the blessedness of hungering and thirsting, of being called according to God's purpose, and of having a good hope, through grace, that they are amongst that happy number, "the election," acknowledging, at the same time, as sensibly lost yet saved sinners, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that had it not been for free, sovereign, almighty, discriminating mercy, so highly favoured they would not have been; and this is connected, as I have already intimated, with a solemn proof of the existence of Three Persons in the Godhead, and the absolute presence of those Personsan evidence of his almighty approbation, and that the ordinance is of his own divine instituting.

Before entering upon the subject, however, I must premise, that I have been considerably tossed about in my mind as to the propriety or impropriety of doing so at all, knowing, as I do, that many of your readers, whom I sincerely esteem for the truth's sake, differ from me on this point, and fearing that you, perhaps, might be the ultimate sufferers. But seeing, on the one hand, that you have requested it, and, on the other, that I am upheld by Scripture in being faithful, whether in season, or out of season, my scruples have all vanished, and I have determined upon not mincing the matter, in so far as I have been taught, but honestly, though briefly, commenting upon my text, appealing to the consciences of those who profess to have tasted the pardoning love of a dear Redeemer, as to the truth of what I may advance, and leaving the result in the hands of that God who searcheth our hearts, and trieth our reins.

"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

Beginning at the 26th verse of this chapter (Acts viii.), we shall find that the Spirit of the Lord sent Philip to preach Jesus to an eunuch, of great authority; and it is clear, from what subsequently took place, that the same Almighty Person opened the heart of the eunuch to receive and understand the word, while Philip preached it unto him. As it is written: "As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"- -And when he was baptized, "the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing." So that, no doubt can be entertained, that he not only "gladly received the word," but that he experienced powerfully the presence of the Lord in his soul, otherwise he could not have so rejoiced. Now observe, for this is the cream, doctrinally,

of the argument; Philip did not immediately comply with the eunuch's request, but first required his confession of faith, saying, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

Each of your readers, Messrs. Editors, who truly knows the plague of his own heart, finds daily, that to say, with all his heart, "I believe," is one of the hardest things conceivable,— so hard, that nothing short of the power of almighty God the Spirit can enable him so to do. Well; hard as it is, Philip lays upon the eunuch the strict injunction that he must confess his faith, and say he really believed with all his heart, before he could baptize him,-implying, that none, save such as did believe, were proper subjects of that ordinance.

How different is this to the conduct of many ministers in the present day, some of whom, in other respects, are sound in the truth! Philip required a belief in the Son of God, and a capability of expressing that belief, before he would baptize: they make it a common-place thing, and say it is the duty of parents to have their children baptized, thereby reversing the order of Scripture, and prostituting a most important and solemn ordinance to a mere Popish and unmeaning ceremony.

Now, I know what some will say to this: Were not Lydia and her household baptized? and can you say there were no infants amongst them? And were not the jailor and all his baptized, as also the household of Stephanus? To which I reply, Yes, truly; and I am thankful that such a testimony of the all-quickening power of God the Holy Ghost is left upon record: for, as regards the former, if we refer to the 40th verse (Acts xvi.), we shall find, that Paul and Silas, being delivered from prison, went into her house, and having seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." So, no doubt can be entertained that, under the apostle's ministry, Lydia's household were all converted to God, otherwise the apostles would not have called them brethren; and not only so, but it is added, "they comforted them." What with ?-sugarplums, and other sweetmeats? O, no; but with the word of God's grace. Besides, no mortal can tell whether Lydia was a maiden woman, a married wife, or a widow, saying nothing about her having come a great distance to sell her purple, Therefore, the cause must be bad indeed which needs the proof of her having children to support it. Well might the poet say, Pray, Mistress Lydia, let us know,

Are you in social life, or no?

If married, what's your husband's name,
And why hath Luke conceal'd the same?

Where does he live ?-We want to spy him:
Pray, have you any issue by him?

If you have children, please to tell,
What is their age, and where they dwell;
And whether they were all rantized,

When your whole household were baptized."

Then, as regards the jailor. It does say, "he and all his were baptized." But mind; it also says, "they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house; and he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." So that, his household were such as were capable of having the word of the Lord 'preached unto them, and to whose souls God made it a blessing, insomuch that they rejoiced in the Lord together. And if a whole household hear the word of God, feel its power, believe in it, and rejoice in God, then let them all be baptized, I say; and who, that does not deny the word of God, will say, Nay. And as it respects the household of Stephanus, they were the first fruits of Achaia, and had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, and the apostle exhorts the saints at Corinth to submit unto them. (I Cor. xvi. 15, 16.) Therefore, there could not be any untaught infants there.

