God,' and of which, when properly understood, it was the sign and the seal. So must all without remedy perish, notwithstanding their baptism and their other outward privileges, who are not born again,' by being made partakers of like precious faith with Abraham. Circumcision could not save the one; neither can baptism save the other. Mere natural descent from Abraham could not save the one; neither can mere natural relation to godly parents save the other. All the variety of external privilege and observance could not save the one; outward connexion with the purest church on earth, and the most punctilious attendance upon all its institutions, cannot save the other. He was not a Jew who was one outwardly, neither was that circumcision which was outward in the flesh; but he was a Jew who was one inwardly, and circumcision was that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.' He is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God. 'In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new

creature.'*"

* Rom. ii. 28, 29.—Gal. vi. 15.

THE SEVENTH WITNESS.

I, the SEVENTH WITNESS, "have long felt myself particularly called upon to" give my evidence on this subject," from the circumstance of having published some explanations, connected with it, of certain Greek prepositions, and verbs, and nouns, in my Greek Grammar, and Greek and English Scripture Lexicon.

"Reasons may be assigned, though not to justify, yet to account for, much of the ignorance which prevails among Christians, respecting Baptism. When they first have their attention directed to the observance of ordinances, they do not usually take much notice of baptism, which they believe they have already received, but rather of the Lord's supper, which they desire to partake of, as the highest privilege of saints on earth.

"I am aware that many have been long ago shouting victory, in this contest. The duty of immersing in water those who are to be baptized, and of requiring that none shall be baptized till they have made a profession of the faith, is alleged to be so plain an article of Christian doctrine, that the man who hears the gospel, and rejects that article, must be wilfully disobedient. But it may well abate this confidence, and should humble us all, to see the battle continuing to rage, without the smallest appearance of termination.

"Christians are actually beginning to despair of any result from the existing controversy. Even among Protestants, whose principle it is that the Scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith and practice, several churches have been of late years formed on an understood acknowledgment, that the word of God gives no explicit instruction to his people on so rudimental a subject as the ordinance of Baptism. Every member is therefore left to do respecting it that which

is right in his own eyes and it is agreed, that whatever each may think or do for himself, that ordinance shall, in no form, and in no case, be admitted into any part of their public worship.

"While I confess that I am chiefly struck with the inefficacy of the discussion on both sides, I mean not to deny that Antipædobaptist sentiments have for several years been making considerable progress. It is not wonderful, if this progress be regarded by those of that persuasion, as a proof that their sentiments are supported by the force of truth. To me it appears to be a consequence of the mixture of error and inconsistent practice in those, who before held the truth generally on the controverted subject.

"It unfortunately happens, that the ordinance of baptism has come into Protestant churches with an uncommonly large share of the superstitions and absurdities of the church of Rome.

"Who can be surprised at the number of Antipædobaptists, in the southern part of the Island, where it is the general system to baptize all children, and, at the same time, to exclude all parents from any part in the matter; where the whole service is a transaction between a priest and certain sureties called god-fathers and god-mothers; where the priest is made to talk, as if to the child, and the sureties are made to answer in his name; where a formal bargain is struck, between Christ on the one hand, and the child on the other, in consideration of certain promises to be performed by each party to the other; where the priest must pray that the water to be used may be made holy; where he is directed to dip the child in water if he may well endure it,' and yet uniformly pours water upon him, not as being right, but that which shall suffice, if they certify that the child is weak, and which is made to suffice whether he be weak or not t; where, after baptizing, the priest makes a cross upon the child's forehead, and gives thanks to God for his regeneration.

"Many of the most flagrant of these abuses are little known in Scotland; and yet baptism is, according to the general system in this country, dispensed without due regard

to the character of the parents. At the same time, it is connected with the imposition of vows on parents, which are altogether unknown in Scripture, but which they must either submit to, or forfeit their privilege, and which it is intended the child shall take upon himself, if he ever desire to be admitted to the Lord's supper; before baptism, prayer is, as in the other case, offered up that the water be made holy; baptism is described as sprinkling and washing, and again as pouring or sprinkling, which it is declared is not only lawful, but sufficient and most expedient.

'The one National church avows a preference for immersion, while she tolerates the neglect of it, and that upon the foolish supposition that a cold bath may be more than an infant can well endure'; refuses the privilege of Christian parents, while she baptizes all children without distinction; and leaves it as matter of dispute whether Baptism and Regeneration be not one and the same thing. The other National church calls baptism washing, confounds pouring and sprinkling, and recommends what it thus represents as one mode, as merely lawful, sufficient, and most expedient; all which terms admit the inference, that another mode, namely immersion, may possibly have been the original practice.

"Independents have not left this ordinance in so vague and ambiguous a condition, as Episcopalians or Presbyterians have done; in regard, however, to the disputed points, they have commonly satisfied themselves with bare selfdefence. They have found little or no fault with the principles and practice of Antipædobaptists; but have endeavoured to vindicate themselves for not following their example. They have said (some of them at least) that immersion was no doubt baptism, but that pouring was baptism also; that the infants of believers have a right to be baptized, and that therefore the parents are justifiable in claiming it in their favour; but some of them seem to have very little sense of their obligations to require that parents in their communion do their duty in this matter.

"The tendency of this negative and slovenly manner of

treating the subject is to generate scepticism. The careless disregard the controversy as unprofitable, while the timid are frightened into the system of the Antipædobaptists. They see all allow that immersion is right, but the other mode they find to be by some contested: all allow that Antipadobaptists are themselves baptized, although they hold that others have no baptism, either for themselves or their children. They prefer immersion, therefore, and join the Antipædobaptists, on the principle of taking the safest side of a difficult question.

"I hope that Christians of the Antipædobaptist persuasion will not regard my evidence as a token of hostility. An endeavour to detect error, and to establish truth, is an act of friendship to every member of the body of Christ. That the difference of judgment I am to treat of appears to me a very serious one, I frankly acknowledge. But the general articles of the faith of our opponents, the constitution and government of their churches, and the excellence of their Christian character, are, for the most part, so unexceptionable, and so distinguished, that if through the blessing of God we could but come to an agreement on this ordinance of baptism, there would remain nothing to prevent our most cordial union.

"It is inaccurate to explain baptism to be washing. It is not washing, but a figure of washing. This is true, in whatever way it may be administered. It is also inaccurate to call baptism sprinkling. There is another form, which is thought to belong to the ordinance of baptism, commonly called immersion. It consists in putting the subject of baptism completely under water, and then lifting him up again. This is a transaction between one man and another, which, for any purpose, common or sacred, I have not been able to meet with in the Holy Scriptures.

"What then do I conceive to be the Scriptural form of the ordinance of baptism? It is the pouring out of water, from the hand of the baptizer, on the turned-up face of the baptized. This I conceive to be the only Scriptural mode of administering the ordinance.