Circumcision was a sign to the descendants and said, “Suffer little children, and forbid of Abraham not of their faith but of his; then not to come unto me, for of such is baptism is the sign of the faith of the the kingdom of heaven," are regarded by baprized, and the spiritual blessings of some Pædo-Baptists as sufficient authority which it is the pledge flow only through for baptizing infants. It is, however, to be this medium. Referring to this argument remembered that although our Saviour based on circumcision, one of my excellent took the little ones in his arms and blessed predecessors in the pastorate of my own them (conduct which beautifully illustrates church, the Rev. Richard Pengilly, says in his condescension and love), and though he his “Scripture Guide to Baptism," • Cir: declared by his teaching the great truth of cumcision was a type, but not of baptism infant salvation, not one word was said (a figure, a type of a figure !), but of by way of command, or direction, concernthe circumcision of the heart, and the ing the baptism of these children. The putting off the sins of the flesh. And this I only rational inference to be drawn from blessed work is accomplished, not on babes this is, that Christ had no intention of in age, but'babes in Christ'; born from teaching by this circumstance that infants above, and children of God. Hear the should be baptized. “From the action of infallible authority to which I refer, Christ's blessing infants," observes Jeremy Romans ii. 28, 29 : For he is not a Jew Taylor, " to infer that they were baptized, (an Israelite indeed) which is one out proves nothing so much as that there is a wardly, neither is that circumcision (in want of better argument; for the conGod's ultimate design) which is outward in clusion would with more probability be the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one derived thus:--Christ blessed children and inwardly; and circumcision is that of the so dismissed them, but baptized them not, heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, therefore infants are not to be baptized." wbose praise is not of men but of God.'” Olshausen, one of the ablest commentators

"The absurdity," he further remarks, on the Gospels, says, “ Of what reference to “ of urging the baptism of infants from the infant baptism, which it is so common to institution of circumcision, will appear by seek in this parrative, there is clearly not observing-1st, That male children only the slightest trace to be found.” were to receive that rite ; and, 2nd, That Some Pædo-Baptist writers profess to men servants and slaves were equally com regard the commission of our Lord to his manded to be circumcised when the master Apostles, recorded in Matt. xxvii. 19, 20, was, and that upon pain of being cut off, or as their chief authority for the baptism of put to death. If that Divine command, infants. Of this number is Dr. Halley, therefore, be applied as descriptive of the who says, “Let it, therefore, be understood subjects of baptism, it will equally require that, in our opinion, the great argument the baptism of servants and purchased for the baptism of infants is the plain slaves (willing or unwilling), as well as of grammar of the only commi-sion which we infants ; and it would restrict the Christian have received to baptize at all.” The best ordinance to the male sex alone. This reply that can be furnished to this statebeing 80 plainly contrary to the revealed ment is supplied in the words of the will of Christ on baptism, proves the fallacy Doctor's able and victorious opponent, the of the doctrine. In the word of God I see Rev. Charles Stovel : “In his appeal to the no connection or resemblance between commission,” says Mr. Stovel, “ Dr. Halley circumcision and baptism, except in this, dwells with as much triumphant repetition that they are both initiatory ordinances; of the English pronoun, them, and the the one into the body politic of Israel the phrase "grammatical sense,' as can with old, the subjects of which rite are all the ease be reconciled to modesty. In the male inhabitants-the other into the body sentence, 'Go ye forth, disciple all the of Christ, which is his Church, and the pations, baptizing them in the name of the subjects of which are all believers in him. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy To this the Apostle seems to refer in Ghost, teaching them to observe all things, Col. ii. 11-13."" To the view of circum whatsoever I have commanded you,'the word cision exhibited in the extracts I have now them, which follows the words baptize and given, some of the ablest defenders of infant teach, is used to translate the word autous, baptism are fast approaching.

