a higher truth from that lower, and then show how this higher truth reapplies to and incorporates that which was employed as the elementary condition of concurrence. For the mind of the hearer or reader feels gratified by being made a confrère in the elaboration of the truth or truths thus presented to his view. He feels as if each step were taken firmly, because his own eye has been employed in directing his own steps. The farther exposition of the reason of this rule, however, will be found in our articles "On Method," in the "Art of Reasoning."

8th. Difficulties ought not to intimidate.

Difficulties may exist in ourselves, i. e., be internal, and then their proper name is weaknesses; or they may dwell in others, i. e., be external, and then they are called obstacles. With regard to the former, we can only say, in the language of the poet,

"Fail!-Fail?

In the lexicon of youth, which Fate reserves

For a bright manhood, there is no such word

As fail!"

If we determine bravely and labour assiduously-if we aspire and strive-there can be few difficulties in ourselves which we may not overmaster.

"Even as drink and food

Become our bone and flesh, the aliments

Nurturing our nobler part, the mind-thoughts, dreams,

Passions, and aims-in the revolving cycle

Of the great alchemy at length are made
Our mind itself."

The other-mind difficulties are not so readily overcome; they relate either to the intellect or passions of others. If we have truth, and study aright the best method of expounding it, we must ultimately gain the victory.

"Think not our passions from corruption sprung,

Though to corruption now they lend their wings.

All Reason justly seems divine. I see,

I feel a grandeur in the passions too,

Which speaks their high descent and glorious end,
Which speaks them rays of an eternal fire."

The foregoing are the predominating principles which ought to be borne in mind in affairs of Method. A more minute treatment of the means by which conviction and persuasion may be produced we reserve for a succeeding paper. The following tabular synopsis of the principles of proof will form the ground-plan of our next paper, and may be taken as an outline of the method and manner in which that topic will then be treated:

SYNOPSIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PROOF.

1 Emanative. 29 Efficient. 3° Final. 4° Instructive. 5° Suasive.

Religion.

IS THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS A PRACTICE IN HARMONY WITH THE

SCRIPTURES?

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

are. It was the open avowal of the Rev. Baptist Noel, after he left the Church of England, that while in that communion he never examined the subject of baptism for fear he should be led to unpleasant conclusions. There is but too much reason to fear that this is the case with very many of those who practise and conform to infant sprinkling (for we do not hold it to be baptism, though for the sake of convenience we call it so). They do not examine the matter in the light of God's word, for fear their convictions should come in the way of some church appointment, or clash with some comfortable position in society.

In the present instance, however, an appeal is made to the Bible, and we rejoice that it is; though, in reading the preceding articles

THIS interesting and important debate has now arrived at a point at which the reader will naturally inquire, Which side of the question am I to take as the right one? Which can produce the strongest scriptural evidence in its support? All we can do is, in an humble way, to aid his inquiry, hoping that the discussion will not lead to fruitless controversy, but to a satisfactory solution of the question; and this we deem the more important as the subject is a religious one. Regarding a point of history or politics, it is comparatively unimportant what view of the case we may take; but where the Bible is concerned, where divine truth is at stake, we must take our stand upon one side or the other, and therefore it behoves us, with the greatest carefulness, to see that the views we entertain are consistent with the high stand-in favour of infant baptism, we were deard to which we refer. It is useless for people siring to see what scriptural evidence could to say that this is a mere matter of ceremony, be produced, we must say that we have found and so of no importance; for we find that in none. We may be convicted of oversight; the present day this single question of bap- but we cannot help thinking that such evitism has been the means of introducing one dence produced in a court of law, supposing of the most insidious and soul-destroying the case about to be tried, would be conheresies that has ever been invented: we sidered ingenious, but as not to the point. allude to the fallacious doctrine of baptismal It might be said, "Sir, your abstract reasonregeneration. We ought then, as lovers of ing may be very acute; but we want evidence truth and enemies of error, to give the sub- to the fact. Here is an institution, called ject our best attention, taking as our touch-infant baptism, which you declare is one stone of argument nothing but the word of God. In giving, then, our opinion upon this subject, our only wish is to vindicate, as far as we are able, the character of the Bible, and to show that those who hold infant baptism hold it in defiance not only of the whole spirit of the New Testament, but in direct opposition to the example and command of our Lord. We feel the necessity of speaking plainly upon this point, seeing that in the present day there is too much of an opposite character. Error is smoothed down and connived at rather than exposed, because people are afraid of the truth. To listen to the truth would bring upon them too much sacrifice, so they are glad of any pretext to quiet their consciences and remain as they