And now, in my turn, let me direct you to Acts x. 47, where Peter sends forth a solemn challenge: "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And then, no man, as it were, daring to forbid it, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." For what were they baptized? because it had been omitted in their infancy? No; but because they had received the Holy Ghost. "Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Does this need any further comment? What do you think of it, Messrs. Editors? Have you any infants that you can call brethren, or that can be comforted with the ministry of the word, or that can believe and rejoice in God, or entreat his ministers to tarry with them, or addict themselves to the ministry of the saints, and to whose ministry the saints are called upon to submit? I trow not.

The limits of your magazine will not allow me to enlarge upon this part; therefore, I will just add two or three more testimonies, and then proceed: John preached the baptism of repentance" (Acts xiii. 24); "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus; and when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts xix. 4);

"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" (Mark xvi. 16); "Repent and be baptized" (Acts ii. 38); "They that gladly received his word were baptized, and they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer" (41, 42); "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter iii. 21); "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and " (Acts viii. 12). Now, how easy it would have been to have said, "And infants also," if such a thing had entered into the mind or ministry of the inspired penman!

women

Permit me now to address myself to those who, from necessity, have been really made to believe the discriminating truths. of God. My dear brethren! Is Religion, or is it not, a personal matter? To wit: Is profitably attending the ministry of the word personal? Is prayer personal, or faith, love to God, zeal, joy, &c.? Is partaking of the Lord's Supper personal? Then why destroy the order of God's house, and make Baptism anything but personal? Why cast aside the ordinance of God, and substitute the tradition of man? Can you, as in the sight of a heart-searching God, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, answer for your children, that they do, or shall, believe in the Lord Jesus, and "put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27), and "walk in newness of life?" (Rom. vi. 4.) If not, ask your conscience, as in the sight of God, what Scriptural authority you have to baptize them, or sprinkle them and call it baptism. It will avail you nothing to say, there is no passage in Scripture which forbids them; because, there are none which forbid the brute creation. Any why? Because it never was put into the hearts of the inspired writers to think of including them; consequently, to do so, in reference to either (i. e., infants or brutes), is to say, that you are more enlightened than they (the inspired writers) were; and may the Lord, in mercy, ever keep me from such childish absurdity! and may it be our concern to search the word of God, and see who were by divine appointment baptized.

Having thus shown that believers, and believers only, as being alone able to give "the answer of a good conscience towards God," or to believe and rejoice in God, are the right subjects of baptism, I proceed to the mode. And first of all observe, that there is no writer upon the subject, of any note,

of whom I have ever heard, whether Baptist, Pædobaptist, or Neitherist, but who agrees that immersion was the only ancient practice. Amongst these I will mention, Chrysostom (who lived about the year 370); Laurentius (500); Tertullian; Calvin (1550); Bishop Nicholson (1680); Baxter (1650); Gill; Archbishop Sharp (1692); L'Enfant (1700); Whitefield (1740); Bishop Newton (1750); John Wesley (1750).— These, and a vast number more (even the Penny Cyclopædia now publishing), all admit that immersion was the ancient mode; but the Pædobaptist part of them say that sprinkling does as well, being more congenial to the various constitutions of human beings, and more suitable for all climates. So much for their reverence of Scripture!

But, passing by what man says, let us examine what God says, for that I hope to make my standard:

"And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch."

Now, in any other book than the Bible, the repetition of the word both, might be considered somewhat totological, and, consequently, ungrammatical; but here it is indispensably necessary, the Holy Ghost being determined (if you will allow me so to express myself) that there should be no mistake, no misunderstanding, only what, by the aid of Satan, and. man's deceitful, inventive heart, should be wilful. For, if sprinkling had been the mode, why need either have gone into the water, seeing that a thimbleful would have done? True, some drowning straw-catchers say, this should be rendered to," instead of “into." But such a translation would keep the righteous out of heaven, and the wicked out of hell. (Matt. xxv. 21, 30, 41.) Yea, and what is, if possible, still more awful, it would keep our glorious Redeemer out of heaven too. (Luke xxiv. 51; Heb. ix. 12.) Then is the believer's hope for ever blasted; for the glorious Head is not entered into heaven, now to appear in the presence of God for him. Awful thought! But what is it men will not say to maintain a bad cause! Indeed, according to such a translation, that glorious host of angels which witnessed the birth of Christ are not gone into heaven, only to. (Luke ii. 15.) But even admitting that it should be so rendered (which I by no means do), what should the next verse be, they came "up out of the water?" or Matt. iii. 16, and Mark i. 10," Straightway coming up out of the water?" or Matt. iii. 6, "And were baptized of him (John) in Jordan, confessing their sins?" or Mark i. 9, "Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan?" or Mark iii. 23, "John was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and