which is a masculine pronoun, and falls The conduct and words of Jesus Christ, under the rule that a pronoun agrees with when he took little children in his arms, its noun in the antecedent proposition in number and gender, but derives its case believers it is maintained, from this, are from the verb in its own proposition. But made holy by their connection with their the antecedent proposition here is, 'Go and parents through baptism. Our reply to this discipline all the nations ;' the nations interpretation of the passage is, that the being neuter : by this rule, the masculine Apostle's words have no reference to bap. autous, them, cannot agree, therefore, with tism. An able writer in the North British this antecedent noun. If the course of the Review, for August, 1852, puts the Apos• reasoning seemed to require it, and ex. tle's argument and purpose in a correct ceptions to the rule could be found, to and forcible light, and shows that Paul, 80 justify the referring of autous to the far from proving that infont baptism was neuter antecedent, Dr. Halley should have practised in the Corinthian Church, prores produced the cases, to justify his departure the very opposite conclusion. “1 Cor. vii. from the rule: but he has not done so. He 14," says this writer, “is incompatible with appeals to grammar, and in grammar he the supposition that infant baptiom was fails. It is believed that no example,' to then practised at Corinth. The Apostle, justify such a departure from this rule, can in this passage, seeks to remove the scruples be found.”

of those Christian partners in mixed The fact of households having been marriages who believed that a conjugal baptized in Apostolic times, is considered union with a heathen was a state profane by some as furnishing certain proof that and unholy in God's sight. He reassures infant baptism was practised by the them by an argument founded on a reductio Apostles. In the case, however, of the ad absurdum. You admit, says he, that Philippian jailor's household, and in the | your children are holy, then be persuaded case of the household of Stephanas, we that the marriage from which that sanctity have satisfactory evidence that there were | was derived is holy also. For were it no infants in them. The jailor“ rejoiced, otherwise, if, as you imagine, the marriage believing in God with all his house ;' is unholy, then it would follow that the while the house of Stephanas “addicted children that are the fruits of it would be themselves to the ministry of the saints." unclean and unholy also ; whereas yon Concerning Lydia, we have no proof that i know and admit the reverse. You confess she was even a married woman; the them to be holy. It is absolutely indis. probability is that she was not, and that her perisable for the validity of this argument household consisted only of herself and her that the sanctity of the children should attendants. Besides which, households are have been exclusively derived from the not unfrequently baptized now, in which sanctity of the marriage, for on no other there are no infants. The words of Pro hypothesis could the sanctity of the children fessor Jacobi on this branch of the subject have furnished a proof of the sanctity of the deserve attention :- "In none of these marriage. Had the children been bap. instances," he observes, “has it been tized they would have been holy, iu their proved that there were little children among own right, as members of Christ, and a them ; but even supposing that there were, father who had had his children baptized there was no necessity for excluding them would have effectually demolished the from baptism in plain words, since such an Apostle's reasoning by the simple reply that exclusion was understood as a matter of the holiness of his children, as members of course."

Christ's Church, was no reason for his It has been argued that the Apostle's thinking the marriage holy, or his putting words in 1 Cor. vii. 14, justify the con- | away his unbelieving wife. Many, indeed, clusion that infant baptism was practised at have explained the term holy as meaning the time he wrote that Epistle, and that in I have been admitted to baptism,' making fact he is referring in the passage to the the verge say that if the faith of the practice. He says, “For the unbelieving believing partner had not sanctified the husband is sanctified by the wife, and marriage, the children would not have been the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the admitted to baptism, whereas they had been husband, else were your children unclean; baptized. But this is to re-write Scripture, but now are they holy.” The children of ' not to interpret it."

(To be continued.)

WORSHIP-ACCEPTABLE OR UNACCEPTABLE.

BY THE REV. J. T. WIGNER. “And if yo offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil ? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil ? offor it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with theo, or accept thy person ? saith the Lord of hosts.”—Mal. i. 8.

We have in these words a principle involved, a law referred to, and a practice condemned. There is a principle involved, and one which is generally admitted, though, especially as regards the service of God, often grievously violated. The principle is, that gifts presented and service rendered should be appropriate, i.e., in accordance with the dignity or necessity of the receiver of such gift or service; appropriate in order to be acceptable. We recognise this in all gifts which we offer to men : it becomes us to do so in the worship and service which we ronder to God. Worship, to be acceptable to him, must be in accordance with the majesty and glory of his nature, and also with our ability to render intelligent and affectionate service. The law referred to is that which enjoined on Israel that the paschal lamb should be: “ without blemish," and which forbad them to offer in sacrifice to the Lord whatever was maimed, or defective, or diseased. The practice condemned,Israel had declined in heart, had lessened in love to God, and become heartless in his service; they accounted his service a “ weariness" (ver. 13); in their covetousness they offered the refuse of the field and the flock, that which was unfit for the market or for food, "polluted bread” (ver. 7), “the torn, the lame, the sick” (ver. 13). God was “ wearied” with their service, and would not “ accept their offering."