authorized by the Bible, founded by our Saviour, and practised by his apostles; of course you can give me chapter and verse where it is thus authorized,-the injunction of our Saviour, and instances where his disciples obeyed that injunction, and actually did sprinkle or baptize infants. Of course, sir, you cannot say that I ask too much, for I only require what you profess yourself able to give me, namely, a full and clear authorization from your Bible for the institution which you practise as being thus authorized." Now, I very much doubt whether any defender of infant baptism could give a satisfactory reply to this. The preceding writers defending it certainly could not, as their conclusions, with a few exceptions, are based

They suppose | standing religion, and of commemorating the death of Christ, so baptism was only meant for those who believe, or profess to believe, the truths of that same religion.

upon entire supposition. everything; they prove nothing. They think infants were baptized, because they might have been. That is the sum of their argument; but it is not sufficient for an B. S. has the confidence to say that honest opinion. We do not want probability, believers' baptism is an impossibility; and— we want certainty, upon the question. Now, what still more startled us-he affirms that the utmost that can be shown is, that there "it did not exist even in the days of the is a possibility of infants having been bap- apostles." Then, does B. S. mean to set tized. Although we doubt it, we will just himself up as superior to scripture, or does grant it for the sake of argument. Now, we he purposely overlook everything which are certain that adults were baptized, because might attack his prejudices in favour of it is said, &c. We will not speak, for the infants? He does not think there ever present, upon any qualifications; but we just existed such a thing as believers' baptism. say that they were individuals capable of What sort of thing does he imagine baptism knowing and judging of their own actions. was, then? A dumb show? A meaningless Well, the question, for the present, is of cer- ceremony? We will let the Bible inform tainty against mere probability. Which him. He dares, in the face of the following would a reasonable man take? If he wished evidence, to say there was no such thing in to go right, he would, undoubtedly, take the time of the apostles as believers' baptism. what was certain in preference to what was We do not, however, consider him in the least merely probable. And yet the defenders of degree more culpable than the rest of those infant baptism choose to take the probable, who defend infant baptism, for no one can rather than the certain, course. They know, conscientiously adopt that practice without they confess, that adults were baptized in disbelieving in believers' baptism. The folthe primitive church; in fact, it is impos-lowing is to show that there was such a thing sible to read the preceding articles without as believers' baptism:being convinced of it; and yet they now refuse to admit them to the rite. When they do not refuse, it is the exception, not the rule, and only when it has not been performed in their infancy.

The case stands thus:-The primitive church baptized adults; the English Church, with some of the dissenters, baptize infants. Any reasonable person must at once see that these two are contrary. What is there to justify the alteration? Ought not baptism now to be what it was then? Was it not intended for rational and responsible individuals as much as the Lord's supper? We never think of administering the communion to infants. Why should we baptism? Surely they have as much right to the one ordinance as the other. If we are to suppose infants were baptized, we might as well suppose they took the Lord's supper. If there being no mention of their having been baptized is no argument against them, we might as well admit them to the other ordinance, there being no mention that they were excluded. The defenders of infant baptism may laugh at the idea, but it would be quite as rational. As much as the Lord's supper was only intended for those who are capable of under

"Then said Paul, 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," Acts xix. 4. "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 women" (no infants, observe), Acts viii. 12. "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized," Acts xviii. 8.

What can the defenders of infant baptism say to this? Here it is said-not in one isolated case, but in several, and I could mention more-that men and women, and those believers, were baptized. It is clear, then, from scriptural evidence, that it is a deliberate falsehood to affirm that believers were not baptized. It is nothing to the point, that some individuals who happened to be baptized did not turn out well. Because there happened to be a Simon Magus amongst them, is no argument that there was no such thing as believers' baptism; for we have a Judas amongst the twelve disciples. Were there, then, no such persons as the twelve

|