenes, to which no doubt popular opinion associated the Baptist, were most frequent and scrupulous in their ceremonial ablutions. It is strongly asserted on the one hand, and denied with equal confidence on the other, that baptism was in general use among the Jews as a distinct and formal rite; and that it was by this ceremony that the Gentile proselytes, who were not yet thought worthy of circumcision, or perhaps refused to submit to it, were imperfectly initiated into the family of Israel. Though there does not seem very conclusive evidence in the earlier rabbinical writings to the antiquity, yet there are perpetual allusions to the existence of this rite, at least at a later period; and the argument, that after irreconcilable hostility had been declared between the two religions, the Jews would be little likely to borrow their distinctive ceremony from the Christians, applies with more than ordinary force."*

And it is plainly in reference to these Jewish rites, that St. Paul speaks of "divers washings," (Heb. ix. 10), and of "the

* Milman's History of Christianity, Vol. I. p. 142, 143.

doctrine of baptisms." (Heb. vi. 2.) Hence, from their being accustomed to the rite, we find that the Jews, convinced of sin by John's preaching, "were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins; "(Matt. iii. 6) without the least indication of their finding any novelty in the rite; but rather submitting to it as the usual and well-known mode of making a public profession of their sense of their past sins and defilements, and of their determination to "lead a new life" for the time to come. Our Lord, then, enjoined upon his disciples no new or unheard-of practice; but rather adopted, as sufficiently expressive, a rite which had been long in use, especially among the Jews. Hence His exclamation to Nicodemus, "Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?"

2. In the next place we should remark, that some rite of initiation into his church, was naturally looked for from the Lord. Without ourselves adopting or tolerating rationalistic language, there can be no difficulty in admitting, that to mankind in general, his aspect must have been that of a founder of a sect, (Acts xxiv. 5), and doubtless many of the worst-informed of his followers had no higher conception of him than that of a prophet, sent to teach men a better and a surer path to heaven. All, therefore, would naturally look for some rite of initiation, by which his disciples might be enrolled and banded together, like other sects and bodies of religionists, then or formerly existing in the world.

3. Baptism, then, presented nothing new in fact;-that which distinguished the apostolic use of it from similar rites among the Jews or heathen was, its form or designation,-" baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Very simple was the rite, and very ready were the disciples to administer it, the moment they discerned true faith in any person desiring it. "Here is water," said one who had only heard of Christ an hour before,-"what doth hinder me to be baptized?" To which the answer was, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." So the jailor, at Philippi, retired to rest a hard and cruel unbeliever; he is wakened up at midnight, and in his terror cries out, "What must I do to be saved?" The gospel is preached to him, and "in the same hour of the night " he was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

4. One obvious reason for the readiness with which the rite was administered, was,—that a profession of Christianity, in those days, was no light matter. It was not the joining some popular party, or fashionable system, but the braving "a great fight of afflictions, the encountering" reproaches and afflictions," often, the "suffering the loss of all things." Hence there was a degree of reasonableness in the assumption, that he who professed himself a believer, really was

so; since, to cast in his lot with a despised and persecuted sect, without any real confidence in God, would be voluntarily and almost insanely to make himself "of all men most miserable."

5. Hence arose, in a great degree, the confidence which the apostles so generally express, in the reality and energy of the faith of those to whom their epistles were addressed. The baptised Romans, Paul addresses, as " beloved of God, called to be saints:"the Corinthians, as "sanctified in Christ Jesus : "—the Ephesians, as "faithful in Christ Jesus: "-the Philippians, as "saints in Christ Jesus: "the Colossians, as "saints and faithful brethren; "-the Thessalonians, as "knowing their election of God." Doubtless, in every case there were some tares amongst the wheat,-a Demas, or a Diotrephes; but these were merely the exceptions to the rule the apostle might reasonably conclude that in general those who had hazarded their possessions, and even their lives, by a public profession of the faith, were in earnest in what they professed.

6. Now, to these sincere professors, baptism into the Christian church was in fact so important a step, that it can be no matter of surprise to find many warm and glowing expressions ordinarily applied to it. It was a prodigious change, to quit, at once, the territory of heathenism, lying" in the Wicked One," enveloped, embraced, and possessed by Satan, and to enter at once into the kingdom of Christ. To leave the ranks of those who were "lost," (2 Cor. iv. 3.) and to join the blessed company of those who were "saved," (Eph. ii. 5.) ;-to "suffer the loss of all things," or at least to brave such loss, but at the same time to "win Christ, and to be found in him." All this, and much more, was comprehended in the being, in faithfulness and truth, "baptized into Christ." Nor can we imagine that the compassionate and sympathising Saviour, could ever look down on one so entering his service, and be slow to pour upon him large and plenteous showers of blessing; such as should make him feel his baptism to be indeed a new birth, the opening of a new existence.

7. But in all this, it may be said,-we hear nothing of children. This is true, and the reason is, that in scripture, children are not specified, in the matter of baptism. This is a remarkable and most significant silence. At the present moment we behold theologians rushing into the arena of controversy by scores, to define with precision" the effect of baptism" on an infant, while scripture does not so much as tell us in express terms whether an infant ought to be baptized or not? Not that we for a moment contemplate giving up infant baptism. We believe that it is fairly inferred from scripture, though not commanded in scripture; and we have no doubt that it was a really primitive, and therefore apostolic prac

tice. Hence we cannot abandon it. But we believe that it is our duty to regard things in the light in which they are represented in scripture;-placing what is plainly and emphatically commanded, in a higher rank than what is only implied. Consequently we judge that men must err in contending so vehemently for points which Scripture hardly pauses to touch.

8. The aspect in which children are viewed, throughout the word of God, is that of being included in their fathers. Noah was addressed, "Come thou, and all thy house, into the ark," although Ham was among the number. When God made a covenant with Abraham, not the father of the faithful merely, but Ishmael also, was circumcised. The iniquity of Eli's sons, was to cleave to their posterity" for ever." "for ever." And so through the whole of the Old Tes

tament Scriptures.

9. And when we come to the New Testament, our only foundation for infant baptism, so far as instance or precedent is regarded, is found in the same class of facts. We are obliged to cite the jailor of Philippi, who was baptized, "he and all his ;" and Lydia, who was baptized, " and her household." The principle being the same in both cases,-the house being included in the head of the house.

10. But does not this furnish a key to the whole matter. The members share in the privileges of the head. Consequently, the transaction takes its colour and character from its reality in the first and chief transactor. The expectation of spiritual grace must rest mainly on the truth, or falsehood, of the transaction, so far as he who stands first in it, is concerned. Not questioning the power or willingness of God to save, apart from, and irrespective of, baptism, we should be inclined to argue, and we think naturally, and in some sort necessarily,-that as our sole argument for infant baptism is derived from the scripture principle of inclusion; so we must carry that principle with us throughout. The infant is baptized upon, and because of, the parent's faith. Whatever the character of that faith may be, such is the character of the baptism. He who is not free himself, cannot convey a freeman's privileges to his descendants. St. Paul admits that either parent may transmit Christian privilege to the children, but then the principle is implied in his declaration (1 Cor. vii. 14) that except the one or the other does so transmit, the children will not be "holy," but "unclean." Throughout the whole word of God this principle of inheritance,of transmission, of continuance from father to son, of including even children yet unborn, in the blessings or maledictions of their parents, is clearly discernible. "To thee and to thy seed,"-" unto children's children.” "The just man walketh in