We are directed to the subject of Worship-acceptable or unacceptable; the means by which we may know if it is acceptable in His sight or not; and reproof for service, not offered aright, not acceptable.

I. Worship--acceptable or unacceptable. All men have some idea of worship. We who have the word of God believe that God requires our worship; we hear and believe the invitation of the 95th Psalm, “ O come, let us worship ..... before the Lord our Maker.” We are also taught that much of that which was regarded by the offerer as worship was not well pleasing in his sight; while yet in many instances the ritual was “according to the pattern showed in the mount." The first recorded act of worship after the expulsion from Eden illustrates this. Two altars are raised, two brothers offer each his sacrifice : Abel's offering was accepted, Cain's was rejected. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, and they died before the Lord. God, by Isaiahı, told the Jews, “Your new moons and Sabbaths ” I cannot away with; the “solemn meeting" is iniquity : “when ye make many prayers I will not hear.” Our Lord tells us of two men who entered the Temple at the same time for the same purpose ; one only “went down to his house justified rather than the other.” The Pharisee stood with flowing robes at the corner of the street and prayed; the holy women gathered in the house of John Mark, hidden from human gaze : in the former case there was no response ; in the latter, whilst they were praying, “ Peter knocked at the door." It is not enough that we worship, it needs that our worship be acceptable. All the worship of heaven is acceptable worship; and then only is our service acceptable when it is pleasing to God; then, our own soul blest, our service crowned with success. We mention a few of the essential elements of acceptable service. A right view of God as he is revealed in the Scriptures. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Utter ignorance of an idol god may comport with tbe superstition of the benighted idolater; but an intelligent view of God, as he has been pleased to make himself known to his saints, is necessary to worshipping him aright. Abraham interceding on behalf of Sodom, Jacob pleading with the angel, Solomon at the Temple opening, the disciples gathered :: together at Jerusalem; afford us illustrations on this point. We must knok God in order to love him, and we must know and love him in order to worship him aright. A reliance on the death and resurrection of Christ. We can only draw nigh through the "blood ;” whatever the sophistries of udsanctified reason, or the soepticism of unbelieving minds, this fact remains unaltered and unalterable, that no service of ours ever reaches the throne, no blessing ever descends to us from the throne, only through the efficacy of “precions blood." This great truth was made manifest under the old economy. It was taught by every sacrificial victim ; it appeared in the blood with which the priest entered into the holy place, and without which he dare not enter there ; it was recog. nised by the people in the “sprinkling of blood;" it appears more fully in the teachings, writings, prayers, of evangelists and apostles; it is gloriously revealed in the worship of heaven. Every note which reaches the middle throne speaks of mediation through blood. Here must we build, on this foundation-stone; and our arms of faith embrace a Saviour “whose blood cleanseth from all sin,” a risen Saviour at the right hand of God, our “High Priest who has passed into the heavens.” On this Saviour we must rely in simple faith, or our worship will not be acceptable. A devout dependence on the Holy Spirit. We are to wait “until we are endued with power from on high," remembering, believing, the promise of our Divine Lord, “If I depart, I will send him unto you." Without his "gracious power and Divine energy we are utterly helpless, and all our worship will be utterly useless. Only as we honour the Spirit in all our worship, only thus will it be acceptable to God and well pleasing in his sight Our motive must be right. We cannot fail to perceive how our Lord discerned and pointed out motive as the spring of worship. He saw the Pharisees and their religious service; he read their inner minds, and this was the verdict; “ Al their works they do to be seen of men:” the motive was selfish, impure, and therefore the service was rejected. We must rise above selfishness, above the mere routine of duty, above the very thought of the applause of men, if we would serve God arigbt. It is only as the emotion, the power, the passion of “constraining love," thrills our whole being, inspires our souls, bears us up to his throne, that we shall serve, and be blest in our service. The artificial rose may please the child, but give us the living rose in its fragrance and beauty; and so the formality of mere ritual service may satisfy the unrenewed, but the child of God must realize the life of love in order to the life and blessedness of service. The heart must be sincere. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." The unsanctified, the unbumbled heart, the proud heart, the hypocrite's heart, are all offensive in the sight of God. "A broken and a contrite heart thou wilt not despise.” The solemn charge by the prophet against Israel was, “ This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me." To all such false worshippers our Saviour says, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" There must be a perfect accord between the desires of our hearts and the words of our lips. The operator works the letter, and then the word and sentence with the telegraph, and the faithful current af electricity bears it along and re-writes precisely the same letter, word, sentence. at the other end, however great the distance which it travels ; thus must our worship be, the words of the lips the faithful expression of the desires of our hearts. Our worship must be Scriptural. Under the law the whole ritual of service was prescribed : Moses had to make all things “like unto the pattern showed him in the mount." In later days the prophets delivered the message of God as he taught them, and prefaced it, “Thus saith the Lord.” When the Son of God sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, he added, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." To aid is,

principles are laid down, examples are given, epistles to churches form a directory, and no form or phase of worship is acceptable which is unscriptural or antiscriptural. “Thus saith the Lord ” must be our authority, and all else we must reject, albeit it is hoary with antiquity, or surrounded by the halo of fashion. Not long since, on the same Sabbath, in the same town, were professed worshippers met with one accord, in two different places : here were candles, vestments, intonations, bowings, the altar, and the crucifix; there were a platform filled with the youth of the Sabbath school, reciting poetry, speaking pieces, performing dialogues, amidst the clapping of amused spectators : and both were called worship. We ask, where the Scripture authority for either! Might not the Lord say, “ Who hath required this at your band, thus to tread my courts ? Bring no more vain oblations." But all these essential elements must be combined with faith. The language of the Bible is most express and emphatic. “ Without faith it is impossible to please God." "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek bim." Faith in the power of God, faith in the atonement of Christ, faith in the Holy Ghost, faith which looks not to self but to Christ, not at merit but grace, faith which lays hold of the Divine word, and receives the promised mercy. O God! help us to pray in faith, and preserve us from offering polluted bread, or presenting the sick, the torn, the lame, on thine altar!

II. The knowledge that our service is acceptable. “Will He be pleased with thee, or accept thy service ?” This question, we conceive, would be inappropriate unless we could know whether or not our service was acceptable. « God at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers," and made known to them the acceptance of their service; and will he hide this knowledge from us? Did they in the dawn know it, and will be not reveal it to us who dwell amidst the splendours of noon? We trow not. God, who said to Abraham in answer to his prayer, “I will not destroy it if I find ten there ;" who said to Lot, “See, I have accepted thee in this thing also ;" to Jacob, “Thou hast power with God, and hast prevailed ;" who revealed his

acceptance of the ancient service by the fire which fell and consumed the * sacrifice, by the ascending incense, by the cloud of the Divine glory, by the place

“shaken where they were assembled together," by the “ pricked” hearts and penitent souls under Peter's sermon ; he grants to us how to know his acceptance of our service as truly, though not as visibly, as in days gone by. Not by fire, but by the Holy Ghost; not in “cloven tongues," but in broken hearts ; not in delivered Peters, but in converted souls ; not in the “ earthquake and the fire,” but in the “still small voice” of his love and grace. We just mention some of these tokens. There is the consciousness of God's presence on our souls. We see no angel form as did Abraham ; we hear po voice saying to us as to Peter, “Arise, gird thyself, bind on thy sandals," yet we have the consciousness of his presence in our midst, on our souls. Let no one say, “ This cannot be.” The true worshipper knows it is. As the blind man is conscious of the presence of his fellow-men though he sees them not, as the dying man is conscious of the glow of health in the friend who watches and weeps by his side, even so the spiritual man, the possessor of spiritual life, is conscious of the presence of Christ in the assembly, the grace of Christ on his own soul. The disciples journeying to Emmaus knew him not by vision, for “their eyes were holden,” yet their hearts “burned within them ;* and when in his worship and service we are blest with his presence, our sorrows are eclipsed in the lustre of that glory, our burdens fall from our backs at the cross, our bosoms swell with ardent love, the things of earth lose their attractive power, heaven's light beams on our souls, our spirits rise with joy to his throne, our hearts are thrilled with delight, we are melted in adoring gratitude and love.